Many conservative Presbyterians and Reformed believe – along with the idea that no neutrality exists – that secular America is intolerant of red-blooded Christianity. The current alarm over gay marriage and abortion on demand is evidence of the Reformed-sky-is-falling-world-and-life-view.
Could it be that consolation might come to these upset souls from the secularized (as opposed to hallowed) pages of the New York Times? It could if conservative Protestants would take a gander at the columns written by Ross Douthat. When the Times hired him away from the Atlantic Monthly, some conservatives worried that Douthat, a smart, Roman Catholic, and remarkably wise-for-his-age-writer, might succumb to temptation to fit with the liberal intelligentsia (as if Atlantic is Chronicles) in by soft pedaling his conservatism. But this has hardly been the case. Within the past month Douthat has posted at his Times blog (in addition to columns) a number of serious and thoughtful posts against gay marriage that conservative Protestants should well consider, both for encouragement in culture-war well doing and for learning how to make an argument with people who don’t share your faith (or any).
On August 9th, Douthat wrote in response to a post by Noah Millman who explained why he was supporting gay marriage:
What I would strongly dispute, though, is his suggestion that it’s possible to escape entirely from ideological conceptions of marriage, into a world where it’s all just people loving people, and the way we treat one another is the only thing that matters. This seems like an extremely naive view of how ideas intersect with human action, and how cultures shape behavior. Of course all ideals and ideologies are imperfect descriptions of reality, and semi-quixotic attempts to graft order onto the inherent messiness of human affairs. But you can’t escape them just by declaring that they’re “artificial,†because such artifice is itself natural to man, and inherent to culture-making and social order. Every society has its ideals and ideologies, about marriage as much as about any other institution. And the fact that wedlock was once somewhat more about property and somewhat less about love than it is today doesn’t mean that our ancestors didn’t have their own theories of marriage, and their own arguments about what the institution meant and ought to mean.
Read the Greeks and Romans; read the New Testament; read Shakespeare and The Book of Common Prayer. There was never a time when human beings weren’t building ideologies of marriage, and there was never a culture where those ideologies didn’t have an impact on how people wed and parented and loved.
This means that if the ideology that justifies defining marriage as lifelong heterosexual monogamy gets swept into history’s dustbin, we won’t suddenly be flung into a landscape where the only real things are people and the people they love. We’ll just get a different ideology of marriage in its place, one that makes a different set of assumptions and generalizations and invests the institution with a different kind of purpose. And we don’t need a judge’s ruling (though Judge Vaughn Walker’s analysis was certainly clarifying!) to know what that ideology will look like: It’s the increasingly commonplace theory that marriage exists to celebrate romantic love and provide public recognition for mutually-supportive couples, with no inherent connection of any kind to gender difference and/or procreation, and with only a rhetorical connection to the ideal of permanence.
Because Douthat is thoughtful and because he writes for the Times, lots of people pay attention to what he writes and so various bloggers and op-ed writers responded to his August 9 post. One of those came from Glenn Greenwald, who argued that whether or not the state supports heterosexual marriage, the ideal of one-man-and-one-woman marrying could still prevail without legal sanction. One example to which Grennwald appealed was racism. Nearly everyone believes racism is wrong even if the state protects the rights of racists to speak freely and associate voluntarily.
Douthat responds this way:
. . . take alcohol and cigarettes. Why are Marlboros more stigmatized than Budweisers in contemporary America? Well, in part, it’s because there’s been a government-sponsored war on tobacco for the last few decades, carried out through lawsuits and public health campaigns and smoking bans and so forth, that’s far eclipsed the more halting efforts to stigmatize alcohol consumption. Here again, public policy, rather than some deep empirical or philosophical truth about the relative harm of nicotine versus alcohol, has been a crucial factor in shaping cultural norms.
And the same is true, inevitably, of marriage law. Culture shapes law, of course: Judge Walker’s decision last week would be unimaginable without the cultural shift that’s made gay marriage seem first plausible and then necessary to many people. But law tends to turn around and shape culture right back. And this is particularly true when the law in question is constitutional law, because constitutional rights carry a distinctive legal weight and an even more distinctive cultural freight. (To take just one example, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the cultural space for making a moral critique of pornography has shrunk apace in the decades since the Supreme Court expanded First Amendment protections for pornographers, and limited the reach of obscenity laws.)
So if Anthony Kennedy follows Walker and finds that the traditional legal understanding of marriage is unconstitutional — and, by extension, that it’s irrational and bigoted to think otherwise — it’s just naive to say that this won’t have a ripple effect in the culture as a whole.
The point here is not to discuss the merits of Douthat’s arguments – though they are considerable. It is instead to take notice and see that people of faith do speak up in public secular life and do not lose their jobs for doing so, even at the New York friggin’ Times! I wonder if more of the anti-2k crowd were to take a page from Douthat the public debates over hotly contested issues would be not only more “fair and balanced†but also more people would “decide†to regard favorably (rather than as kooks) those who defend the way that Westerners have practiced the family lo these many years.
Old Life 
“I wonder if more of the anti-2k crowd were to take a page from Douthat ”
But Darryl, that would require too much work and thought. Why not take Douthat’s arguments and create catchy slogans that can be placed on billboards, bumper stickers, and tee shirts?
Great post.
LikeLike
This is the kind of argument that could appeal to a small handful of undecided moderates who are prone to intellectual pursuits, but how many of them are there? Judging from the comments that followed Douthat’s columns, I doubt it peruaded anyone that was not already persuaded. Specifically, his finely calibrated arguments seemded not to make the slightest dent in the thinking of the gay marriage advocates, nor did it persaude them that one can be a traditional-marriage advocate and still be high minded, thoughtful, properly nuanced, and intelligent, as the tony NYT crowd fashion themselves. The commenters tossed the same invective toward Douthat that they would a Baptist minister. In short, as a strategy for winning the traditional marriage argument, I wouldn’t put all my eggs in the thoughtful, intellectual, nuanced argument basket. It’s not likely to win hearts on minds on the cultural left because pound for pound most are no more thoughtful intellectuals than the Christian bumper sticker crowd. The cultural left is all about “rights” talk. Douthat was not speaking their language, so he wasn’t heard.
One commentator writing recently offered a thoughtful analysis of the interplay between public opinion and law. When society wanted to make tobacco a stigma, the anti-smoking advocates enlisted legislators to pass laws making smoking more difficult, costly, and socially unacceptable. Public opinion shaped the laws, but laws in turn shaped public opinion. The result is a culture that by and large opposes smoking. For good or ill. The commentator observed that traditional marriage advocates need to shape public opinion (that happens more through bumper stickers than intellectual arguments) and public opinion needs to shape law, namely preserving traditional marriage. That The interactive process of opinion formation and law is the engine that changes hearts and minds. Gay marriage advocates get that. That’s a primary reason why they desire legalized same-sex marriage. The force of law will change society. Interesting that many of Douthat’s pro-gay-marriage commenters thought him naive to think that same-sex marriage would not profoundly and deeply change American culture. They get it.
LikeLike
Interesting as they may be, what arguments like CVD’s seem to overlook, ironically, is that if it’s true that the family is the cornerstone of society then it would seem to follow that it isn’t laws or bumper stickers (or some hybrid of the two) that shape society. It’s actually the family itself, the institution ordained to nurture virtue. If a family has nurtured virtue it’s hard to see how a bumper sticker or law (or interplay between the two) can dismantle it. This seems to be what culture warriors on whatever side never seem to get, at least from what they say: “The force of law will change society.” Certainly law and popular opinion have a level of influence, but is “influence” really the same as “make” or “shape”? I can’t help but think that those who conceive of themselves on the side of the family on certain questions betray an ironically low view of it.
Nevertheless, if the point here is that a more thoughtful enagagement on the parts of those who oppose ill conceived definitions of family–one that necessarily distances itself from certain lobbying efforts and two-dimensional debates–can go a fair ways in at least preserving a place at the table for paleo conservatives, then I’d have to say my own experience backs up this theory: the homosexuals in my own family seem to be willing to respect moral convictions they oppose if they aren’t also tied up in efforts to gain political power. More than that, that may not make for an ultimately winning formula in the culture wars fixed on “hearts and minds.” But it might go further to make inroads for a Christian witness to gain disciples.
LikeLike
DVD, if Douthat’s modest arguments won’t change opinions, and opinions drive laws, how will the bliblical arguments change any opinions?
LikeLike
DGH: I haven’t found that biblical arguments change opinions of unbelievers. Let Douthat make his arguments. I’ve made similar arguments. My point is we should not be naive to think that high octane intellectual arguments will move the masses when the congeries of law support gay marriage and its accutrements. Once the law norms gay marriage, changing values is like pushing a boulder up a hill.
Zrim: Let us make our natural law arguments, but recognize that they will not persuade when the law supports gay marriage. Popular opinion is a complex thing that rests on a foundation of personal values, cultural norms, and law. Teach values in the family, and teach values in the culture, and express them by the law. All law expresses values. The law makes a statement of what society norms. The pedagogical value of law is huge, which is precisely why gay marriage advocates want the law changed. Prevent gay marriage, and you go a long distance to teaching that traditional marriage is valued. Yes, it is inescably about power, who gets to set cultural norms.
LikeLike
CVD, my point wasn’t that Douthat would move the masses. My point was the the secular world is not as adverse as the transformers fear. The sky has yet to fall.
LikeLike
DGH, I don’t know about the sky falling, but if the gay marriage advocates are right about gay marriage achieving their cherished goals, the moral fabric of the culture will fall a long distance. And the civil rights establishment will, by force of law, show us all how adverse the secular world will become. You don’t believe that because you live in a cloistered world far from the courtroom, the law reviews, and the law schools.
LikeLike
CVC, puhleeze. You only need to go to U.S. beeches to see the decline of the culture. Have you not seen “The Invasion of the Barbarians”?
LikeLike
I hope we can agree that it makes a difference whether one falls down a flight of steps or off a cliff.
If gay marraige stands, for example, it will make a difference immediately to millions of school children in California. I have on my desk a curriculum specimen proposed by a state Department of Education and a major school district I counsel. That specimen calls for sweeping changes in what children are taught, K-12, if the San Francisco court’s ruling overturning Prop 8 stands. Among the changes: Henceforth teachers, textbooks, and school pubs may no longer use the words “mother or father” (to be replaced by “parent”); no longer use the words “wife” or “husband” (to be replaced by “partner” or “significant other”); no longer use language or concepts that suggest that that heterosexual marriage is normative; promote gay lifestyles as healthy and acceptable; teach tolerance lessons that require children to demonstrate that they have learned that gay lifestyles and marriage are healthy and normal; that children who state or write that only heterosexal marriage is acceptable will fail the course and be subject to academic discipline; and be taught that persons who object to gay marriage or gay persons are homophobic, intolerant, bigoted, and/or have a mental disorder to be analogized to racism.
Thus, Christian convictions about marriage and sex will result in failing grades in the tolerance classes and subject children to re-education mandates on pain of expulsion if parents resist. This from the Department of Education, and schools that want state money will toe the line. The large district I counsel is planning to introduce these mandates as soon as the state directs.
This leaves aside for the moment the anti-discrimination mandates that will be applied to all private businesses and organizations as a matter of state and federal law. Religious organizations can expect to be subject to these mandates.
This is not a fall down some steps; it is a fall off a cliff. I don’t greet these prospects with the same shrug and non-chalance you do. I don’t think many parents or persons who cherish religious liberty will be mollified by your assurance that the culture is already in decline.
LikeLike
CVD, perhaps you’ve heard of the early church and the persecution of Christians. Did the gates of hades or Rome prevail against the church?
Since you don’t know me personally, why do you assume that in my own responsibilities I greet such news with a shrug? Part of what I try to do here is warn Reformed Christians about imitating Chicken Little. If God is sovereign, why not act like it?
LikeLike
CVD,
You say, “Prevent gay marriage, and you go a long distance to teaching that traditional marriage is valued. Yes, it is inescably about power, who gets to set cultural norms.â€
Again, the difference in our views is that you seem to think virtue is preserved by law where my point is that it is nurtured by the home. If a law is passed that reflects something the home opposes then it doesn’t so much “teach that something is valued†as much as it demonstrates who has won a political battle (because law is political and politics, at least in America, is about power). Maybe you think it’s naïve, but I’d rather say a husband and wife keeping their vows is what goes a long way to preserving the right, true and good.
And I have to believe that your arguments are no different from those all the way down through history: politically resist this thing (or boost that thing) or else western civilization as we know it will go to pot. The problem is that this is also the tactic of the other side. The other problem is that, despite the insinuations, the sun still comes up every day even when one side or the other loses the day. And despite what you say, the point over here isn’t to be unduly cavalier but to suggest putting a does of sanity to things, and that goes for both sides of whatever front of kulturkampf.
LikeLike
DGH: “If God is sovereign, why not act like it?” If God is sovereign, why do you get up in the morning and go to work to earn a paycheck? Can’t you trust God to throw the check over the transom?
Zrim: The family will not prevent a federal judge’s ruling from overturning a social instituion that has lasted thousands of years. Nor will public opinion. Public opinion in California supported traditional marriage. A lone federal judge struck it down. Legal briefs filed by Christians might get it overturned. But your counsel to the Christians who are filing the appeallate briefs is that they should step away from their keyboards and allow the ruling to stand. This is wiser, in your view? We disagree.
LikeLike
CVD, have you not heard of callings? You have said a few times that if only we knew what you know as an attorney, we’d be acting more like nervous nellies. And what about my own specialty. If you knew what I do about college students, you’d forget legislation and work with young adults.
But because you think you’ve got a corner on divine providence, and know what is the leading edge of cultural change, then everyone else who doesn’t see it your way is naive. Have you been reading the Baylys?
LikeLike
But, CVD, when Michigan passed no-fault divorce laws (which I assume you’d also think was a way of “overturning a social institution that has lasted thousands of years”) plenty of Michiganders stayed together. Don’t you think that that fact outweighed whatever marriage law was on the books? I’m not saying laws don’t matter, but isn’t it a worse world where laws uphold the right, true and good but the right, true and good aren’t actually practiced?
My counsel isn’t withdrawal. Rather, it’s to reflect a little more on things as we participate. You make a lot out of nuance, etc., but I fail to see how pushing reflection means withdrawal; that seems like a fairly un-nuanced interpretation. I know per your above remarks that you aren’t entirely impressed with thoughfulness for its own sake since it doesn’t easily translate into victory. But maybe that’s the difference between being principally driven versus pragmatically driven? Maybe contemplation will draw folks away from their picket lines and keyboards re other peoples’ families, but maybe that translates into more time nurturing their own families.
LikeLike
DGH: Part of the wisdom of callings is having humility to know the limits of one’s calling and to listen to those who have experience in another before firing off opinions. Someone who works in public policy and the law knows something about it that can inform an analyis of the implications of a given public policy. I don’t presume to instruct on teaching young adults, but I’m sure you’re good at it. But on Reformed blogs devoted to 2K I hear a lot of confident nonsense about how nothing untoward will result from gay marriage, and those who think otherwise (or warn about eclipse of civil liberties) are Chicken Little.
Zrim: I’m as contemplative as you, but at the end of the day, one has to do something or take a position on a specific issue. The contemplation of principles is hopefully with a view to increasing wisdom for how those principles bear on actions — otherwise isn’t it just a game? There is a federal court ruling in California. There are only two choices: let it stand, or appeal. Only Christians are willing to appeal. What is your counsel to the Christians on this specific issue?
LikeLike
CVD, I never said nothing untoward would come from legalizing gay marriage. What I said was that gay marriage would not prevail against the church. Do you think otherwise? In which case, have you read church history lately?
LikeLike
CVD, my counsel to fellow believers, such as it is, is the same as it is on any political action: liberty. If some want to let it stand, so be it. If others want to appeal, so be it. See, that’s my contemplation of 2K-SOTC very hard at work.
LikeLike
DGH: I agree with Jesus that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church (which most Reformed interpet as the church advancing against the gates of hell, not defensively resisting the advance of hell). But sometimes the visible church is attacked, and its members must be wise as serpents and harmless as doves in avoiding hindrances. I also believe that Christians should not commit the fallacy of trying to pit human responsibility against divine sovereignty. Do you believe that God ordains not only ends, but means to those ends?
Zrim: But your counsel consistently has been that liberty exercised to resist persecution is unbiblical, and liberty exercised to litigate is unwise, reflects a lack of understanding of “pilgrim theology,” is counter-productive, and “confuses the two kingdoms.” That sounds like an abuse of liberty that you condemn. Some liberty.
LikeLike
CVD, yes, my view has been that the right, true and good is preserved and nurtured through the family. It is not preserved and nurtured through legislation, and to think so is misguided and necessarily unwise. But some think differently. The difference is that I don’t suggest that this disagreement is the same as opposing heaven, because this question is one of creation.
The resistance of persecution is a question of redemption. And my point has been that the NT overwhelmingly and clearly teaches the ethic of turning the other cheek. This is the part where you hang your championship of resistence on Paul’s appeal to his Roman citizenship. In a word, this hermeneutic is simply weak in light of all the NT teaching to not resist. As I’ve consistently tried to say to you, there is a place for Paul’s appeal, but I fail to see how it justifies your notions of resistance. What I have yet to see from you is any understanding of what it means to take the ethic of turning the other cheek seriously. What I have seen are arguments which amount to saying that resistance is fine once all avenues to circumvent persecution have been exhausted and lost, sprinkled with nice notions of doing so peacefully as opposed to violently. But that’s really just giving up in the face of defeat. Turning the other cheek is to willingly lay down rights when power and opportunity are readily at hand. You know, like not calling on legions of angels to undo the scandal of the crucifixion.
Taken together, all things unbiblical are unwise, but not all things unwise are unbiblical. I can tolerate emphasizing legislation over family. But, admittedly, I do up the ante when some earnestly plead to do that which I believe we are clearly taught not to do.
LikeLike
Zrim, you’re not speaking to the point. I don’t understand what “the family nurturing the right, true, and good” has to do with whether or not to appeal a judge’s ruling overturning Prop 8. I know you like to remain in the clouds at 50,000 feet rather than apply your notions to anything remotely concrete or specific. But I take from your comment that it’s “unwise” to file an appeal, and wiser to let the gay marriage decision stand. Please explain why it’s unwise for the Christian public interest law firm to appeal the court’s decision.
Second, it seems likewise off topic to advert to “persecution” or “turning the other cheek” in the context of the question of whether or not to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. Judge Walker isn’t persecuting anyone, and there is no cheek that has been struck. You’ve lost me.
LikeLike
CVD, your last comment before mine is collapsing two different issues, so I was trying to distinguish them: what should Christians do about the civil question of gay marriage, and what should they do when it comes to their own persecution. I agree that Walker’s ruling has nothing to do with persecution, so why did you start suggesting it on my part?
What is unwise is to think the right, true and good are nurtured and preserved by legislation instead of by the home. I’ve been trying to address what I think is a premise behind this debate, not which conclusion is correct. What you have said is “There are only two choices: let it stand, or appeal,” and “..it is inescably about power, who gets to set cultural norms.” When I say that this debate is about more than the immediate question of the definition of marriage I get the old pie-in-the-sky comment. What I mean is precisely what you admit about power and who gets to set cultural norms. So, why can’t I suggest that it’s about more than the two choices without you playing dumb about what I mean?
LikeLike
Zrim:
How about dealing with at least one issue that is concrete down at street level. I’m trying to politely nudge you to think more concretely and less abstractly. The abstract has to be tested by the concrete. You tend to deal only in vague generalities and abstract theories, which is ok as far as it goes, but it can be productive of much muddled thinking (I say this with all due respect). Your reasoning isn’t clear to me as to why the family’s role in “nurturing virtue” has anything to do with the wisdom or advisability of appealing Judge Walker’s ruling — and I suspect it’s not clear to you. So please explain why it is unwise/unbiblical/not 2K in your estimation for the Christian public interest law firm to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling striking down California’s Prop 8? Why is it wiser/more bilbical/more 2K to allow the decision to stand?
As for the ethic of turning the other cheek, as we’ve discussed, I submit that your exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount is fundamentally flawed. I wont’ rehearse all the reasons here again, but one problem with your analysis is that our Lord was speaking about inter-personal relations, as the context makes clear, not citizen-government relations. That is foreign to the context. You are misapplying that text to a context that is wholly inapposite. The Sermon On the Mount has historically been interpreted by the Reformed as having redemptive-historical significance demonstrating the imminenace of the Kingdom because the King is here, and not a prescription for strict, literal pacificism or “non-resistance.” Your interpetation stands outside the Reformed tradition, indeed most of Protestant tradition. The Reformed commentators have historically noted that Jesus, far from urging pacifism or strict non-resistance, urged resistance when appropriate.
Indeed, nothing in the NT or OT addresses the situation of Christians serving as citizen-rulers, as they do in a democratic republic, participating in self-government under a system of ordered liberty. One can deduce from Scripture that we are called to be good citizens, and part of the ethic of good citizenship in our nation is holding government accountable to the law.
Let me suggest for consideration a few ideas, that I believe represent historic Protestant and Reformed interpretation of “non-resistance.” Jesus did preach, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:38-39), but a slap on the cheek is not life threatening; it is insulting. Christians must learn to “accept wrong” (1 Corinthians 6:7), and refrain from vengeance (Romans 12:17-21). Teaching the need to tolerate mistreatment and be peacemakers is not at all comparable to demanding non-resistance in the face of mortal danger or legitimate threats to the well being of society, or the overreach of governmental magistrates who violate the law of the land.
Was the Lord teaching strict non-reistance? The Lord also said, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Accepted literally and without qualification, this statement would be false. Scripture allows the sword to the state, and too many police officers and soldiers have died peacefully in their sleep for this to be an unconditional statement. The context must be considered. On the occasion that Jesus uttered these words, he was about to be arrested by a hostile mob (Matthew 26:47) and Peter sought to protect his Master by striking Malchus with the sword (Matthew 26:51).In response, Christ uttered the remark in Matthew 26:52, then commented that if He needed protection from the threats of mortal men He could overwhelm His adversaries with more than twelve legions of angels (Matthew 26:53). However, no such protection was called for because His death was necessary (Matthew 26:54) Thus, He was not issuing an absolute prohibition against self-defense, but pointing out that a spiritual kingdom cannot be advanced through carnal warfare (John 18:36; cf. 2 Corinthians 10:4-6).
Far from upholding pacifism or strict non-resistance, the Scriptures teach that there is “a time to kill” (Ecclesiastes 3:3). God has authorized the government to bear the sword punitively (Romans 13:1-4), and permits His own people to function in a military capacity (Luke 13:3, 10-14; Acts 10:1-8, 34-48; 11:18). Moreover, He charges men with the duty of providing for their households (1 Timothy 5:8), which surely includes the use of force to protect property and loved ones. According to Jesus, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace” (Luke 11:21). Consider the example of the patriarch Abraham who commanded his own private army. “When Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people” (Genesis 14:14-16). Abraham later received God’s blessings (Genesis 14:18-20; 15:1).
Jesus even ordered His apostles to arm themselves. He had sent His disciples, first the twelve (Luke 9:1-6), then seventy (Luke 10:1-17), on two preaching campaigns. Each time, He had told them to take no provisions along, but to rely on the generosity of those they would preach to, since their efforts would be directed toward their own countrymen (Matthew 10:5-6). Prior to His death, after which He would send them on a worldwide campaign (Matthew 28:18-20), Jesus prepared His apostles for something different. He asked, “‘When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?’ So they said, ‘Nothing.’ Then He said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one'” (Luke 22:35-36). Jesus knew that thieves preyed upon travelers (Luke 10:30), and that it was the custom of the day for travelers to be armed to defend themselves by force. Accordingly, He urged His disciples to prepare accordingly by arming themselves. So important was this point that He taught them it was better to be armed than clothed.
Since two swords among the twelve was deemed enough (Luke 22:38), it’s evident that Jesus did not want them armed for aggressive, but rather defensive, purposes. Nonetheless, they were armed. The Greek word translated “sword” in this text is always translated “sword” and is unquestionably a weapon used for killing (Acts 12:2; 16:27; Hebrews 11:34, 37).
Notice that, when prompted, the disciples were able to immediately say, “Lord, look, here are two swords” (Luke 22:38). They didn’t even need to sell their cloaks in order to acquire these weapons; they already had them, meaning that Jesus kept regular company with armed civilians.
This probably won’t change your mind, but I humbly offer this for your consideration and suggest that your ethic of strict “non-resistance” is not supported by Scripture or by the Reformed tradition, going back to Calvin’s exegesis.
LikeLike
Zrim: A further word … it may be helpful for me to connect all the dots here. The point is that your ethic of strict non-resistance, which seems to be a lodestar in your thinking of 2K, is untenable as a strict ethic of pacifism or unconditional non-resistance. If strict non-resistance lacks biblical/confessional support, then it cannot serve as the central ethic of your 2K ideology and, certainly, cannot support a theory that Christian citizens should refrain from litigating with the government when the magistrate violates the law, or refrain from defending one’s constitutional rights and thereby benefiting all citizens in the land, or refrain from defending traditional marriage in court. In simplified terms, if resistance is proper for self-defense and defense of others, it must be proper for defense of one’s legal rights against the government or for defense of others writ large (the nation or culture).
My 2 cents. Or perhaps 2 dollars considering the length of the posts.
LikeLike
CVD,
So please explain why it is unwise/unbiblical/not 2K in your estimation for the Christian public interest law firm to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling striking down California’s Prop 8? Why is it wiser/more bilbical/more 2K to allow the decision to stand?
I’m not sure what is so unclear to you, but I’ll try again. Any Christian (as an individual or as a group of individuals) has complete liberty to “appeal” or “let stand” whatever piece of legislation. I am not passing judgment on the immediate conclusion anyone makes here. What I am suggesting is unwise is the idea that legislation is the cornerstone of society instead of the home. I am not calling that view “2k,” I am calling it mine, and I think plenty of unbelievers would agree. I disagree with believers who look to courthouses instead of homes to nurture and preserve the right, true and good. (BTW, if I were calling that “2k” it would be a good example of 2k narcissism: I am 2k; I hold to sola familia; therefore sola familia is 2k.)
As to the rest, let me just address this for now because I think it is key:
Teaching the need to tolerate mistreatment and be peacemakers is not at all comparable to demanding non-resistance in the face of mortal danger or legitimate threats to the well being of society, or the overreach of governmental magistrates who violate the law of the land.
I do not understand how this comports with the model Jesus gave. I do not compute how we are to tell Jesus, who faced mortal danger, that he should resist. This sounds an awful lot like when Peter told him to not go up to Jersusalem where he was to face mortal danger(you’ll recall Jesus’ response was not flattering of Peter, whom he momentarily renamed). Indeed, since all he faced was mortal danger and had every right not to even condescend to flesh, where would we be if he were to take your view? We’d still be lost in our sin. It seems to me that what you’re saying is that turning the other cheek is fine until it actually costs us something. How in thee heck do you harmonize that with the entire life and death of Jesus?
LikeLike
Zrim: “What I am suggesting is unwise is the idea that legislation is the cornerstone of society instead of the home…. I disagree with believers who look to courthouses instead of homes to nurture and preserve the right, true and good.” We are in agreement on this. I would add church and family are the “primary” cornerstones of virtue. But not exclusviely. Boy Scouts, the military, schools, and the law teach principles of virtue. The civil use of God’s Law is to restrain evil, and it does that in the first instance by fear of punishment, but in time inculcates virtue. The Reformed have usually accepted that as one of the uses of God’s law, which has been transported into the law of the Anglo-American legal systen through the English common law system and the Chancery (courts of equity). (The Penal Code and much of the civil law of Michigan came originally from Scripture via Blackstone, among others.
I think I see where we disagree exegetically. The unstated premise in your non-resistance argument is that believers are bound to imitate Jesus in all respects. I would disagree, and I think most Reformed theologians would disagree. Jesus was not primarily a moral example, but a Redeemer. He came not to give us examples to mimic, but to fulfill all righteousness and to die on the cross as our mediator to accomplish substitutionay mediation. Much of what Jesus did during his ministry can be imitated by believers, but not dying for sin. He doesn’t call his sheep to die for sin, but to live for him. His command to take up our cross daily is not a call to die physically, but to die to our self-will by trusting in his sacrifice as the all-sufficient sacrifice. To take Jesus’ passion as a call to a life of pacifism, or a refusal to defend ourselves or others from mortal danger, is an exegetical fallacy.
You cannot reasonably carry out the project you propose without violating your own principle of non-resistance and producing a contradiction. On one hand, you say imitate Jesus, and be passively non-resistant. Yet on the other hand, Jesus resisted the Pharisees by strong verbal denunciations, and he resistsed the money-changers in the temple by violently overthrowing their operation. He had that right by virtue of his divinity. We dont’ have that same right. You have to be very careful and discerning about declaring we should imitate Jesus’ actions. As mentioned above, Jesus also counseled the disciples to take swords with them, and did not demur when they said they had two swords. He lived with armed men without once suggesting there was anything untoward about their bearing swords for self-defense. Only by ignoring Scripture can you make Jesus into a pacifist.
I certainly agree that the Lord, and Scripture, counsel Christians to be peacemakers, to avoid giving offense, to show mercy and love to all. Our speech is to be edifying and not destructive. We’re not to seek revenge. You can make a strong case for Christian ethics centering on humility and self-sacrifice in inter-personal relations. But when you enter the realm of individual – state relations, you’re in a different context, and you have to demonstrate exegetically why those passages dealing with inter-personal relations apply to the state. And you have not shown that.
LikeLike
CVD, what about all the injunctions in the epistles for believers to submit (and they were to submit to a regime worse than ours — again, your similarities to the Baylys comes to mind)? Pacifism of no, submission is what the apostles taught, even to wicked governments.
LikeLike
We are in agreement on this. I would add church and family are the “primary†cornerstones of virtue. But not exclusviely. Boy Scouts, the military, schools, and the law teach principles of virtue.
My concern is when some say they believe in sola familia but act and speak in ways that seem to me to undermine it. Again, this is not at all to suggest that laws don’t matter, but some make it sound as if, for example, homosexuality is given the lawful sanction of marriage then our boys long since nurtured in virtue will run out and get boyfriends. Or, if the state allows for no-fault divorce then all that homes have done to instill the virtue of vows will be undone. Or, if it allows for abortion our girls will get one.
I certainly appreciate your point about not making Jesus into a mere moral example, to say the very least. But I think you’re quite off the mark here and taking it too far. Obviously, we cannot die for sin, etc. Do you honestly think that is what I am saying? And do you honestly think I am saying we cannot take care of our own physical needs, including safety?
I certainly agree that the Lord, and Scripture, counsel Christians to be peacemakers, to avoid giving offense, to show mercy and love to all. Our speech is to be edifying and not destructive. We’re not to seek revenge. You can make a strong case for Christian ethics centering on humility and self-sacrifice in inter-personal relations. But when you enter the realm of individual – state relations, you’re in a different context…
Ah, so, humility and self-sacrifice count in interpersonal relations but all of a sudden don’t count when it comes to the individual’s relation to the state? So, model Jesus with your friends but not with your magistrate? Again, this just sounds like Christian ethics are fine in some places but not others. But I thought Jesus was Lord over every square inch. Pardon the boldness, but your understanding of Christian ethics, for all your bluster in the public square about laws and whatnot, sure sounds pretty weak-willed.
LikeLike
Zrim, yes I think that gay marriage when countenanced by force of law will have a strong pedagogical influence. That is why its advocates seek it. They sybolico-pedogogical force of law has been the subject of endless treatises and sociological studies and is well accepted in the professional literatrure. If you doubt that, you are not well informed and ignore them at your peril. Moreover, once gay marriage is the law of the land, the legal dominoes will fall in line. As I posted above, the schools will begun inculcating a host of values instruction that will require students from K-12 to affirm the normalacy and moral acceptability of gay marriage and homosexuality or suffer academic penalties. You don’t think these “subtle persuasions” will not have an impact? The work of family will be systematcially and intentionally undermined. (I have a specimen pro forma cucciculum program on my desk from a major school district client patterned after the CDE guidelines just waiting to be implemented as soon as it is clear whether Judge Walker’s decision will standl.) With all due respect, your naivete on this point is very troubling.
Since Jesus’ passion was unique, and necessary for our salvation, he had to submit to unjust and illegal state-ordered murder. But we are not called to die for anyone’s ssins, and therefore are not called to imitate him in accepting government’s illegal efforts to commit state-mandated murder or any other illegal government action. Nothing in Scripture calls Christians to accept illegal state action. Indeed, the Reformed tradtion of lesser magistrates has long countenanced resistance.
To your second point, your’re correct that the state is not owed humility. It is not a human being; it is a legal fiction. It is owed submission by Christians in the sense we are called to obey the law in most instances, but nothing about submission to authority prevents Christians from lawful challenges to laws and efforts lawfully to change the law through lobbying, letter writing, organizing, petitioning, check-writing, litigation, or speaking out. That is our duty as citizens. Christians are called to be good citizens (“render to Caesar”), and what we owe a Caesar in a demorcatic republic is good citizenship that improves the law, challenges illegal or immoral laws, alleviates suffering, and renders justice to all. We don’t owe humility to government, and we don’t owe submission to illegal laws. We owe a challenge to illegal laws. We owe individual human beings who work in government charity in our speech and actions, but not the government for whom they work.
LikeLike
DGH, I agree that Scripture counsels obedience to the laws of government as a general proposition, even when the government is othewise wicked. But what point to you draw from that? It does not follow logically that because believers are called generally (with certain exceptions) to obey the laws of a wicked government that believers are forbidden from working for justice or to improve government or culture. Is that your argument?
The evident silence of the first-century apostles toward government wickedness hardly proves that all Christians in all ages must not speak out against evil in culture or government. That is a non-sequitor. First, that the gospels and Acts record no words of rebuke from the apostles does not prove that they uttered none. It proves only that the gospel writers didn’t record any, perhaps because it would not serve their purpose to write an orderly account of Jesus’ life that people may believe he is the Christ. Second, even if one makes the gratuitous assumption that the apostles never uttered a word of criticism of the evils of government or culture does not prove that we should not. The apostles were establishing the foundation of the church through their authoritative, apostolic preaching of the truth. There was no established church with lay members, or very few. It is understandable that laying the foundation of the church, delivering the faith once for to the saints, was job enough for that generationof apostles. Two thousand years later, we are in a different position. There are individual Christians who are called to pursue their callings, showing mercy to all as Good Samaritans, and living in the civil kingdom alongside unbelievers, where we are citizens of a democratic republic. We have a moral duty to do good to all men by working for their good, seeking to alleviate injustice, suffering, and serving as salt and light. We can do that by speaking to the culture and working in government and law to bring about a more just and humane society. We do this not to Christianize America — the civil realm will remain the civil realm and never the kingdom of Christ — but to achieve proximate justice and good where we can, thereby bringing glory to God.
1. The Hebrew midwives refuse to kill the baby boys.
Exodus 1:15-17, “And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.†Because of their fear of God they refused to participate in this infanticide and saved the children. To do this they had to disobey Pharaoh.
2. The soldiers of Israel refuse to kill Jonathan after King Saul’s strange command.
I Samuel 14:24-30, “And the men of Israel were distressed that day: for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. So none of the people tasted any food. And all they of the land came to a wood; and there was honey upon the ground. And when the people were come into the wood, behold, the honey dropped; but no man put his hand to his mouth: for the people feared the oath. But Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath: wherefore he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in an honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his eyes were enlightened. Then answered one of the people, and said, Thy father straitly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any food this day. And the people were faint. Then said Jonathan, My father hath troubled the land: see, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of this honey. How much more, if haply the people had eaten freely to day of the spoil of their enemies which they found? for had there not been now a much greater slaughter among the Philistines?â€
I Samuel 14:43-45, “Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die. And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.â€
Jonathan was innocent not having heard his father’s command to not eat anything. The people disobeyed their king to save the innocent.
3. Queen Vashti refuses to show her beauty to King Ahasuerus’ drunken friends.
Esther 1:10-12, “On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on. But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.â€
It is not known for sure what was expected of Vashti by the king in front of these men. She was a beautiful woman. The king wanted to show all the people her beauty. She refused. This appears to have been the honorable thing to do. She was a modest lady. Proverbs 31:30, “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.â€
Nakedness is a shame to a nation. Those in authority should try to promote modesty. II Chronicles 28:19, “For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel; for he made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the LORD.†It is a sore transgression against the Lord for a leader to bring down the dress and moral standards of a country.
Women should resists men’s desires to unclothe them. It is a disgrace to see the sorry state of dress today. Whether in pornography, Hollywood or society the dress standards of woman have declined and disgraced our country.
I Timothy 2:9, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;†The Bible describes modesty for a women’s appearance. Unfortunately men have controlled women in this area too often. II Timothy 3:6, “For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,†Would to God we would have women of the character of Vashti who would say “no†to men who would have them act immorally.
4. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refuse to bow to state ordered religion.
Daniel 3:1-7, “Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.â€
Daniel 3:12-18, “There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought these men before the king. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.â€
The king or the state should not establish a religion. The people should resist if they do. These men loved God so much they risked their lives to bow to God and not Nebuchadnezzar.
5. Daniel also refuses to bow to state ordered religion.
Daniel 6:6-11, “Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.â€
Daniel 6:16-17, “Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee. And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.â€
Prayer is an individual freedom. It should not be sanctioned by the state or forbidden. It should be left up to individuals.
6. Peter and John continued to preach the gospel after being forbidden.
Acts 4:17-21, “But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.â€
Acts 5:17-18, “Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.â€
Acts 5:26-29, “Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.â€
LikeLike
DGH, left out a transition sentence: Scripture and the confessions do not mandate absolute obedience to government, but provides we obey lawful orders. Exceptions exist for commands to do what God forbids, or to perform manifest injustice. Scripture gives examples of civil disobedience that Scripture cites approvingly.
LikeLike
CVD, I’m not saying that courthouses don’t have influence or impact. I’m saying that homes have even more, lots more. The only way to think this to be so controversial is to actually believe that the home isn’t nearly as influential as the courthouse—which what makes the fact that the family values crowd is always at the helm of these things so deliciously ironic. I know you like to distinguish yourself from the Christian right, but given your shared assumptions on this score I fail to see what is finally the principled difference. Wouldn’t is just be easier to admit a co-belligerence?
If the state is not owed humility because it’s not a human being then why is it owed submission? Is there some principled (or should I say tortured?) difference between humility and obedience?
Christians are called to be good citizens (“render to Caesarâ€), and what we owe a Caesar in a demorcatic republic is good citizenship that improves the law, challenges illegal or immoral laws, alleviates suffering, and renders justice to all.
Have you ever wondered why “they were amazed†in Mark 12 when he said to render unto Caesar his due? Was it really because Jesus told them to pay their taxes on time and generally be good citizens? Maybe, but who marvels at being told what he already knows? Maybe they were amazed because they had the sort of expectations you’re trying to stoke here and they were being rebuked: the powers that be do not respect us and trample us (he even thinks he’s a deity!), so obviously you are here to tell us to rebel and stand up for our rights. But Jesus’ words in Mark 12 are about obedience and submission to him who is opposed to you in both word and deed. I understand this is a jagged little pill to those of us raised on the virtues of American polity, but could it be that Christian piety is at odds with American polity? Maybe not if we believe that America is God’s gift to the world. But is obedience really measured by how submissive one is to he who treats you well, or to he who doesn’t?
LikeLike
Zrim, I said I agree that the home and church are the primary engines of values inculcation (or should be). Generally, more formative than law. We agree here. It seems you take the further step, really a non sequitor, that therefore only home is formative and that therefore law has no influence. That’s demonstrably false. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point about the religious right and your perception I share some view.
Yes, submisison/obedience to law is not the same as refraining from challenging the magistrate. You miss material distinctions by glossing over points from 50,000 feet. We don’t live under a Roman emperor, but under a democratic republic that is a nation of laws, not men. We enjoy self-rule. Any analsis of Christians relation to government must account for that distinction. Under American law, as distinct from first century Roman law, citizens participate in self-rule and have constiutional rights that the government, which governs only by the consent of the governed, must respect. The government must obey the law too. And we are free to change the law, to lobby our representatives to change public policy. Nothing in Rom. 13 or elsewhere in Scripture requires modern Americans to refrain from political advocacy of public policy or lawsuits to hold the government accountable. Obey the law that is the law, but you’re free to challenge it. Presidents, senators, congressmen, and city councilmen must obey the law. Citizen in America are not obliged to obey purported laws that are unconstitutional, ultra vires, or otherwise illegal. If the government doesn’t require us to obey them, then our moral duty as citizens is to challenge the government to hold it accountable. That is part of submission too.
Youre usual response is that Scripture is higher than American polity, and we should be pacifist toward government abuse rather than exercise constitutional rights. I disagree. As Riddlebarger points out, and will develop in his forthcoming book, after Paul wrote Rom. 13, there is development in tne NT. By the time John wrote Revelation, the state was recognized as the “beast” — validly constituted, ordained of God, but having a tendency to oppress. Kline wrote about this peceptively. Therefore, Riddlebarger argues cogently,a strong theological case can be made for small government and citizens (especially Christians) challenging government excess and protecting liberties against the outsized ambitions of government lest it become beastlike.
Your second point misses me altogether. I don’t know what proposition you’re arguing for.
LikeLike
CVD, the sequitor is that none of the biblical material you produce and cite provide a basis for requiring the church or church members to engage in social activism or protests. The biblical basis for Christian obedience is at the heart of the sufficiency of Scripture, the regulative principle, and Christian liberty. If any of the examples you cite were a norm, then (think Baylys) Jesus and the apostles fall short and are guilty. You keep saying that 2kers insist activism is forbidden. That’s not the case here. But requiring activism or social protests is contrary to Scripture or the example of the apostles.
LikeLike
CVD, I know I’m just naive and floating about at 50K feet, but I just don’t understand why different kinds of polities change the biblical rules on civil dis/obedience. In fact, I happen to think that our kind of polity actually makes Christian piety more difficult since it nurtures, expects and even rewards forms of disobedience. I know we’re used to thanking heaven for our freedoms, but I can never help but wonder why we don’t also plead that our freedom doesn’t become a vice.
But I see nothing in the NT that suggests it is “our moral duty as citizens is to challenge the government to hold it accountable.” I see that in our secular-sacred texts, but not our religio-sacred text. It is here that you sound like a transformer who says it’s our duty to make the world a better place (whatever that means). Well, where does the NT say either of those two things? Where does it say it’s my moral duty to rise up and slap Caesar’s wrists when he gains too much power or gets too big for his britches? Indeed, I see the opposite ethic being taught, one that is quite at odds with putting Caesar in his place. Honestly, the “there is development after Romans 13” argument just seems like a way to circumvent Romans 13 in such a way that one is left wondering what political obedience actually means. But I that’s resolved by your argument that there is only such a thing as interpersonal obedience and no such thing as political humiliation.
How does conceiving of the State as the Beast translate into the American Revolution? Riddlebarger can argue all he wants that Christianity means republicanism, but I’ve simply never been convinced that this is any more true than saying Christianity means political progressivism. I think it far better to use secular texts to make the case for either. But, then, I have this dangerously radical notion that the Bible is about Christ alone (as in John 5:39).
LikeLike
DGH: Isn’t it a false dichotomy to choose between “obedience” and political engagement? Can’t Christians keep the law while writing a check to a lobbyist or signing a petition for maintaining traditional marriage? Those actions break no law. Second, I’ve always maintained that a career as an “activist” is not required for anyone. But Christains surely should be good citizens.
Zrim: “I just don’t understand why different kinds of polities change the biblical rules on civil dis/obedience.” Because while biblical principles don’t change, their application may change. Your application has to account for the fact that we are a democratic republic in this nation, not subjects of a king. Christian citizens should obey their leaders in government, but here the leaders are the citizens. The people make the law, and those whom we designate to represent us are accountable to us and to the law. The king was above the law. The people’s representatives are not. As citizens, therefore, we have a responsibility to exercise that power wisely before God. We do all things to God’s glory, including exercising our responsibility as citizens.
As for our moral duty to engage politically, Ed Clowney and Cranfield have written on this. They make a persuasive case for the moral duty of Christian citizens to engage politically. In Mk. 12:13-17, while the Pharisees and Herodians use the simple verb “give,” Jesus answers them with “renderâ€, meaning “to give or pay back something which one owes as a debt†(BDAG), recognizing that they are under an obligation to Caesar. As Cranfield notes, the fact that Jesus uses Caesar’s coin is an essential element of the situation. Those who benefit from the protection and services of Caesar’s rule are under moral obligation to the state to make some payment in return. Paul “exhorts†as of first importance that Christians pray for “kings and all who are in high places†using the word “exhort,†“urgeâ€)(1 Tim. 2:1-7), which is regularly used for exhortation imperatives based on the indicatives of the gospel. (See also Tit. 3:1f. and 1 Pet. 2:13-17.) The clear implication, especially in light of Rom. 13, is that political leaders and the state have a task that, while not itself redemptive, is crucial to maintaining a stable order and the conditions within which God’s redemptive program may proceed in time and space.
Other reasons offered in the New Testament for political obligation include that the state is God’s state, that the state exists to praise good work and punish evil, that God wills the state as a means to promote peace and quiet among men, and that God desires such peace because it is conducive to maintaining the outward conditions under which the gospel may be preached without hindrance. (Rom. 13:1ff). For these reasons, Cranfield identifies our political duty as closely related to our duty of evangelism. He writes: “Thus the state is a provision of God’s patience, which desires to give all men the opportunity to repent and be saved; and we have to serve the state for the sake of men’s eternal salvation. Our fulfillment of our political responsibility is therefore a necessary part of our fulfillment of our evangelistic responsibility.”
Furthermore, Rom. 13:1-7 is part of Paul’s exhortation that begins in Rom. 12:1. Our political duties to the state (fellow citizens) are part of our “reasonable service†we are to offer God in gratitude for our salvation. In addition, it is noteworthy that Rom. 13:1-7 is bracketed by exhortations to love (Rom. 12:9ff and 13:8-10). Since the state serves both the temporal and eternal good of humanity (maintaining a stable, hospitable order for the gospel to advance), our reasonable service to the state is an integral part of our debt of love to men and women.
Finally, the Christian’s political responsibility is grounded in the fact that the state is an instrument of Christ’s kingly rule. The exalted Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), is “ruler of the kings of the earth†(Rev. 1:5), the “Lord of lords, and King of kings†(Rev. 17:14). The weight of this biblical teaching exposes as imbalanced any teaching that advocates individual Christian withdrawal from the political and cultural spheres into huddled ghettoes, even pious ghettoes. It is a false dichotomy, then, that asks whether the Christian’s highest calling is service in the church to form a “Christian colony of heaven†or in the state or culture as political-cultural activists. The choice for the individual Christian is not “either-or,†but “both-and.â€
This Christian duty to serve the cultural-political arena is of course heightened for those who are citizens of a democratic state. In a democratic state, the Christian’s kingly rule (an expression of the image of God) is exercised directly through participation in governance. The Christian thus has an opportunity and responsibility to exercise that rule justly and to help conform the state to standards that promote biblical notions of justice and mercy.
LikeLike
CVD, it is not a false dichotomy if political activism is required as obedience. And I think that saying lawyers and activists really know what’s at stake for the faith in today’s world also sets the bar a little too favorably for the attorneys and activists. Why not just do what you do rather than trying to claim you are on the inside track for defending the faith?
LikeLike
DGH, I never say “activism” is required (if by that is meant a full time vocation or substantial time commitment or fire-breathing passion). But as Clowney and Cranfield argued, the rule of gratitude includes good citizenship and all that entails, including participating actively in political and cultural engagement. Why would Christians not be in the forefront of performing good works of public mercy and justice? (Not to Christianize the civil sphere, but to be obedient and caring for our neighbor — since in a democratic republic fellow citizens are all our neighbors.) Of course they must act wisely and not as the CR, and for right reasons, not to take back America.
I think you and others who make 2K a passion and a lens through which to view the faith might consider that you sound reflexively anti-engagement, at times disengaged from the civil sphere — as Zrim termed himself, “quietists.” I know that, contrary to the Baily’s accusation, it isn’t that you don’t care about the unborn or other causes etc. But people tend to act on what they care about. And extreme 2K advocates tend to not act, and in fact criticize those who do (who are active in trying to make an impact on the civil sphere for the good. It might help 2K PR if you occasionally mentioned some non-church, non-Word-and-sacrament activity directed at improving the secular sphere that you approve of, or better yet, support or participate in. I’m sure that the emphatic 2K advocates do care, and do act. But the imbalance in their rhetoric — all criticism all the time of anything that could be remotely termed “activism” — leads people to draw inferences. That would give the lie to the criticism of 2K enthusiasts that they simply don’t care. Machen, though a stout SOTC enthusiast, was active in the political and cultural sphere, as you know. (Not even many activists testify before Congressional committees.) Somehow I suspect Machen today would not pass the 2k test of 2K’s loudest supporters.
LikeLike
CVD, as I have said before I reluctantly take the term “quietist” when the only other option is “activist.” I think there is a difference, though, between being active and be an activist. I think it’s pretty unfair to think that just because someone demurs on activism that it means he’s inactive. Just because one demurs on what he reckons as moralism doesn’t mean he immoral. There are a variety of ways to be obedient and care for one’s neighbor, don’t you think? Maybe raising children is just as valuable as working the picket lines? Maybe it’s not nearly as exciting or attention grabbing to work for the neighbor afar off as it is for the one close by, but that may be the point.
But I think you make a fair point about what may be implied, but it also may be inferred by some. The passive-aggressive saw that the Bayly’s want to use is “If you don’t care like me then you don’t care at all.” That is what’s being criticized, and rightly so. And have you noticed how active some of us have been in pushing back against all of this? Doesn’t that count for activism? I don’t about the others, but I sure feel tired.
LikeLike
Zrim, the charge by the Baylys is grossly unfair and a failure to appreciate 2K. It’s also a failure to read/listen to 2K sympathetically enough to understand it from the inside. That would be a charitable way to proceed. I don’t think for a moment that because you don’t favor picketing abortion clinics (I don’t either) that you favor abortion. It’s a non-sequitor. Or because you don’t favor laws of a certain sort you favor the activity. It’s always useful, I think, to clarify that once in a while because people leap to conclusions.
I agree there are lots of ways to be obedient in doing good works for one’s neighbor, and raising children is wonderful. I do too. It’s just that my raising my children is not a way to be a good citizen in a democratic republic. As I argued above, and as Clowney argued, there is a moral case for Christians being good citizens by engaging the political and cultural order for good. It’s part of our duty as citizens. Not the same as our duty as fathers.
If you’re tired, stop pushing back. Don’t worry; be happy. 🙂
LikeLike
Zrim, that’s an excellent point: Maybe raising children is just as valuable as working the picket lines?
Part of what is frustrating about watching some vocal transformationalists is the assumption that the linear solution is the best solution. Abortion? Pass a law. But in fact, America has become slightly more pro-life since Roe, and one of the factors is simple reproduction: pro-lifers have more children.
What is needed is a profound understanding of the underlying fundamentals, the causes that produce effects (“push/pull factors”, my history-teaching colleague likes to say). And those really are learned in common-grace ways.
LikeLike
Jeff, agreed.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, the fruits of … transformationalism?
http://thebubble.msn.com/#/video/?id=0d0c1f9e-b8c0-47a8-85d3-48614c8aa2f9
LikeLike
I agree there are lots of ways to be obedient in doing good works for one’s neighbor, and raising children is wonderful. I do too. It’s just that my raising my children is not a way to be a good citizen in a democratic republic.
CVD, first, honest thanks for laying off the harsh accusations of our past exchanges. It made it hard to tell where the human ended and the Baylyitte started, which is to say communicate.
Second, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but this sort of comment is what causes a double take for me. It almost seems like you’re pitting a universal human good with what it means to be a good citizen in our republic (or taking away with one hand what you gave with the other). It reminds me a tad of that scene from “Hair!†when Cheryl Barnes and her kids are left to fend for themselves as her crusading, activist husband Hud is leaving once again to tend to others. I’m not saying that’s you, of course, but I can’t help but think that part of Hud’s idea of what it means to be a good citizen is not so much tending to his own family but “caring about strangers, evil and social injustice, and the bleeding crowd.â€
LikeLike
Part of what is frustrating about watching some vocal transformationalists is the assumption that the linear solution is the best solution. Abortion? Pass a law. But in fact, America has become slightly more pro-life since Roe, and one of the factors is simple reproduction: pro-lifers have more children.
Jeff, I’m not sure quantity always beats quality; I have a modest brood (maybe that’s because I’m not pro-life but anti-abortion). But you’re hitting on one of my own points, which is that the family, small or big, really is the cornerstone of society, not legislation. The irony of the vocal transformers is that they tend to be of the “family values†stripe, which would seem to suggest that they really believe the home is way more powerful than the courthouse, yet their actions seem to suggest it’s the reverse.
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, I’m not sure quantity always beats quality; I have a modest brood
Us too. Married late.
The irony of the vocal transformers is that they tend to be of the “family values†stripe, which would seem to suggest that they really believe the home is way more powerful than the courthouse, yet their actions seem to suggest it’s the reverse.
Here’s a thought: they *do* value the family, but greatly fear the uncontrollable influences that have the potential to subvert the family: TV, Twitter, everything in between.
A large number of children send their kids to Xian school in order to put them in a “greenhouse environment” (which our school is not). Fear, fear is the driver.
LikeLike
Zrim, you deserve praise for devotion to family and children. That’s not a small thing in today’s hyper-busy, workaholic culture. I share that priority, which is a biblical one. No argument here. Also agree that a person can be all about loving humanity, but not loving individual human beings who are closest to him/her. We need to start at home.
We all wear a lot of hats. Being a father/mother is a vital one. But we’re also workers. My being a good father (I think I am) doesn’t discharge my duty to my employer. That’s a separate duty. Likewise, my devotion to family doesn’t discharge my duty as a citizen and neighbor. I should start with my neighbor next door, but I can end with my neighbor across the country who benefits from sound public policy I advocate for. Even Machen (a patron saint of SOTC) did that.
LikeLike
Jeff, having young children, I quite understand the anxiety of certain external influences and far be it from me to either belittle that anxiety or trivialize influence. At the same time, what I don’t understand, and maybe I’m the weirdo, is what appears to be the almost complete lack of confidence in the ordained power of the home. The world may influence a person, but a home makes him/her, and the power to make seems to far outpace the power to influence. I’m very skeptical of the idea that whatever a home (for better or ill) sows into a person can be as readily undone by TV, Twitter and anything in between as some seem to presume. Sanctified TV (friends, etc.) cannot make up for bad parenting, and contrariwise unwholesome influences don’t undo wholesome crafting.
CVD, yes, I’m no fan of the “totem pole” theory of human relationships and duties either. It is organic with seemingly competing loyalties; being a good father and husband can mean being a dutiful employee.
But not all of us have vocations geared toward “sound public policy.” Some of us pick up trash or change diapers, and others of us write constructed response items for testing outfits, which are also ways to serve our neighbors far and close. Maybe not as glorious, but something tells me lawyering “on behalf of the disenfranchised” isn’t always as glorious as it sounds either.
LikeLike
I have no intention to break up this group-hug here, since they are so rare, especially when dealing with this issue. I do have a couple of more practical questions, and CVD, you are probably the guy to answer them. I’ll preface the questions by acknowledging that we all do disagree with gay marriage, even if we have different ways of addressing it in the civil sphere. Here’s the questions:
1) In CA as in many other states we have moved to “no-fault” divorces (which was a big mistake IMO), how does this impact a) the legal definition of what marriage is; and b) how the Supreme Court might look at the Prop. 8 case?
2) One of the main objections to Prop. 8 was how this would affect the family, how would Johnny cope with having Linda and Lisa for parents? The legality of gay parents is already in place, since it isn’t hard for gays to become parents through a one-time, intentional hetero union, or via surrogate, or through adoption. Since the barriers for gay’s to become parents have already been legally obliterated, how effective can an argument against this consequence to gay marriage be in the courtroom?
3) How would you make an affirmative argument against Judge Walkers ruling that arguments against gay marriage are either a) religious; b) irrational; as he maintains that these are insufficient legal bases to deny gays the rights to marry?
My point in asking these questions is to see if the proverbial cat is already out of the bag. Since we have removed the moral component of marriage in the state’s eyes with the advent of “no-fault”, how can moral arguments be effective in keeping gay marriage from prevailing?
LikeLike
Zrim, hey, I pick up trash and used to change diapers. A grand and noble calling that. Machen didn’t have a calling to advocate public policy. He was a professor in a seminary. But he wrote and spoke on government policy in his capacity as a private citizen. He testified before Congress. He seemed to think 2K was compatible with participating as a private citizen in public policy debates. He probably also changed diapers in his day. Do you think he violated a 2K wisdom principle?
LikeLike
Jed,
1) No-fault divorce has been very bad for marriage and families where it exists. While we as Christians oppose most divorce, I can see a case on 2K principles for allowing no-fault divorce in recognition of the crumbling state of marriage anyway in a crumbling culture. Having to show “cause” formerly led to more expensive trials and spurious claims being made by one spouse or the other to try to manufacture cause. A lot of legal analysts said we can’t hold back the tidal wave of divorce any longer, so let them out. The flood of cases was overwhelming the system. It was administratively easier to go to no-fault; now couples only argue over money and children. The counter-argument is that no-fault divorce promoted more divorce and more family trauma. Regardless of who was right, it’s here now regardless. No-fault divorce doesn’t affect the legal definition of marriage from a legal standpoint. It should not have any effect on how the Supreme Court evaluates Judge Walker’s ruling. The legal issue is whether the marriage laws afford equal protection under the law for people similarly situated, not how the marriage ends.
2) Jay, the argument that is made to support traditional marriage is that the distinction between same-sex and hetero-sex marriage rests on a rational basis. In constitutional law cases, the test under rational basis scrutiny is two-fold. First, is the purpose/goal of the classification scheme in the law a legitimate interest for the state to advance? Second, does the law tend to further that goal, at all — even a smithereen, does it advance the ball at all? It doesn’t have to lead to a touchdown, just move the ball an inch. The lawyers defending Prop 8 argued that, yes, the state had legitimate interests in promoting traditional marriage, one of which was that children are nurtured better by a father and a mother. And there was evidence that the classification scheme tended to further that goal — there is social science evidence supporting that. (Of course, it was a subject of disputed expert testimony, as one can always find an exeprt to say they earth is flat.) Under rational basis scrutiny, if as a general proposition, in many cases, that goal is advanced, the law passes muster under rational basis scrutiny. One doesn’t have to show that in all cases hetero-sex marriage is best, or always or even usually produces more well adjusted children, just that it tends to in some cases. Since even a smidgen of evidence is enough to sustain a law under the minimal rational basis test, it is highly extaraordinary for a court to strike down a law under rational basis scrutiny. In short, that some gay couples can adopt and even produce well adjusted children ordinarily would have no effect on the state’s ability to sustain traditional marriage under rational basis scrutiny. But this isn’t an ordinary case. It’s a politicized case.
Judge Walker did, of course, rule that the law failed rational basis scrutiny, but reading his tendentious opinion it’s painfully clear that his “findings of fact” were politicized statements of his opinion intended to try to insulate the findings from appellate scrutiny. The Supreme Court is at liberty to disregard “factoids” and see the tactic for what it was.
(3) I think the Court will ultimately decide this case on the basis not of evidence in Judge Walker’s courtroom but whether the court should have deferred to the popular will of the people and allowed public opinion to eventually support gay marriage rather than have it forced by judicial fiat. The Court suffers great injury to its own perceived legitimacy when it forces its own moral opinions on the people before public opinion has caught up. The strongest argument against Judge Walker’s ruling is that the state has a legitimate interest in advancing its police power through upholding moral standards of society. For most of the Supreme Court’s history, morals legislation was thought to be a legitimate state interest. Morals legislation was never thought to be “religious.” Public drunkenness was thought to rest upon public morality, for example. The Supreme Court departed from its
historic position in the case striking down the Texas anti-sodomy statutes. Henceforth public morals no longer are a legitimate state intereest. So states now have to think up new rationales to support morals legislation (e.g., public drunkness leads to disturbances of the peace). Besides public morality, there is a wealth of social science research that promotes the value of hetero-sex marriage for children. That would ordinarily — in a non-politicized case — advance the ball enought to pass rational basis scrutiny. But not in Judge Walker’s courtoom. Maybe in the Supreme Court. There are many other arguments as well, but you only need one to pass rational basis scrutiny.
LikeLike
CVD, I’m in no position to answer your question about Machen. But my guess is that it’s your way of asking if I think your vocation is a violation of a 2k wisdom principle. If so, no, I do not. I simply think we may have different outlooks about the goings on in the civil sphere; 2k wants to protect you and me to co-exist in this way. So a violation of 2k would actually be for one of us to pass judgment on the other about the way he elects to (lawfully, of course) proceed in the civil sphere. And strong disagreement isn’t the same as judgment.
LikeLike
CVD,
Thanks for the response, it definitely clarifies how this process will unfold in the coming months. While I can’t articulate this quite like you can, it seems to me that the advent of “no-fault” divorces brought (or recognized) a major shift in the legal understanding of marriage. No longer does the state recognize marriage as a sacred union between a consenting man and woman, where each has certain responsibilities to the other to uphold. Now, the state is dealing with a more basic property arrangement with certain parental concerns.
This is why I have maintained the position I have on Prop. 8, because it seems like the divorce laws (in CA specifically) indicated the state’s generally amoral stance on marriage. Obviously this is light years from our Christian understanding. On this basis it seems to me that the state would be duplicitous to recognize one type of union and not another. So in a sense, the moral debate over the validity of traditional marriage versus homosexual marriage lies outside of the concerns and expertise of the state.
I have stated in the past, and still maintain that the state should only recognize civil unions, and should be out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage should then be performed by ministers, and others authorized to do so. In this structure the state could recuse itself from religious ceremonies, which marriages are, and stick to the civil unions that it can adjudicate competently. I think this would diffuse a lot of the hostility between those who want the state to define marriage.
LikeLike
Jed, you might consider that the state of California never recognized marriage as a sacred union. The only thing required by the state is a solemnization ceremony that impresses on the couple the solemnity of the vows they are taking, and a statement by the officiant that he/she declares “under the authority vested in my by the County of ___, State of California, I now declare you husband and wife.” It never had a religious component. Marriages as recognized by California are far from religious ceremonies — a judge can do it, in fact any private citizen can perform a wedding for a day by getting a one-day license from his/her county office.
There are innumerable practical problems with the state withdrawing from marriage and leaving it only to churches. The state must enforce a myriad laws dealing with community property, confidentiality, privilege, inheritance, intestate succession, child custody, parental rights over children, to name just a few. The state has to be able to recognize a couple as married in order to administer these laws. Very few legal commentators, even of secular persuasion, believe that these problems can be surmounted without wereaking social and legal havoc. Almost everyone agrees that there should be state-sanctioned marriage. This is one case where well meaning Christian theorists, theorizing in the abstract, could perhaps do better to inform themselves about how the law works at the practical street level.
Civil unions don’t get the state out of the marriage business as a practical matter. All these myriad of laws are premised on marriage. What civil unions do is say all the legal benefits of marraige are conferred on civil unions. But when all these laws are applied to civil unions, they in effect become marriage by another name. It really becomes a distinction without a difference. You can call marriage a “hedgehog,” but it’s still marriage. To get the state out of the marriage business, you’d have to change to laws to create a more or less state of anarchy in relationships and their legal consequenses.
Finally, I would argue that marriage is a creation ordinance. It was established before the Fall and survived the Fall as an ordinance applicable to all of human culture, believers and unbelievers, within the civil sphere (not merely the Kingdom sphere). The state has historically administered creation ordinances to do good in recognition of their serving as a God-ordained foundation of human culture. Marriage is therefore a fundamental part of the role of the state ordained by God (Rom. 13:1-7). WCF 24: 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 defence and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”
LikeLike
How is marriage in general a sacred thing? I agree it’s important, but how is it sacred?
LikeLike
Alberto,
Marriage is considered a covenant that God himself is witness to (Malachi 2:15-16); it is as a result of God’s doing (Matt. 9; 5-6); it is a profound mystery referring to the sacred union between Christ and his Church (Ephesians 5: 22-32); the wedding bed (a metonymy for the sexual relationship between man and wife) is to be undefiled, implying that the union is holy (Hebrews 13:4). However, as Calvin notes in the Institutes (IV.19.34-37) marriage isn’t a sacrament like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Designating marriage as sacred is to recognize the sanctity of the relationship, that it stands apart from all other human relations, and that in the context of the covenant family it is the instrument that God often uses to produce holy offspring. Marriage is also a common creational ordinance, so the designation “sacred” has to be qualified so as not to make more of marriage than is proper, however it also should not be made less of than is proper as well.
LikeLike
Jed, you said, “…the state…should be out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage should then be performed by ministers, and others authorized to do so.”
I agree with CVD that marriage is a creational ordinance, etc. If the state gets out of the marriage business altogether then how do people without ministers get married?
LikeLike
Zrim, CVD,
Zrim: to your question, w/o a minister, they don’t get married per se they enter into a civil union, at least form the angle I am looking at it. I am not adamant about this, rather exploring some options.
CVD, this initial answer will be brief. I know there is precedent in Europe where marriages take place in the church and are a ministerial function, however, the state recognized union is a separate affair where the civil union is officiated by the state. In effect there are two ceremonies, where the civic end of “marriage” is governed by the state, and the religious and spiritual union is officiated by the church.
It is in this sense that I see the state vacating jurisdiction over “marriage” as a moral/spiritual/religious institution. And yes CVD, to your point, I do see the “distinction without difference” as a valid concern. But I would argue that how the state views marriage and how the church views it is distinct. Since we have departed from a theocratic model of government into a governance that distinguishes between the role of the church vs. the role of the state, it is bound to affect institutions such as marriage that straddle the two kingdoms.
What I am arguing/exploring here is the state governing the civic concerns of what we call marriage (which is its de facto role presently) through civil unions, and to leave the defining here up to individual and/or religious bodies. I am not convinced that the state can adequately define marriage in the way we are asking it to. It seems that we are in the middle of a definitional shift in the role of the state in marriage. The questions I am interested in are jurisdictional and definitional, and what can we reasonably expect the state to govern with respect to marriage and/or civil unions. Obviously there would have to be qualifications here to protect minors from coerced marriage. But again, bear with me as I run down some sources and as I try to give a clearer response to the issues you both raise here. I definitely value your input here, since I have drawn no hard conclusions, but from a 2k perspective, how do we approach an institution like marriage and family which obviously occupies both kingdoms?
LikeLike
Jed, your project to replace marriage for non-Christians with civil unions reminds me of the British prisoner of war in the Japanese POW camp leading all the POW’s in constructing for the Japanese a bridge over the River Kwai with robust enthusiasm, when he was unwittingly helping the Japanese war effort. (The Allies eventually destroyed the bridge.) I don’t know why we would be eager to help unbelievers deny and circumvent God’s creation ordinance and plan for all humanity? Help me understand what good you see come from that? Since God wants marriage for believers and unbelievers alike, why would you want to help them avoid God’s intention? Most unbelivers I know want to be married, and for that I’m glad. Even gay persons I know don’t want to settle for civil unions; they want to be married. I don’t know why we in the U.S. would be eager to mimic the European model, when Europe is a moral wasteland in full rebellion against God.
I’m not sure it’s wise for us to think we’re smarter than God, who invented and ordained marriage as a foundation for family and human civilization. It seems self-evident to me, at least, that on balance, marriage and the commitment and monongoy that it entails is on the whole better for couples — especially women — and better for raising children. A civil union is a too casual thing, as evidenced by the civil union experience in other countries, and its devastating effect on children. It lacks the sense of commitment and single-minded devotion that is key to human felicity and the protection of women and children. If you think the divorce rate is bad, have you checked the dissolultion of civil union rate among gay couples? It’s exponentially worse. Granted the divorce rate is bad, but if you’re not even aiming at permanence, stability, fidelity, and monogomy for life, how much worse would it be? And that’s saying nothing about the innumerable legal problems that would ensue if the state got out of the marriage business.
Jed, with all respect, this seems like a horrid idea, which would not please the Lord. A creation ordinance is intended to be as permanent as this age, and we dare not mess with them. If marriages are in trouble, the solution, it seems to me, is to find ways to solve the problem rather than to exacerbate it.
LikeLike
…from a 2k perspective, how do we approach an institution like marriage and family which obviously occupies both kingdoms?
Quoth VanDrunen:
“There are many more things that Kloosterman said that I might respond to, but I must address just one more before making some concluding remarks. Kloosterman says: ‘Illustrative of the problematic two-kingdom construction being advocated by VanDrunen is the question: To which of the two kingdoms, worldly or spiritual, must we assign marriage and the family?’ He apparently thinks that he has me locked on the horns of a hopeless dilemma, but I reply unambiguously: to the ‘worldly’ kingdom. Marriage and family are part of the original creation order, they have been sustained by common grace, and my unbelieving neighbors’ marriage is just as valid in the sight of God and society as mine. Christ’s redemptive work is not the origin of marriage. The church did not establish the bearing of children. Marriage and family are institutions common to believers and unbelievers alike. The church recognizes these institutions, commends them, and gives some general instructions about them, but it does not create them.â€
http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=78
So, Jed, I think a lot of your questions can be simply answered in saying that marriage is ever and always grounded in creation. That may cause some hard decisions, but your only other option is to say that it’s grounded in redemption—we may as individuals toggle between two kingdoms, but institutions have to be grounded in one or the other—which seems to put you a step closer to thinking it’s a sacrament, or at least not having much a response to those who say it is. It also runs the risk of creating some sort of confused class system amongst all people with regard to marriage: some are married, some are sorta married but not really, they get to play married. I understand that resolves some tension for those of us who think Prop 8ism has problems, but the price to be paid seems to be a big chunk of Protestant orthodoxy.
LikeLike
Zrim, good points and helpful observations. I think DVD is spot on. (I now remember why I like him so much.)
LikeLike
Back up the blasters CVD, other than the weird WW2 reference, I get where you are coming from. Here’s a few thoughts that come to mind: throughout human history the state has had varying roles in marriage, and marriage law has by no means been monolithic. Since there has been no clear statement in scripture as to how the institution is to be governed is it entirely inappropriate to ask questions about the effectiveness of our current system. Like I said, in Europe there are two ceremonies, and I’m not even saying that I agree with the system, but I’d hardly call it wresting God’s creational prerogatives, its simply a different mode of governance. All I am saying is that the state might want to consider how it adjudicates marital law, and if the fact remains that all they are ruling over is civic, then what is all of the shouting about? You have to admit that the secular state does run into issues, especially with the advent of “no-fault” in enforcing any creational norms within the institution. Like it or not Prop. 8 has uncovered a great deal of the state’s inability to uphold even the most basic creational norms such as fidelity. It is awfully hard to champion the solemnity and exclusivity of an institution that is so easily broken.
Zrim, the DVD excerpt is actually quite helpful in seeing how marital and familial relationships are a “this-world” affair.
More thoughts to come…
LikeLike
Jed, thanks for your thoughts. (The River Kwai reference was an allusion to unbelievers warring against God, as they are in rebellion; just it was odd for the Allied POW to help the Japanese war against the Allies, so perhaps it’s odd for Christians to help unbelievers war against God by repudiating his creation ordinance of marriage.)
I’m not sure it’s merely a “mode of governance” if the mode does away with marriage in favor of civil unions, which is what I understood you to be proposing by saying the state should perhaps get out of the business of marriage and leave it to the churches. I think we want to promote obedience to creation norms, including marriage. In a sense we have dual tracks in the U.S. for marriage, don’t we? Unbelievers have their marriage ceremonies, in which Christ is absent, and believers have their ceremonies in which Christ is present, his name invoked, a homily is delivered, etc.
I wouldn’t say marriage is ready to be retired because of the prevalence of divorce or attacks on it. Unbelievers have the law written on their conscience and can obey that law, externally, to a remarkabele degree. I have lots of non-Christian friends with wonderful marriages. They are lovely people. Divorce rates/marriage rates rise and fall with shifting cultural fads and norms. We may yet see a return to strengthened marriage among both believers and unbelievers. The instituion has been around since the Garden, and that’s a long tradition. Not ready to give up on it yet.
LikeLike
Apropos of nothing here (because there isn’t a thread for it), but I’m ticked off. 🙂
On pp. 106 – 107 of vanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, we find this:
Calvin insisted that sin makes the natural knowledge of God insufficient and therefore that moral understand requires a revealed written law.
[for Calvin] … human sin rather than the limits of human nature is the principal reason why supernatural revelation is necessary.
I’ve been arguing the same point here for two years! And all I get is <voicemode=”immature mockery”>> “You’ve got a low view of creation” </voicemode>.
VanDrunen says it and gets recommended.
Harrrrrumph.
LikeLike
ah, the HTML taggery failed. *sigh*
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m sure you can find many points in DVD with which you agree. It could be though that you don’t put those points of agreement together in the same way. I don’t see any problem with maintaining this. But where do you go with it?
LikeLike
Well, as I march further into NLTK, I do go somewhere seemingly different with it than he.
So it’s clear that DVD reads Calvin as affirming the sufficiency of NL in the civil realm and the insufficiency of NL in the spiritual. So I can see Zrim peeking out of the page here.
He doesn’t cite this claim, interestingly, and I’m not sure he’s correct on Calvin on this one point. (His earlier points are spot on –pp. 67-82). In particular, I’ve not seen yet any treatment of one of the most crucial passages, Inst. 4.20.9, in which God is held to be a person, with rights to be respected. I believe this will be a crucial distinction as the core difference between Calvin’s Geneva and a modern pluralistic society, such that NL transplanted into the latter takes on a widely different character from Calvin’s view.
At least, that’s my working hypothesis.
You’re right, BTW — vanDrunen is definitely the guy to read here. Very well written, anticipates (most) objections, well researched. I’m favorably impressed. I found his treatment of Calvin’s consistencies and inconsistencies in Geneva (82ff.) to be thought-provoking and thought out.
LikeLike
Jeff, let me lay a little Grabill on you as well. After rehearsing the usual citations that plainly show Calvin’s view that God is naturally known to all men (e.g. “There are innumerable evidences both in heaven and on earth that declare his wonderful wisdom; not only those more recondite matters for the closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all natural science are intended, but also those that thrust themselves upon the sight of even the most untutored and ignorant personsâ€), he writes,
“Nevertheless, Calvin acknowledges without hesitation or ambiguity that post-lapsum the natural revelation of God in conscience and the created order has been obfuscated, and thus is impotent in itself to bring people to a true and saving knowledge of God. Accordingly, he observes, ‘In this ruin of mankind no one now experiences God either as Father or as Author of salvation, or favorable in any way, until Christ the Mediator comes forward to reconcile him to us.’ [ICR 1.2.1] But how is the true knowledge of God attained? ‘No one,’ says Calvin, ‘can get even the slightest taste of right and sound doctrine unless he be a pupil of Scripture.’ [ICR 1.6.2] Or, speaking, from a different but complimentary perspective, ‘[H]owever fitting it may be for a man seriously to turn his eyes to contemplate God’s works, since he has been placed in this most glorious theatre to be a spectator of them, it is fitting that he prick up his ears to the Word, the better to profit.’ [ICR 1.5.12, Cf. Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol.2, pp. 112-14, 118-19] Notice that on the one hand Calvin repeatedly affirms that humans can know God salvifically only through Jesus Christ as found in Scripture, while on the other hand he repeatedly denies the claim that without Christ there is no valid knowledge of God whatsoever.”
Stephen J .Grabill, Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (pp. 81-82)
LikeLike
““There are innumerable evidences both in heaven and on earth that declare his wonderful wisdom; not only those more recondite matters for the closer observation of which astronomy, medicine, and all natural science are intended, but also those that thrust themselves upon the sight of even the most untutored and ignorant personsâ€
So we have medicine, science, cooking and plumbing, as evidencing God’s existence and declaring his wisdom? 🙂
Anyway, just a note, it seems the conceptual distinctions between natural law and natural theology are being blurred in the last few posts.
LikeLike