I would not have thought it possible. “It†in this case is an effort to disassociate Martin Luther from two-kingdom theology. Most Reformed Protestants beyond the age of accountability understand intuitively, it seems, that Lutheranism goes wobbly in its Christian teaching because of the dualism that haunts it, thanks to Luther’s two-kingdom theology. Furthermore, when Reformed Protestants, like David VanDrunen, come along and speak favorably of 2k, they usually have to duck or else get hit with the epithetical cream pie of “Lutheran.â€
But our good Dr. Kloosterman, the keeper of the neo-Calvinist flame (he likely prefers Calvinettes to GEMS as the name for Christian Reformed girls clubs), will have none of such a conventional understanding of Luther. In the third installment of his review of VanDrunen’s book on natural law and the two kingdoms (the second was on VanDrunen’s handling of Augustine), Kloosterman takes issue with VanDrunen on Luther. VanDrunen’s presentation is hardly controversial; he links Luther to previous developments stemming from Augustine’s doctrine of the two cities, and Gelasius’ teaching on the two swords. VanDrunen doesn’t even try to claim Luther as a proto-Reformed theologian.
But Kloosterman is so opposed to VanDrunen’s project that he will not even let VanDrunen’s discussion of Luther stand. For instance, Kloosterman accuses VanDrunen of a selective reading and quotes from the 1523 essay, “Temporal Authority,†where Luther writes of the Christian prince:
What, then, is a prince to do if he lacks the requisite wisdom and has to be guided by the jurists and the lawbooks? Answer: This is why I said that the princely estate is a perilous one. If he be not wise enough himself to master both his laws and his advisers, then the maxim of Solomon applies, ‘Woe to the land whose prince is a child’ (Eccles. 10:16). Solomon recognized this too. This is why he despaired of all law-even of that which Moses through God had prescribed for him-and of all his princes and counselors. He turned to God himself and besought him for an understanding heart to govern the people (I Kings 3:9). A prince must follow this example and proceed in fear; he must depend neither upon the dead books nor living heads, but cling solely to God, and be at him constantly, praying for a right understanding, beyond that of all books and teachers, to rule his subjects wisely. For this reason I know of no law to prescribe for a prince; instead, I will simply instruct his heart and mind on what his attitude should be toward all laws, counsels, judgments, and actions. If he governs himself accordingly, God will surely grant him the ability to carry out all laws, counsels, and actions in a proper and godly way.
Kloosterman seems to think that this adds up to a brief for his own position – namely, that special revelation must interpret natural revelation. On this basis Kloosterman has argued that a magistrate needs to take his cues from Scripture to rule in a truly just manner. Curiously enough, Luther did not answer his question – where should the prince look for wisdom? – as Kloosterman would, by pointing the prince to the Bible. The archetypal Lutheran in good 2k fashion merely speaks of the prince’s need for a godly attitude in discerning his duties.
This misinterpretation of Luther extends throughout Kloosterman’s installment and it is particularly ironic since Kloosterman’s point is that VanDrunen misinterprets Luther. Be that as it may, Kloosterman insists that Luther must not be chalked up on the side of dualism:
Our point is simple: When one surveys the breadth of Luther’s voluminous writings, the overwhelming impression is that for Luther, the Christian faith and the Christian religion did not exist alongside public life, but came to expression and functioned within public life. Whether speaking at the Diet of Worms or serving as mediator among the German princes, whether opposing public unrest and public heresy or defending good quality education, whether commenting on war and peace or on trade and money—in all of these roles, we meet Luther the preacher of the gospel and pastor of the German people. Yes, Luther knew how to distinguish the “spiritual†regiment from the “temporal†regiment, but he never separated them, nor did he retreat from entering the world’s domain in the name of God, with the Word of God.
There we have it – Luther the proto-Kuyperian. This surely will be news to the historians, theologians, Lutherans, and Reformed Protestants, who knew and know Luther to be 2k. Kloosterman’s reading is not at all unusual for a Kuyperian since neo-Calvinists, from Kuyper to the present, have a habit of reading the past in a way that always vindicates them and their world-and-life-view. Even so, his review suggests less a stroke of genius than a move of desperation to save the neo-Calvinist movement that used to have a monopoly – world dominators that they were – on what it means to be Reformed.
Old Life 
It would also seem that Dr. Kloosterman is not dealing with Luther’s teachings on vocation and how that gets worked out as a Christian in government loves and serves his neighbor.
LikeLike
But in this here democracy, dgh, you ARE that prince. You ARE the government. No cop outs, no hiding behind the magistrate. That is simply the reality.
So, I reckon this is the best advice anyone could give you, o fellow child-prince. I admit, it’s a lousy job, but someone’s got to do it, and someone is us. And woe to the land, indeed, for we are not wise.
What, then, is a prince to do if he lacks the requisite wisdom and has to be guided by the jurists and the lawbooks? Answer: This is why I said that the princely estate is a perilous one. If he be not wise enough himself to master both his laws and his advisers, then the maxim of Solomon applies, ‘Woe to the land whose prince is a child’ (Eccles. 10:16). Solomon recognized this too. This is why he despaired of all law-even of that which Moses through God had prescribed for him-and of all his princes and counselors. He turned to God himself and besought him for an understanding heart to govern the people (I Kings 3:9). A prince must follow this example and proceed in fear; he must depend neither upon the dead books nor living heads, but cling solely to God, and be at him constantly, praying for a right understanding, beyond that of all books and teachers, to rule his subjects wisely. For this reason I know of no law to prescribe for a prince; instead, I will simply instruct his heart and mind on what his attitude should be toward all laws, counsels, judgments, and actions. If he governs himself accordingly, God will surely grant him the ability to carry out all laws, counsels, and actions in a proper and godly way.
LikeLike
That’s funny, Tom, I voted no on health care and federal highway subsidies. To be a prince without power sure is complex.
LikeLike
Still, you were obliged to vote, dgh. We appoint the magistrates, we do not simply obey them. This is simply our reality. The dilemma remains.
LikeLike
Tom, I’m not sure what you’re point is regarding the original post, which had to do not with democracy but with whether the magistrate administers a jurisdiction different from the church and so is not beholden to the Bible.
LikeLike
I’ve been reading your writing for quite awhile, dgh, trying to get a handle on your theology. Your ongoing differences [put charitably] with the Brothers Bayly and their affinity for the GOP, and with the GOP itself. I appreciate via the “plumber” argument that all things are not accounted for in the Bible, such as federal highway subsidies.
But you, as citizen-voter—citizen-ruler—tell the magistrate what laws he shall be enforcing, via the representative democracy thing.
You can wash your hands of it all, like the Amish mostly do [but do not always do]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5613947/
but that Anabaptist thing does not appear to be what you’re saying, unless I misunderstand you.
You—and I—ARE that unfortunate prince that Luther is speaking of, not the magistrate, which is an entirely different dilemma. [Or perhaps not, if we allow natural law into the discussion. But first things first.] We, in this democratic nation-state of America—albeit indirectly—write the laws the magistrate is obliged to observe and enforce.
What Would Jesus Do seems beyond we mere mortals, and besides, His Kingdom is not of this world. But what we can’t get around is that here in America, we are citizen-rulers. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s? We—you and I—ARE Caesar.
I don’t want to overreach here, as I admit I remain unclear on your core theological argument and I want to understand you, dgh, not argue.
What I find problematic, even after reading you for quite some time now, is that “the magistrate” is the last man on earth we should try to identify with, or search our souls about. What Would Pilate Do, or what should he do?
If we should start there, OK, then we should start there, with the “magistrate.” But we are Luther’s “princes,” not Pilate—we are Caesar, in our current time and place and reality. This is our dilemma, you and I and us and all those here gathered. But I admit I might be misunderstanding all this.
LikeLike
Tom, I don’t really agree that democracy makes us all princes. I mean, I can see your point but I don’t think it’s all that profound since one prince running things is pretty different from a quarter of a billion princes running things. When John of Salisbury or Machiavelli were writing about the prince, it was singular. Democratic rule is plural, at least.
But the issue here in this post is whether Luther’s prince or I turn to the Bible for how I vote. As you admit, I don’t go to Scripture for wisdom on federal subsidies for the automotive industry.
LikeLike
I’m trying to understand your theological/political argument is all, dgh. I don’t get it yet. The fault is mine, of course: this is all new to me.
But we are not under the control of Caesar. We are Caesar. As much as I have read you, this reality keeps asserting itself.
LikeLike
Tom, since I’m Caesar, why won’t you submit to me?
LikeLike
But I’m Caesar, too, dgh, that’s the problem. And if all we good people abdicate, we end up with Nero again. Hitler. That sort of thing.
This seems like a bad plan, divine or otherwise.
LikeLike
Tom, if a fellow VanDyke can weigh in … Your distinction between monarchs and democratic republics makes a telling point insofar as it reminds all (Christians and non-Christians) of our right and responsibility to participate in governing rather than sit on the sidelines. But I don’t think it advances the argument that we citizen-magistrates-Christians should consult Scripture for how to write laws. Scripture isn’t intended to and doesn’t provide guidance on laws for the common, civil realm. It provided civil laws for ancient Israel, but those have expired. What biblical laws would you write into the law of the land?
LikeLike
I’m trying to understand and engage dgh on his own terms first, CVD. My best understanding is that our paramount concern is not to pollute the message of the Gospel with our worldly partisan politics. I take this admonition very seriously.
The conundrum is that the only safe way to “do no harm” is to disengage from the world. This seems a bad and unworkable plan, for reasons given. Further, it seems to echo the Parable of the Talents, where the foolish one buried his for fear of losing it. Evil lazy slave!
You and, if I understand him correctly, dgh, do not advocate that we all become Amish. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses, God forbid. 😉
I understand that the Bible is not sharia, a comprehensive legal code. And per the “plumber” argument, as Roger Williams noted, a pagan ship captain sails as well as a Christian one. And the Bible does not address federal highway subsidies.
On the other hand, we have the Sermon on the Mount and “social gospel” politics, and of course the usual roster of “moral” issues that are of concern to conservatives. I don’t know how much currency “natural law” has with Dr. Hart’s theological argument, but moral reasoning is at least attemptable, and of course Christian natural law theory has always held that the proper conclusions of “right reason” will never conflict with the Bible.
So I’m mindful of the Romans 13 argument [we have spent tons of time on it over at my American Creation groupblog], but even if Dr. Hart is of the mind that the American Revolution was in violation of it, the fact is that it’s too late now to go crawling back to Britain, its monarch, and its common law.
1st century CE Judaism [and therefore Christianity] found itself under Roman rule, no doubt by God’s will. But we 21st century Christians find ourselves in a system that makes us our own— and each other’s—rulers. This is just our reality, that each of us is invested with our fraction of a share of the power and responsibility of Luther’s prince [above].
I do not know what dgh thinks of Luther’s advice to that prince yet. luther writes:
For this reason I know of no law to prescribe for a prince; instead, I will simply instruct his heart and mind on what his attitude should be toward all laws, counsels, judgments, and actions. If he governs himself accordingly, God will surely grant him the ability to carry out all laws, counsels, and actions in a proper and godly way.
That Luther begins his conclusion with “For this reason” is itself reason applied to this conundrum. Luther is using his own reason, albeit informed by Biblical precedent, to advise this unfortunate prince. He also uses the phrase “heart and mind” [italics mine], certainly leaving room for the mind. I meself see this as “right reason,” and I take “God will surely grant him, etc.” as congenial with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
A fascinating passage.
My intention was never to “joust” with you, dgh, ducking and feinting, trading witty but evasive bon mots, waiting in ambush for you to take make a false step. I do want to understand. “Winning” is for sophists, sophists not being dishonest people, but those who are unconcerned with the truth. I have some “answers” in mind, but I’m more interested in yours. Your perspective is unique, even among your co-sectarians. I did read up on Machen, and the politics of your own church.
And I certainly did notice that at the death of Machen, the mocker Menken spoke of him with respect, not derision. “Dr. Fundamentalis.”
That Machen could represent Christianity so well in the public square so well that Mencken—the Christopher Hitchens of his day—spoke of him with respect is a considerable achievement. Macken did not “pollute” the Gospel; his life’s work was to defend its purity.
Indeed, if you read the “Dr. Fundamentalis” piece, as you get to the end, you see that Machen got through to Mencken on some level, made him think. It’s a moving eulogy, and any many of God would have been pleased.
And so, I’m not trying to trap you, Dr. Hart, although I admit to having great reservations on the formal level. I want to hear more. I admit a constant confusion when I read this blog. I cannot tell if you’re speaking to each other in a shorthand, “inside baseball,” or in code.
LikeLike
Mencken on Machen. Nothing has changed since:
These postulates, at least in the Western world, have been challenged in recent years on many grounds, and in consequence there has been a considerable decline in religious belief. There was a time, two or three centuries ago, when the overwhelming majority of educated men were believers, but that is apparently true no longer. Indeed, it is my impression that at least two-thirds of them are now frank skeptics. But it is one thing to reject religion altogether, and quite another thing to try to save it by pumping out of it all its essential substance, leaving it in the equivocal position of a sort of pseudo-science, comparable to graphology, “education,” or osteopathy.
That, it seems to me, is what the Modernists have done, no doubt with the best intentions in the world. They have tried to get rid of all the logical difficulties of religion, and yet preserve a generally pious cast of mind. It is a vain enterprise. What they have left, once they have achieved their imprudent scavenging, is hardly more than a row of hollow platitudes, as empty as [of] psychological force and effect as so many nursery rhymes. They may be good people and they may even be contented and happy, but they are no more religious than Dr. Einstein. Religion is something else again–in Henrik Ibsen’s phrase, something far more deep-down-diving and mudupbringing, Dr. Machen tried to impress that obvious fact upon his fellow adherents of the Geneva Mohammed. He failed–but he was undoubtedly right.
____________
From the Baltimore Evening Sun (January 18, 1937), 2nd Section, p. 15.
Full text:
http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=325
LikeLike
Tom, I am well aware of Mencken’s views of Machen. And the reason HLM regarded JGM highly was because Machen avoided polluting the gospel with politics and refused to baptize his politics with divine law. In other words, Mencken thought well of Machen because Machen was not Billy Sunday or Woodrow Wilson.
So the views expressed here are, no matter how poorly, drawn directly from Machen. To believe that the church should not be engaged in politics is not anabaptist. It recognizes the legitimacy of the state and the sword and acknowledges that Christians have obligations in the civil realm. But it also believes that the church is the institution God has ordained to establish his heavenly kingdom, not the state or other cultural activities.
LikeLike
Oh, I passed on Menken on Machen for the readers because I had the page open, dgh. I’m quite aware of your affinity for him, and wanted to acknowledge it.
It appears I have stated your position fairly. The dilemma of the prince, of the citizen-ruler, remains unresolved, however. If only the spheres, the kingdoms, were entirely separate. But they overlap.
LikeLike
Tom, but they don’t overlap. The church has the keys of the kingdom. Its work is that of redemption. Any state that would claim such power is idolatrous.
Do Christians live in both kingdoms? Well, sure. But that doesn’t mean the work of the institutional church overlaps with the state, unless you’re one of those crazy evangelicals who believes in faith-based initiatives.
LikeLike
The Gospel is not only soteriology—the business of redemption. There are at least hints on how we should live, what is right and wrong.
I don’t know what you mean by “institutional church,” but it’s a fact that government is increasingly encroaching on what we must call “society,” and the believer is being required to act schizophrenically—that God is not a reality, that the Bible is not the World of God, but superstition or at least “irrationality” by definition.
That “right” and “wrong” are relative, a matter of opinion.
The problem of what Luther’s “prince” or what we as citizen rulers should do about that is unclear to me.
LikeLike
Tom, it sounds like you’re confusing Law and Gospel. The Gospel is the good news of salvation, not how we should live. The “hints on how we should live, what is right and wrong,” is Law, not Gospel. Both the Gospel and biblical Law are intended for Christians, not for the world. And princes, presidents, governors, senators, and congresspersons are to govern justly and fairly according to natural law known to all men and women, not the Law of Moses.
The “institutional church” is the church assembled on the Lord’s Day for worship, ruled by elders and served by deacons. The institutional church is a spiritual institution with spiritual authority and with spiritual concerns. It is not to advise the government on how to govern.
Individual Christians, unlike the institutional church, are citizens of two kingdoms, the spiritual and the common/civil. As citizens of the common sphere, in a democratic republic, we are to be good citizens and may make our policy preferences known by voting or calling our representatives. But that’s different than the local Clerk of Consistory or the board of bishops demanding that the government adopt a certain policy position.
LikeLike
CVD, I appreciate the difference between Mosaic or “ritual” law and natural law. I do not quite understand the prevailing theology here and do not want to overstep into things that are not theologically acceptable. I want to engage the theology as it understands itself.
But implicit in my question is what happens when government brings its rejection of natural law into the sphere of society, especially when we ARE the government.
Further, with 34,000 sects of Christianity, I still don’t know what that “institutional church” might be.
I was using “The Gospel” as a catchall for the Bible; I appreciate your distinction that strictly speaking, “The Gospel” can be taken as the “good news” of salvation per Jesus Christ, i.e., Christian soteriology no more no less.
And I also favor using the language of natural law in the polity over “because the Bible says so.” Natural law theory maintains that “right reason” does not and cannot conflict with revelation anyway.
On the other hand, as a proper American pluralist, I make no distinction as to where a citizen accepts moral advice from: his scriptures, his pastor, the Dalai Lama, Deepak Chopra, or from some feeling, per Luther,
For this reason I know of no law to prescribe for a prince; instead, I will simply instruct his heart and mind on what his attitude should be toward all laws, counsels, judgments, and actions. If he governs himself accordingly, God will surely grant him the ability to carry out all laws, counsels, and actions in a proper and godly way.
God.
[There is also the philosophical question of whether “natural law” works without God. Regardless, it works much better with one—not necessarily that “God is on our side” but that He has a side for us to try to be on, that “right and wrong” are not merely subjective.]
LikeLike