I am detecting a parallel among critics and questioners of 2k. On the one hand, opponents have trouble with the idea (sorry Jeff, I’m not going ad hominem intentionally) that the Bible is silent on a range of subjects and activities. At the same time on the other hand, critics feel free to draw conclusions about someone’s views simply by virtue of their silence upon a subject. I don’t necessarily believe these are at root the same. But I also sense a high degree of affinity.
The latest example of this phenomenon comes yet again from the Baylys in their reaction to a 2k post by Brian Lee over at the Daily Caller. He writes, for instance:
Christianity is not politically conservative or politically liberal — though Christians may be either. Christianity is not political at all. It is in a sense politically agnostic. But in another sense it calls into question the basis of every earthly power, including politics.
The entire article is worth reading as a healthy summary of biblical argument that goes by the name 2k but is really an expression of a redemptive historical reading of the difference between Israel and the church.
But Brian’s silence about abortion is not golden from the vantage of mid-western conservative Presbyterianism. According to the Baylys:
What Pastor Lee needs to think about is that obedience to the call to suffering, to our Lord’s command to take up our cross and follow Him, is at least as applicable to his parishioners as they exercise political authority and power as it was to Herod as he considered the call of John the Baptist, and the Areopagus as they considered the call of the Apostle Paul, to repent. Which is the call it appears Pastor Lee studiously avoids–unless, that is, his call to repentance is aimed at his fellow URC churchmen and women from Grand Rapids and Friesland who pray and write letters and vote, hoping their legislators will, for instance, bear the sword against those slaughtering the unborn across our land.
One wonders when the Baylys will listen to what folks like Brian Lee say rather than simply calling them up short for what they don’t. Maybe the Baylys actually need to cogitate upon pastor Lee’s own views about Christianity and politics as much as they are certain of their own. After all, Lee is a minister of the gospel just like they are. He may know the Bible as well as the Baylys and may actually know what to do when the Bible is silent – namely, remain silent.
Old Life 
Now I’ve really gone and made things difficult for the Baylys, by publishing ANOTHER piece at the Daily Caller, this time on abortion.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/21/truth-and-consequences-the-politics-of-abortion/
I’m not sure I understand the argument from silence in this context. I had actually written the abortion piece prior to that other piece, for an upcoming column in Christian Renewal, but the Daily Caller was reluctant to publish everything I ever wrote all at once. Anyway, the Baylys may now engage what I have actually said on abortion, rather than intuiting my view from silence.
LikeLike
And thanks, DGH, for that accompanying photo that makes this look like a piece on gay marriage.
Yes, I get the reference.
LikeLike
DGH,
Since you mentioned questioners of 2K, I thought I’d chime in with a 2K question I’m confused about.
If I understand DVD correctly, he thinks that since Christ is the last Adam and satisfied the Covenant of Works between God and Adam for his (Christ’s) people, Christians should not refer to the terms of that Covenant for instruction in “Christian living” (i.e., for sanctification purposes, as opposed to justification purposes).
Now if the covenant at Sinai is a republication of the original Covenant of Works, and Christ also perfectly satisfied the terms of that republication for his people, wouldn’t consistency require that Christians should not refer to the terms of the covenant at Sinai (the ten commandments) for instruction in “Christian living” (i.e., for sanctification purposes, as opposed to justification purposes)?
I’m not saying this is your or DVD’s position, but could you say a few words about how you avoid this implication?
LikeLike
By the way anyone notice the scary resemblance of Dr. Hart with Doug Neidermeyer?
LikeLike
JH, the Mosaic administration is “in some sense” a republication in that it illustrated the point of the CoW only with regard to the temporal blessings of the land. Do this and live “in the land.” But in both cases, Adam and Israel have been fulfilled in Christ. A better covenant for Christian living now is the Noahic covenant. See DVD’s sequel.
LikeLike
Does DVD discuss the role of the Ten Commandments in the life of the New Testament believer in his books?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, is that a rejection of the third use of the law? It seems pretty clear in the NT that the law still plays a role in the life of the NT believer, just a very different role. I’m thinking when Christ said in Matthew 5 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Paul also said in Romans that we are by no means to abolish the law, but to uphold it. I understand Paul to be speaking of the Moral Law.
Also, the Noahic covenant may best suit the NT believer, but all that it really does is establish a common kingdom, and promise its preservation. So it may give us insight into how we are to relate to all of humanity (through a common kingdom), but that still does not give us any insight into how we relate to other believers, or how we are to conduct ourselves in family and in private. Were you intending only to say that the Noahic covenant is better in discussion of Christ and culture, or in all aspects of Christian living?
LikeLike
Both pieces by Brian Lee were quite helpful, especially the abortion piece. What I think many anti-2K men don’t grasp – or perhaps reject – is the fact that the church can call abortion sin without binding the consciences of individual Christians in terms of how to combat abortion. I think Pastor Lee defines this distinction very nicely…
LikeLike
Has this thread undergone a common sense burial?
LikeLike
Apparently it has. I still would like it if some of the questions about the Decalogue were cleared up…
LikeLike
Nate, your decalogue question got the (sound of) silent treatment.
LikeLike
Joseph and Nate, why do you expect me to answer for VanDrunen? It seems to me that the republication idea follows from Galations 3 and 4 — how does Sinai relate to Moses and/or Adam. But even though Paul says the Law is not of Faith, he still affirms the 3rd use in Gal. 5 and 6.
As I understand DVD, he is using the Noahic Covenant to understand the relationship between cult and culture, not necessarily as the total break down of the law.
So are you guys asking Kuyperians what their appeal to the creation mandate means for the command to do this and live? In other words, if we appeal to the creation mandate for redeeming television, aren’t the rest of the terms of the Covenant of Works in play?
LikeLike
DGH: Ah, the way you end that reply to Joseph & Nate:
“if we appeal to the creation mandate for redeeming television, aren’t the rest of the terms of the Covenant of Works in play?”
That leads to this formulation: Any attempts to apply or live by or use the cultural mandate/creation mandate without clearly making reference to, filtering it through the Fall and Redemption in Christ (Church & Great Commission) is likely to misuse the creation mandate; is likely to have that mandate overstep its bounds. It represents a confusing of categories, using the non-redemptive category in a redemptive way and context.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Cris, that says it pretty well.
LikeLike
I could be wrong, and correct me if I am, but it seemed to me that JH’s question was concerned less with “Christ and Culture” and more with the implications that some of the reasoning behind 2k might have forindividual Christians. I think almost everyone (theonomists notwithstanding) can agree that the civil aspects of the Law were unique to the commonwealth of Israel and don’t have any bearing for the church in other ages. JH specified that he was concerned with the Decalogue in particular, and whether or not it should be used for sanctification purposes. Does Christ’s fulfillment of the moral law mean that we should no longer look to it for sanctification purposes? The question was not aimed at whether or not we use the mosaic covenant as a guideline for the church’s relationship with culture, or whether we seek to impose it on all men. That is why your response that the Noahic covenant is a better covenant for Christian living prompted me to inquire about the third use of the moral law. Pardon my ignorance if I am missing something, but I fail to see how the Noahic covenant could be used for sanctification purposes (as you, not DVD, said in response to JH) as well as a guideline for how the church relates to culture.And yes, I have read DVD on this…
LikeLike
Nate, like I said, most 2kers I know follow Paul right from Gal. 3 and 4 to Gal. 5 and 6 which affirms the third use. Plus, if you haven’t noticed, the idea of submitting to the powers that be, rather than transforming them into pro-Christian entities, is right in accord with the fifth commandment.
LikeLike
Great. I am on board with the whole 2k thing – the NT is pretty clear in what it says and does not say about the church. I was only confused about the significance of the moral law in this age of the church. It is interesting though that neo-cal’s have to look outside the NT and convolute the idea of creation in order to justify themselves.
LikeLike