A letter to the editor in a recent issue of New Horizons set me thinking once more about the objections to two-kingdom theology that prevail among those Reformed Protestants most attached to Dutch Reformed figures or ideas. The assertion in question stated that “our epistemological self-consciousness must be thoroughly present at every point of the discussion of [interactions between Reformed Protestants and Roman Catholics].” The letter took exception to comments Michael Horton made about Immanuel Kant and the moral law that provides a basis for believers’ cooperation with non-believers in the common realm: “Even the philosopher Immanuel Kant retained an infallible certainty of ‘the moral law within’ after rejecting supernatural religion.” William Dennison, the letter writer, rues Horton’s assessment of Kant and argues that “any true Van Tilian should be deeply disturbed by such a statement.”
The point worth reflecting on here is not the rival assessments of Kant or whether Horton was actually endorsing Kant. It is instead the impression created that epistemological self-consciousness will lead to a rejection of Kant. I myself remain worried about the kind of pride and even self-delusion that the project of epistemological self-consciousness may nurture. In fact, this past Sunday at the URC in Anaheim the congregation confessed sins corporately in ways more in keeping with the “heart is desperately wicked, who can know it” than with the possibility of bringing Christian truth to bear on all parts of our waking existence.
The thing is, I am pretty confident that Mike Horton is self-conscious of being Reformed and of the claims of Christ upon his thoughts and actions. I am not sucking up to Mike. I am simply raising the possibility that epistemological self-consciousness does not produce uniform judgments. One epistemologically self-conscious believer may recognize value in Kant’s morality, another may esteem Hegelian idealism. But does a disagreement in judgment mean that one party is guilty of epistemological appeasement? Will the epistemologically self-conscious agree on whether or not to eat meat offered to idols?
The two-kingdom payoff is that most of the proponents of 2k that I know have a long list of theological reasons for such advocacy. In other words, 2k is not simply a capitulation to secular society as if 2kers are going along to get along. Instead, 2k stems from serious reflection on the truths revealed in Scripture and confessed among Reformed churches. I get it that many don’t see it that way. But disagreement with other ways of construing the relationship between church and state, or between the eternal and temporal realms (such as neo-Calvinism or theonomy) does not mean that 2k lacks epistemological self-awareness. In fact, some of us would claim that 2k takes more biblical and theological claims into account than other efforts to bring a Reformed w— v— to bear on politics.
So if the epistemologically self-conscious may have different assessments about the value of Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony or about the merits of Quantum Theory, is epistemological self-consciousness any guarantee of victory in debate? I don’t know how it could be (and I am awfully aware of this knowledge thanks to a second cup of coffee).
Old Life 
Not to hijack this thread, but thanks much for including that link to the Horton article. It’s exactly what I’ve been looking for phrased very well, something for which Horton seems to have a particular knack.
You see, we’ve been facing a similar problem within a sub-set of our own local congregation revolving around the encroaching issues of gay rights in our culture. One gentleman in particular, someone who works extensively with youth in the church and the community at large, has become concerned about this to the point where he is actively marshaling efforts within the congregation to work with legislators and lobbyists who support the traditional nuclear family to stop or reverse steps that have been taken within the realm of public education recently to indoctrinate young children to accept “alternative lifestyles.” I do not disagree with either these concerns or efforts to speak out against the current trends, but am not convinced that it is within the mission of the Church to be pushing them.
Of course, this gentleman along with all other proponents all have the same 1K W______ V_____ that leads them in such a direction and it’s a very difficult matter to speak against. And there always seems to be the same final common denominator for justifying the Church’s involvement…”what about the youth.” My answer to that has been, that’s why we catechize them. And THAT’s not very popular either!
LikeLike
Darryl,
After reading Dr. Horton’s article a couple months ago and then recently Dennison’s take, my wife and I were hoping someone with a microphone would speak up to help readers understand how one might want to think about these kinds of issues. You did (and without sucking up to Horton!). Thanks.
LikeLike
Indeed.
But I wouldn’t want to suck up either, so as generally well stated as it is, my quibble would be this. If it’s true (and I think it is) that “the law is indeed the common property of all human beings, by virtue of their creation in God’s image” then I wonder why simultaneously repeating the refrain that “non-Christians are using borrowed capital.” How can anyone borrow what is his own by natural rights? If non-believers have equal access to general revelation what gives with this “borrowed capital” concept?
LikeLike
Zrim:
From my own limited knowledge of the “borrowed capital,” I think it stems from non-believers who reject the true foundation of knowledge but then try to build a new system using the same categories. So, for instance, a Christian would say it is wrong to murder because man is created in God’s image and has inherent value based on texts in Genesis. A non-believer most often believes murder is wrong and, while biblically we could quote from Paul’s teachings in Romans 1-2, the non-believer would not give that as a reason and yet would still in effect agree that murder is wrong.
I hope that makes sense.
And I suppose we could ask as Christians can we interpret Natural Revelation apart from Special Revelation as a non-Christian could?
LikeLike
I think Zrim has a good point here. We all have a relationship with God creationally whether we believe in God or not. It is unclear what one is saying, which I say all the time too, when one refers to another person as unbeliever. We all have a bond with other humans in that we are created in God’s image. We also have a bond with others in that we are inherently in rebellion to this God- even after we “believe” in what Christ did for us. This dichotomy between believer and unbeliever is often a very confusing and sometimes obnoxiously condescending concept that gets all mucked up in our thinking.
LikeLike
John,
But a Christian can call God “Abba, Father” whereas a non-Christian cannot. One who has the Holy Spirit is enabled to understand the Word of God whereas those without find it foolish because of their ignorance (I Cor 1-2). I’m not sure what the dichotomy is. Yes, we all sin, but Romans 6 teaches that we are different, at least in our relationship to the Triune God.
LikeLike
Thanks, Matt. But in order to call it “borrowed capital” wouldn’t non-believers have to borrow from special revelation to make the case for a shared moral imperative, instead of appealing to what we all have access to by nature, namely general revelation? Horton says further,
By tending to confuse the gospel with the law, special revelation with general revelation, and Christianity with Western civilization, the document actually undermines its own objective—namely, to defend the dignity of human life as a universal moral imperative. Both Christians and non-Christians are recipients of this general revelation.
He seems to be saying that GR is what is needed to defend the dignity of human life. So how can non-believers be said to be borrowing anything when they are using a shared reservoir?
As far as believers interpreting GR apart from SR, Horton also echoes Calvin’s (and Kuyper’s) notion that SR helps to correct our reading of GR, which is fine as far as it goes, but also raises the question of abiding sin and its role in reading either text. If special revelation cannot correct reading of special revelation (e.g. Protestants read it and see sola fide, Catholics read it and deny it), then how can it be said to correct a reading of GR? To be sure, both texts are clear, but sinners are depraved.
LikeLike
I understand that Matt. I gave a very brief remark that obviously needs to be expanded upon. The point I was trying to get across is that if we are truly simul iestus et peccator then the differences in “transformationa” with those who do not believe what Christ did for them can be quite minimal whereas a lot of theological thinking wants to make the differences more remarkable then reality often dictates. The grace of God in Christ is the only distinguishing mark. I know this is controversial, but I have my reasons for siding with the Gospel emphasizers rather than those who make transformational elements the most significant difference.
LikeLike
“…any true Van Tilian…” Sigh. Seriously? Has Van Til been so raised that agreement with him on every point has become the standard by which we are all judged? Is Horton (and those whose skin does not crawl when they read his reasonable words) being called a false Van Tilian? Is he only pretending to be a Van Tilian? Is he a self-autonomous rationalist in Van Tilian clothing? Does he fall short of being a true believer in Van Til? Has he failed to be sufficiently devoted to Van Til? Good grief, central dogma much?
Was Van Til crucified for you?
LikeLike
Was Van Til crucified for you?
Yeah, and Murray and Gaffin were the thieves on his right and left….
LikeLike
JJS,
Your comment about Gaffin and Murray is striking and suggests some deep thought behind it. Please could you elaborate and unpack what you were trying to say? Thanks.
LikeLike
OPC fella,
T. David Gordon once called that ethos one of the distractions from orthodoxy (and in MR, no less):
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=964&var3=main&var4=Home
LikeLike
David Gordon: “Public square issues, however, are not necessarily more important than other aspects of the cultural mandate (such as writing poetry or symphonies, or refining agricultural technology), and our tradition has raised serious questions about partisan politics and the spirituality of the church.
Especially surprising, in this regard, is the amount of effort expended at attempting to prove that our early Republic was intentionally “a Christian nation” or that the individual Founders were Christian believers. (3) This surprises me not only because the existent documents appear to be at best inconclusive, but also because it would mean nothing anyway. The accidents of history can never oblige us; and even if the Founders had intended to establish a Christian nation (whatever that might mean), we would be under no obligation whatsoever to continue the experiment in our generation, unless we (the populace as a whole) believed there was value to it. To illustrate: The Founders also plainly intended to permit the African slave trade to continue for the foreseeable future without federal interference. Does this mean we should resurrect the practice today? Of course not; it was a horrible idea then, and would remain a horrible idea today.
On this topic, I am also at times surprised at how truncated the historical question is framed, covering merely a couple centuries of the American experiment. The idea of “Christendom” or a self-consciously Christian nationalism is at least as old as a.d. 774, when Emperor Charlemagne was designated by the pope as the “champion” of Christianity, and in 1302 Boniface VIII confirmed the matter in a papal bull (Unum Sanctum). Roman Catholicism then for well over a millennium has promoted the notion of using the power of the state to promote Christianity. When William of Ockham (1288-c. 1347) disputed the teaching of Unum Sanctum, he was excommunicated; and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he was often referred to as “the first Protestant.” I am somewhat surprised that the Religious Right so blithely promotes the Catholic view on the matter.
“But the real point is this: The church is not the American Historical Society and her officers do not have earned doctorates in American historical studies. It is not the church’s place to settle disputes over history.”
mcmark: I was with him all the way, up to that last point. Are only those with doctorates earned to settle these disputes for us? Although I kinda like John Fea’s book on the founders, the “neutral and objective” (just the facts, sir) methodological pose of many of these historians gives me pause.
See Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation, by Fea and some colleagues. Can any good thing come from Messiah College? From Covenant College?
LikeLike
Marky Mark, I don’t think the point turns on non/earned learning but on non/jurisdiction. So even if her members have earned doctorates the church as an instition isn’t called to settle history.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Zrim. But besides rejecting the idea that there is anything Christian about Messiah College (see Sharon Baker’s attack on the atonement, in Stricken By God?), I did want to raise a question about the jurisdiction of “church colleges”. Since I think church is what happens (or not), I don’t have to think about that as much as you do. Are there some seminaries which are “para-church” and some which are more than that?
LikeLike
Mark, don’t get me wound up on education. But it does seem to me the church is called to formal ministerial education (seminary) even if she isn’t called to curriculum (primary and post-secondary schools).
LikeLike
Darryl,
To your question “is epistemological self-consciousness any guarantee of victory in debate”, as regards the value of Beethoven’s 3rd symphony or Quantum theory, I’m curious what you mean by value.
LikeLike
Don, I mean worth, as in worthy of paying attention to or giving heed.
LikeLike
Darryl,
In the same way that someone who is more mature in music appreciation could better assess the worth of Beethoven’s 3rd than someone less mature, someone more mature in his epistemological self-consciousness could better assess the worth of someone’s contribution to the Kingdom of God than someone less mature.
LikeLike
Don, but how would you ever know of someone’s maturity in ESC. I can think of many people who think they are mature, but that usually means they think I’m wrong.
So I don’t agree with your analogy. Plus, you keep missing the inverse relationship between the kingdom of grace and the kingdoms of men. If martyrdom is one of the highest callings — as in to be with Christ is gain — then how can martyrs make a contribution to culture, the arts, or the state?
LikeLike
Mark,
“Are only those with doctorates earned to settle these disputes for us?”
I think the reason why you ask this question might be because you’re looking at it differently than Gordon.
Gordon isn’t saying that only those with doctorates have the right to an opinion on an issue.
When the church “settles” an issue, it says, “Conform or excommunicate.” For example, in Acts 15, when the issue of circumcision was settled, it would now be excommunicable heresy for someone to go around saying that Gentiles must be circumcised.
Gordon is pointing out that the Church should only do this when Scripture clearly demands it be done. In the case of circumcision, nothing less than the very doctrine of justification by faith is at stake. In other words, it’s about far more than circumcision.
But now Gordon asks, what’s at stake in the length of creation days? Nothing! What’s at stake in some of these other issues? Nothing substantial. The Church should not make boundaries of ecclesiastical fellowship where the Bible does not.
The Bible demands that we believe certain things. Some things are super crystal clear. Some things are a little less clear.
By talking about what the Church officers are required to obtain or not acquire (e.g., a doctorate in American History), he’s only pointing out that American History is not something Church officers are educated in, precisely because that’s not their area of expertise. Why isn’t it their area of expertise? Because that’s not the task to which they are called as ministers, namely because it’s not something the Bible speaks to, and ministers and the Church should ONLY speak where SCRIPTURE speaks.
“Preach the Word,” says Paul, not your own opinion. When the minister speaks from the pulpit, it’s the Word that he speaks. He doesn’t put his political views out there, but he lets the text have its say, and in so doing, the Word of God has its say. The very moment a minister from the pulpit begins expounding on something other than what Scripture says, he is no longer preaching the Word but only himself and his own opinions. In so doing, he is no longer directing people to worship God but only himself.
So when the ministers and elders of a denomination gather at their General Assembly and speak collectively on behalf of the entire church, the same rules apply.
Thus for a General Assembly to speak, for example, about American History is seriously sinful and a gross violation.
And by the way, just to be sure I’ve covered all the bases that might have set you off about what Gordon said, it occurs to me that you might also be asking your question in part because he said that some people argue that laymen would see such and such passage a certain way, so we ought to assume that’s the correct way to take it. Gordon, of course, thinks this is utterly ridiculous.
Why is this ridiculous? Because if this is to be our hermeneutic, why do we need educated ministers at all? Shouldn’t laymen be learning from ministers how to properly interpret Scripture, rather than the other way around? Isn’t that the very definition of minister? Yet these men reverse this and figure that ministers ought to be corrected by the laymen.
This of course doesn’t make any sense. Surely as they go through seminary, candidates for ministry learn things about the Scriptures that they didn’t know before. Surely as they go through the process of preparing their sermons week in and week out, they learn things about the text they’re preaching that they didn’t know before. So when the minister speaks on Sunday morning on a particular passage to a gathering of laymen, is there anyone in that church building who we can truly say most likely is the MOST qualified to say something about that text? And don’t we confess that he’s called by GOD to do just exactly that every time he preaches?
So why on earth should a 5 year old’s first impression of a text of Scripture be normative for the church? Jesus says that we should receive the Kingdom like little children, but he doesn’t say that we should read Scripture that way.
There’s a lot of complex stuff in Scripture that makes most laymen (and ministers!) throw their hands up in dismay at ever being able to puzzle it out. If that’s the case, then the Church has no business imposing a particular interpretation on these matters on all her members.
Only when Scripture speaks very clearly should the Church demand its members conform. In matters of less clarity, such as the length of the days of creation, it should remain silent.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Let me respond with the lines from a Stephen Crane poem (forgive me Zrim for gaining spiritual insight from another book):
LikeLike
Dear “opc guy”, I am sure that there are differences between us about the significance of the priesthood of believers and the clergy/layman tradition. But it would be a mistake to confuse that difference with a rejection of leadership by elders and/or hostility to education in hermeneutics for Christians.
To repeat what I wrote: “I was with him all the way, up to that last point.”
Now, let me quote my friend David Gordon, without his last point, because that was my main point:”Especially surprising, in this regard, is the amount of effort expended at attempting to prove that our early Republic was intentionally “a Christian nation” or that the individual Founders were Christian believers. (3) This surprises me not only because the existent documents appear to be at best inconclusive, but also because it would mean nothing anyway. The accidents of history can never oblige us; and even if the Founders had intended to establish a Christian nation (whatever that might mean), we would be under no obligation whatsoever to continue the experiment in our generation, unless we (the populace as a whole) believed there was value to it. To illustrate: The Founders also plainly intended to permit the African slave trade to continue for the foreseeable future without federal interference. Does this mean we should resurrect the practice today? Of course not; it was a horrible idea then, and would remain a horrible idea today.
On this topic, I am also at times surprised at how truncated the historical question is framed, covering merely a couple centuries of the American experiment. The idea of “Christendom” or a self-consciously Christian nationalism is at least as old as a.d. 774, when Emperor Charlemagne was designated by the pope as the “champion” of Christianity, and in 1302 Boniface VIII confirmed the matter in a papal bull (Unum Sanctum). Roman Catholicism then for well over a millennium has promoted the notion of using the power of the state to promote Christianity.
mcmark: It is a fact of history that Protestant Confessions were written with the notion of using the power of the state to promote the Magisterial Reformation. I don’t mention this to say that we need to repeat the past or even to criticize the past. Rather I rejoice that many Reformed folks like Gordon support the revisions of the Reformed Confessions and understand the relationship between the kingdoms in a different way than Luther and Calvin did.
As much as I disdain democracy, I can appreciate that many Reformed folks now know the difference between “holy war” (Deuteronomy 20) and “pragmatic war that we justify”. This is a step in the right direction, and I am thankful for leaders like David Gordon who are teaching this distinction.
LikeLike
I really appreciate Gordon’s distinction between studying history and assuming that conservative continuity is always a good thing. “The facts of history can never oblige us; and even if the Founders had intended to establish a Christian nation (whatever that might mean), we would be under no obligation whatsoever to continue the experiment in our generation”
To quote one of my very favorite historians with a PHD, Theodore D. Bozeman, “Inductive and Deductive Polities”, Journal of American History, December 1977, p722–”Materially comfortable and conspicuously toward the leading groups in society,and…having supported from the beginning a property consciousness, the Old School leadership had incentive enough for worry about social instability.Old School contributions to social analysis may be viewed as a sustained attempt to defend the inherited social structure…The General Assembly found it necessary to lament the practice of those who ‘question and unsettle practice which have received the enlightened sanction of centuries’…
“Social naturalists assumed that the laws of society were not merely true, that is, given in the scheme of nature. They bore too the humbling force of prescription; they demanded compliance.
The desire was to draw the ought out of the is…to make facts serve a normative purpose.”
The future, even if God puts a Mormon coalition in power, and with a Princeton Seminary turned universalist, is no less ordained by God than the past. We can’t get to “inherent and intrinsic” inductively. The magistrates and the clergy don’t get to decide what’s true.
LikeLike