Richard Gamble, my colleague in history and fellow elder in the OPC church plant in Hillsdale, has a new book, In Search of the City on a Hill: The Making and Unmaking of an American Myth. It is a deconstruction of the Puritan and American abuse of the biblical metaphor when applied to either Massachusetts Bay or the United States. Here’s a tantalizing excerpt (thanks to our friends at The Imaginative Conservative):
Whether Jesus had in view only his chosen disciples, his followers in general, or the universal Church he promised to build, he clearly did not address the metaphors of salt, light, and city to the Roman Empire of his day. He could have done so. Others living during roughly the same era did just that. A century earlier, the Roman statesman Cicero combined two of these three images when he warned his fellow Senators at the time of Catiline’s conspiracy that he “seem[ed] to see this city, the light of the whole world and the fortress of all the nations, suddenly involved in one general conflagration.” Centuries earlier, the Athenian general and statesman Pericles had praised his city as a model to all the Greeks. Jesus, in contrast, gave these metaphors to his Church and not to an earthly kingdom. At some point in history—we will never know when—someone first applied the city metaphor to something or someone other than Jesus’ disciples, to something or someone outside the boundaries of the Christian church. That may not have happened for many centuries. It may not have happened first and only in America. But along the way it became commonplace to talk about America as the embodiment of Jesus’ hilltop city.
It is not natural or inevitable that America should have been given this sacred identity. The path from first-century Palestine to twenty-first century America is not an obvious one. Nor is the path from a sermon about life in the Kingdom of God to blogs about national destiny. Along that path, individual Americans did something to Jesus’ metaphor that changed it. Gradually or abruptly, intentionally or not, they helped remake the “city on a hill” from “a metaphor into a myth,” to borrow a phrase from historian Michael McGiffert. Even if we cannot pinpoint the exact moment of transformation, we will see in the following pages that at one time Americans chiefly used the “city on a hill” to describe something transcendent and theological, and then at a later time chiefly to describe something earthly and political. The transition required nothing less than the unmaking of a biblical metaphor and the making of a national myth.
Old Life 
Its abuse started with the Puritan idea of a national covenant, an idea which I’m still trying to get my pea-brain wrapped around on. An excellent read, so far.
LikeLike
I thought Reagan said it first…
The Native Americans must have been thrilled to learn that they were the 17th century version of the Canaanites.
LikeLike
For those interested, we’re going through the book over at PB.
LikeLike
I have Matthew Tuininga implying that even though one holds a 2k theology, one cannot be a Christian with a libertarian philosophy yet Darryl is able to don a 2k shield to defend an egalitarian home life.
Maybe I missed the boat… but these applications of 2k seem worlds apart. Am I alone on this one?
LikeLike
Lewis – Maybe 2K doesn’t have much to do with either situation. Does 2K determine which kind of toothpaste I buy? A Christian can be a libertarian because paying more taxes does not automatically equal more help for the poor. The bureaucracy has a way of siphoning off a lot of that “help” and even when it gets to the poor it may actually hurt them more than help them. I have read Tuininga and he is a smart guy but he may want to spend some time actually working in the private sector. I suspect he’s been in school for an awful long time. 2K also doesn’t have much to say about how D.G. & the Mrs. divide up the chores.
LikeLike
Lewis, do you have a link for the Matthew Tuininga implication?
LikeLike
Looks like a very helpful book, I hope to read it in the future.
In regards to the poor, the United States dumps trillions of dollars a year to help the supposed poor and yet…the more we spend the more “poor” we seem to have. Money by itself is ordinarily not the sole means of helping the poor. For over 60 years we have attempted as a nation to make money the sole means, at the cost of family, friend, and church help, and the result is a lot less money and the same amount of poor with fewer and fewer desiring or attempting to move out of the status.
It is a vicious downward cycle we are enterring and more Libertarian policies in government may help pull out of the dive, but regardless, the city on the hill is not dimming, shrinking, or imploding, because the city on the hill has nothing to do with the United States of America as a country.
Does the book make reference to the “Patriot’s Bible” anywhere?
LikeLike
I like the sound of this book! Thanks for the post, Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
MM,
I can’t find the piece but I read Where Tuininga saw light between where DVD was/is going with his NL developments as it pertained to the christian in society and where Dr. Hart is going with his 2k political implications. If I remember correctly, Tuininga sees Dr. Hart developing rather rigid dichotomies between the christian’s personal and public life(including political activism) whereas DVD is more amenable and ‘aggressive’ in applying NL principles to public policy stands. Whether this is a matter of focus or actual divergence I couldn’t tell you. I have a feeling Dr. Hart and DVD talk, if not regularly, at least they see themselves pulling in the same direction-Office Hours at West.West for example. I’ve read them both and I think maybe Tuininga is more sympathetic with social justice issues and maybe sees more opportunity for those developments in DVD’s writing than Darryl’s political leanings. Just from what I’ve read I don’t see much, if any light, between the two, but what do I know.
LikeLike
MM,
Here it is; http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-two-kingdoms-doctrine-whats-the-fuss-all-about-part-one.php
I think Tuininga’s social justice slip might be showing a bit with his criticisms.
LikeLike
And, “what do I know?” too, but IMO the quest to pinpoint exactly how much activism 2k requires betrays a basic misunderstanding of 2K. How about letting each individual decide if he would rather be a political activist, engage in a book study at the public library, or work in his yard?
Anyway, I don’t quite understand how one can call Dr. Hart indifferent to politics when he teaches at HIllsdale and just wrote a book about reclaiming political conservatism.
LikeLike
Sean and MM, it may be fair to say that in matters cultural there are 2kers given more to transformation and those more to preservation. But the suggestion that the latter are indifferent to the concerns of this world is not only a bad reading but also might suggest one is more the former.
LikeLike
Tuininga’s point is basically, “Yeah, you can embrace 2K, but don’t think that that absolves you of the need to remember the poor — through the government.” He’s not overboard about it, but there is an element of finger-wagging there. He finds sympathy from commenters who seem to work in academia (sorry D.G.) and in government. There are more recent posts than the one Sean cites.
LikeLike
Zrim,
That’s my read as well, although maybe it’s just that Tuininga is a little less enamored with satirical or polemical styles. His criticism that Darryl obscures the already-not yet tension falls flat in my estimation.
LikeLike
MT says “Part of the problem is that Hart says relatively little about the ongoing validity and binding authority of natural law, in contrast to classic versions of the two kingdoms doctrine, which include substantive accounts of natural law. This makes it possible at times to get the (false) impression that Hart thinks there is no determinative moral standard for Christian political or cultural engagement…. Unlike Hart, VanDrunen articulates (and is continuing to articulate) a rigorous doctrine of natural law that demonstrates the moral character of all of life under Christ’s lordship.”
There could be an actual difference there, or it could be that DGH lets the lawyer do most of the talking about natural law while he concentrates on issues closer to his expertise.
Hey, maybe he’s reading this! Any comment, DGH?
LikeLike
Sean – Is “NL” (natural law, I assume) akin to the “Covenant with Noah” that DVD talks about so much in “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”?
Or do I need to read DVD’s bigger book to get his take on Natural Law (or maybe I just need to finish the shorter one).
LikeLike
MM,
Dinga Ding. That’s where I’d put my money. That, and not everyone digs the stylings of P.J. O’Rourke and Mencken. To say nothing of Phil Hendrie.
LikeLike
Erik,
Yes. That’s the Covenantal enshrinement, if you will. That’s coupled with Rom 2:15 and human beings created Imago Dei.
LikeLike
DVD’s NL2K is tracing the historical developments. Definitely needs a read. Living in G2K is the BT(bibical theological treatment)-relies heavily on Kline and Horton.
LikeLike
“Unpopular but needed correction.” Maybe it should be his grave’s inscription. Or maybe he’s Calvinist to the end and will go unmarked.
LikeLike
MenM, Sean, Erik and Zrim, I’m planning to post something about Matt’s piece. On my neglect of NL, one obvious answer — which is what MM was getting at — is that I was writing history, not theology. Historians generally don’t prescribe. It doesn’t seem to me that what I’ve written is anti-NL.
I also think the observation about Matt’s social justice instincts are worth pondering. His rendering of 2k might come out differently than an American who advocates federalism, republicanism, agrarianism and inefficient government.
LikeLike
My 5-year-old is showing amazing 2K sensibility in his political thinking . We asked him today who we should vote for. He said Romney. When we asked him why he said, “He has handsome hair”.
LikeLike
MM,
http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/does-the-christian-tradition-agree-that-property-rights-trump-the-rights-of-the-poor/
There are a series of 3 posts.
Matt’s basic premise is that there is a “Christian political theological tradition” and any political philosophies outside of the bounds of the “Christian political theological tradition” are invalid because they are not guided directly by Christian theology. His main point is that Christian theology requires some form of redistribution of wealth, so therefore Christians cannot oppose a government policy of redistribution of wealth on moral or philosophical grounds.
I am still confused as to why Christians must support government policy that enforces biblical morality (redistribution of wealth for the poor), but still hold to a separation of church and state. Why should the government enforce biblical morality and not enforce worshiping the right God (the source of all morality)? I still don’t have an answer.
For the record I’m all for Christians of all political persuasions. Even those who want to use the state to enforce some form of biblical morality or social justice. I just don’t think we should exclude those who advocate federalism, republicanism, agrarianism (including those mean ole libertarians) by using the “Christian political theological tradition” as a way to discredit their ideas.
LikeLike
Lewis, MT seems to be making a relatively modest point:
“There are good reasons why Christians can oppose socialism and the welfare state while remaining solidly in step with the Christian political theological tradition. I am not defending Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, or any other particular political policy.
But I do take issue with arguments that suggest people have absolute property rights that the government cannot infringe upon, not even for the sake of justice for the poor.”
IMO it’s fairly safe to argue that property rights are not “absolute.”
LikeLike
MM,
My issue is that MT does not define “absolute property rights” nor describe how a libertarian political philosophy holds to this view of property rights. By “absolute property rights” he seems to be implying that ALL libertarians hold John Locke’s view “that human beings possess property before they enter into any significant social or legal connections, and that therefore no social or legal body has the right to take that property from them (post 1).”
I don’t have a problem with arguing against “absolute property rights” as defined by Locke. IMHO there’s nothing absolute except for God himself. Not all libertarians hold to John Locke’s epistemology. Libertarian political philosophy does not supply a foundation for its sole premise (the Non-Aggression Principle), nor does it supply an epistemology. This is a common misconception among social conservative Christians. They mistake libertarian political philosophy for Libertinism and therefore a worldview opposed to Christianity. Libertarian political philosophy, once again, is not a worldview, it is a description of one’s view as it pertains to government/the use of force only.
In MT’s third post, he states that “There are good reasons why Christians can oppose socialism and the welfare state while remaining solidly in step with the Christian political theological tradition.” He then lists only utilitarian or pragmatic reasons to oppose socialism and the welfare state. He eliminates the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, a moral principle, because it does not fit within the “Christian political theological tradition.”
While his point is “relatively modest point” on the surface, it has very immodest philosophical and theological implications for those who hold a libertarian, or for that matter, any form of a limited government philosophy.
LikeLike
Hi fellows, just read your conversation. Mikelmann is right; I tried to be eminently clear that I was not defending a welfare state approach to the redistribution of wealth. I believe that Christian political theology (a combination of the teaching of Scripture, natural law, and the historical consensus of the church) gives general insights on basic problems but that it does not teach a specific set of policies. Its insights do, however, sometimes indicate that certain political frameworks are inadequate. I believe the tradition demonstrates that the far left (i.e., communism) as well as the far right (i.e., radical libertarianism) are out of sync with basic biblical teaching. Lewis, my problem with your libertarianism is just as much with your claims regarding the government’s use of force as it is with anything else.
That said, I myself am a small-government conservative. Darryl, you write, “I also think the observation about Matt’s social justice instincts are worth pondering. His rendering of 2k might come out differently than an American who advocates federalism, republicanism, agrarianism and inefficient government.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I strongly affirm federalism and republicanism (I am a fairly strict constructionist and always prefer the states’ rights approach), don’t know enough about agrarianism, and believe government is generally very inefficient (I worked for it for two years and left for a reason; I get it :-)). I believe civil society should be the primary means of poor relief. But is it really so radical to argue that it is (local) government’s task to ensure that the poor receive justice (i.e., that civil society does its job?)
LikeLike
Matt,
I agree that local governments are best suited to deliver relief to the poor but the national government has employed so much coercion against state and local governments through regulation and the threat of witholding federal funds if certain conditions are not met that state and local officials are willing to give up their sovereignty over to the federal government.
Unfortunately, neither major party is interested in reducing the reach of the federal government and libertarianism is the only viable option to return to federalism. It seems to me that if some form of libertarianism were to take control then local communities and private charities would naturally rise up to help the poor.
LikeLike
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/books/review/ted-widmer-on-john-winthrop.html?ref=review&_r=0
Interesting that he has no reference to Richard Gamble’s new book.
LikeLike
Having experienced how others treat you when you are making a good chunk of change as opposed to how you get treated when you are financially abased may give my comments some weight. The solution to the plight of the poor in this country may be better solved by a spiritually gifted and called deaconal ministry at local churches throughout this great country of ours. That is how the churches of the New Testament dealt with the problem. And perhaps not questioning how the poor got to be poor but assessing their belief in the Gospel may be a better indicator of when to dole out help or not. Our intuitive response to those who are in dire straights financially is to put them through a rigorous regiment in order to “prove” their repentance. And the attitude is one of punishment rather than discipline and restoration of what has been lost by however it occured. Most people want to heap more burdens on the poor than they already have. At least that has been my experience.
One more thing, don’t let those with vindictive Arminian leanings in their theology head up the deaconal ministries. The deaconal ministry in the New Testament was one of the more important functions of the local church and they spent a lot of time and prayer in making sure they had the right people heading up that ministry. They even laid hands on them and imparted the spiritual gift to the deacons.
LikeLike