The response to last week’s post about the similarities between the religious right and political Islam is in (at least from the person who inspired the comparison) and it seems to be to deny the point about the ways in which Christians and Muslims object to secular society simply by stamping feet harder and louder. Bill Evans is back with this rejoinder (though it is not all about me):
Some are opposed to Christian political involvement on theological grounds. Here we think of the current proponents in Reformed circles of the so-called “two-kingdoms” doctrine (2K). According to this way of thinking, Christians have no business involving themselves as Christians in the political process, nor of proclaiming that there is a Christian position on the issues of the day. Such political activity, it is argued, fails to recognize the essentially spiritual mission of the Church, and to acknowledge that the task of the Church is to prepare people for the hereafter, not to work for political or social transformation. Some 2K advocates (e.g., here) have recently upped the rhetorical ante, suggesting that there is no essential difference between Christians who seek cultural transformation and Muslims seeking to impose Sharia law.
Although my main point here is not to provide an extended critique of current Reformed 2K thinking, I do have significant reservations about it. I tend to agree with the standard objections—that it has rather little connection to the two-kingdoms theme in Calvin and the earlier Reformed tradition (Calvin certainly thought that Geneva should be governed in accordance with broadly Christian principles), and that it confuses the Kingdom of God and the Church (biblically speaking, the Kingdom involves the Church but is not coextensive with it). Moreover, its working assumption that there is no middle ground of principled pluralism between theocracy and 2K is certainly open to question, and I sense that what traction 2K is getting stems largely from the fact that it provides a theological fig leaf for the evangelical culture-war fatigue referenced earlier.
Not to be missed is that Evans’ main point is that Christians have an obligation to engage the culture war (say, hello to Abraham Kuyper):
Simply put, a refusal to engage the cultural and political issues of the day is no longer an option for thoughtful conservative Christians in America. The battle has been forced upon us. Reasons for this have to do with current political realities, especially the wholesale shift of administrative power to a technocratic elite with a rather clear progressive social agenda. Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism has recently explored this development in an insightful article in The Weekly Standard. Smith writes, “Liberals today seek to create a stable, and what they perceive to be a socially just, society via rule by experts—in which most of the activities of society are micromanaged by technocrats for the economic and social benefit of the whole. In other words, social democracy without the messiness of democracy, like the European Union’s rule-by-bureaucrats-in-Brussels. This is the ‘fundamental transformation’ that President Obama seeks to implement in this country.” . . . If Smith is correct, and I think he is, culturally conservative religion and religious believers are in the crosshairs of these secular, culturally progressive technocratic elites.
This is a remarkable misreading of 2k and American politics. First the theology bit.
Evans, who is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, should know something about J. Gresham Machen who advocated the church staying out of politics (a 2k view) but then turned around and testified before Congress against the Department of Education, for instance. The lesson Machen taught me at least is that 2k is not opposed to Christian political involvement. What 2k opposes is the blurring of categories and confusion of arguments that so often afflicts Christians who either want to redeem the world or fear the world is out to get them. What is more, 2k actually follows the categories supplied by Reformed orthodoxy, such as the Westminster Confession.
Notice that within the Confession Christian involvement in politics has three possible expressions — believers, church officers, and Christians who hold political office.
On the involvement of Christians: It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. (23.2)
On the involvement of church officers as members of assemblies (and all Presbyterian pastors are members of presbyteries, not congregations): Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. (31.4)
On the involvement of the magistrate, well here you may get a difference of opinion, but the revised confession says: It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance. (23.3)
I believe this would apply to Christian magistrates protecting Muslims even though Islam is not Christian. Even the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, for which Evans works (at Erskine Seminary) allows the possibility of Christian magistrates in a secular country protecting Muslims:
Christian magistrates, as such, in a Christian country, are bound to promote the Christian religion, as the most valuable interest of their subjects, by all such means as are not inconsistent with civil rights; and do not imply an interference with the policy of the church, which is the free and independent kingdom of the Redeemer; nor an assumption of dominion over conscience. (23.3 ARPC Confession of Faith)
Since the United States is not a Christian country (just ask the Covenanters), the part about promoting the Christian religion is off.
What this adds up to is that 2k is once again tried and true according to the confessional heritage of the Reformed churches. I don’t suppose that Evans faults 2k for teaching that Christians may participate in politics (whether we turn into a Kuyperian holy duty is another matter but that sacred cause of politics is not something that Reformed Christians have adopted as part of their confession). Evans may disagree with 2k for arguing that churches should not meddle in politics. But that’s an issue he should likely take up with the Westminster Divines.
Perhaps the real disagreement comes over the nature of the magistrate. Here comes the political part of the post. Again, I wish that 2k’s critics would just once notice how practically all of the Reformed churches, liberal and conservative, have revised the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century chapters on the duties of the civil magistrate. But let’s go one step farther. Let’s say that Evans wants the kind of magistrate taught by the Westminster Divines, the one who can call councils and synods, be present at them, insure that they follow the word of God in Constantine like fashion, not to mention have the power to abolish heresies and blasphemies. If that is the kind of magistrate Evans wants, isn’t that what he has with today’s “technocratic elite” who are increasingly regulating more and more aspects of human life? Of course, the problem for him is that today’s politicians are not Christian and are not implementing Christian orthodoxy and morality. But if his fear is of a powerful state that can interfere with all parts of our affairs, wouldn’t the magistrate envisioned by the original Westminster Confession of Faith be the kind of big government that Evans believes Christians should oppose?
This is why if you want small government you should spend more time reading not the Bible but the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Bible has virtually nothing to say directly to check and balances, constitutions, executives, legislatures, and judiciaries. But the framers of the U.S. Constitution and their critics did.
2k gives a better reason to oppose the technocratic elites than Evans’ dismissal of 2k does on the way to a call for culture war (jihad?). It frees Christians to take their cues politically from non-believers. Evans appears to be left with either the Bible or the sixteenth-century Constantinian order which give him no grounds for a constitutional republic. Aside from a different religion, how is that different from political Islam?
Old Life 
dgh: Let’s say that Evans wants the kind of magistrate taught by the Westminster Divines, the one who can call councils and synods, be present at them, insure that they follow the word of God in Constantine like fashion, not to mention have the power to abolish heresies and blasphemies.
mark: Evans didn’t deny that he wants all that, did he? Gary Demar and Doug Wilson will lead the way, and do it better this time than Constantine ever did. Why are you so self-righteous about good Christians like Constantine and Augustine? Don’t you know we are all sinners? So why pick on those old guys and those who now want to follow their example? Don’t you believe in the “great man” view of history in which you should have a starring role?
And Doug Wilson would be even more famous.
LikeLike
Very nice. What Evans is advocating is great (not really, but I’ll play along) — as long as you can get your people in power. If you are not in power, look out. This is why we hear that every election is “the most important in our nation’s history”. Would things really have been much different in a Gore administration than in a Bush administration? Is Romney really our savior? The biggest thing people who oppose 2K need to do is take a deep breath. What do you really think your activism is going to get you?
The Original Reformed Creeds & Confessions need to be read in their proper context. Whether the Civil Magistrate protected you or persecuted you was a life & death issue in the 16th & 17th centuries. Not so much in 21st Century America.
LikeLike
Mark – Wilson and his like-minded CREC members always say this reality is hundreds or thousands of years from now and most people will want it that way (because the world is becoming more and more Christian). Doug will be long-gone.
LikeLike
We all beat up on Wilson but he is a nice man personally. I sat across the table with him at lunch at a marriage & family conference he put on at a PCA church in St. Paul years ago. He’s an interesting fellow. Go ahead & throw tomatoes at me…
And no, I’m not defending the Federal Vision.
LikeLike
D.G. has spoken at his (Wilson’s) conferences, I’m pretty sure.
LikeLike
It seems like Mr. Evans and his ilk do not have a problem with technocrats per se, but with technocrats who do not agree with their theological understanding of the bible. Their political playbook implies that secular technocrats = bad, while Christian technocrats = good. The problem with this playbook, is that Mr. Evans always needs to have his Christian technocrats in power . And there’s the rub…. how do you get your technocrat in power? For the answer, a reading of European history of the middle ages will do.
LikeLike
As a Reformed guy I have always found the notion that the Civil Magistrate should enforce the first table of the law to be odd. It’s does seem like Islam. Let’s see – We should punish a man who is a heretic — who we believe is headed to hell — with death…So he can go to hell sooner? Do we not entrust judgment to God? It sounds like a good way to get everyone saying (not necessarily believing) the right thing, though.
It seems like the place we should be concerned with heresy is within the church, not in the world. We believe that God will save and protect those who are His from heresy even if it is allowed to remain in the world.
If non-2K folks don’t want to go so far as having the Civil Magistrate enforce the first table they need to decide exactly what they do want him to do. You get wildly different answers depending on who you ask.
LikeLike
Erik,
Speaking as a PCA churchman; ‘nevermind the tomatoes, how do you feel about beer bottles’?!
LikeLike
Excellent post, Darryl…
LikeLike
e: the notion that the Civil Magistrate should enforce the first table of the law to be odd.
mark: why? It’s a very Augustinian notion. Aren’t Calvinists Augustinians (except for the regeneration by water baptism thing)? God has two swords, two cities, and the citizens of each shall be the same.
LikeLike
D.G.,
Are you familiar with the work of Robert Audi on religion’s place in a democratic society (e.g.)? If you’ve read his work I’d be interested in hearing what you think, maybe a post here on Old Life about it, eh, eh?
LikeLike
Sean- If you threw me something dark I would certainly drink it.
LikeLike
ja, but vat if ze technocrats are against natural law, can i disobey zem? vat does ze confessions zay? (this may be where things get muddled)
LikeLike
gas, why does it seem you’re always looking for a way to disobey? But if Jesus and Paul obeyed magistrates who thought they were deity, denying natural law (whatever that means) seems hardly a green light.
LikeLike
“Muddle” is the word for it. Personally, I’m not all that sick of the “culture wars” – I think there are some pretty good fights worth having. But what I am sick of are the notions that (a) I have the obligation to be as wound up about this or that issue as somebody else, and I’m a feckless Christian if not; and that (b) we, as members of our churches, need our pastors (and seminary professors) to tell us to get off our rear ends and engage in political and cultural matters. R.L. Dabney opened up a can of whoop*** on the politically-active churchmen of his day. In “Preachers and Politics”) he hits the nail on the head:
“And last, he who undertakes the work of the social philosopher, the legislator, the politician,
will diminish his energies, zeal, time, and influence for promoting his higher object. He will
waste on the less those energies of head and heart which were all needed for the greater. He will
shut up his access for good to all the minds which are opposed to him on these secular questions,
and thus incur a hindrance which will incapacitate him for his own Master’s work, by undertaking
work which belonged to other people. What is this but treason?”
LikeLike
GAS, last I checked WordPress does not put a character limit on comments.
LikeLike
Zrimsky,
“2k gives a better reason to oppose the technocratic elites… It frees Christians to take their cues politically from non-believers.” (whatever that means)
LikeLike
Patrick, I read his exchange with Wolterstorff about a decade ago. I remember being dissatisfied with NW. But RA doesn’t leap to mind. Refresh my memory.
LikeLike
GAS, it means what the post said in more words than your drive by’s. Duh. Read the debates over the Constitution, don’t read the Bible, if you want to understand problems of big government.
LikeLike
I must say that with this post, it is all about you. Well done. I can accept the “culture warriors” or at least understand them having grown up Arminian in the South with that innate distrust of all human institutions. I don’t agree with them much beyond a few critical issues but I can understand them. It is the “cultural redeemers” I just can’t fathom.
LikeLike
gas, it follows Calvin’s point about the admirable abilities of pagans. An additional advantage is that it avoids Evans’ all-of-lifery tendency to fabricate persecution in order to justify culture warriorism, which ends up having the same whiny tone Adam did–the woman (and the devil) made me do it.
Now, what’s it mean for a magistrate to deny natural law which then justifies disobedience?
LikeLike
Hart, those actors from the start were filthy sinners for disobeying the magistrate. How can we trust them to know anything about big government?
Zrim, I’m trying to follow the logic and I’m getting dizzy. We know the pagan is smart because special revelation says so. We should obey the pagan magistrate because special revelation says so. But let’s never use special revelation to tell us anything about the natural world. No wonder why poor Evan is so confused.
What it mean for the magistrate to deny natural law?… I don’t know maybe… murder citizens under his control, steal from them, use fraud against them, teach them to covet their neighbors goods?
LikeLike
gas, all of which Jesus’ and Paul’s magistrates did, on top of thinking they were gods. And yet, what is the command? Obey.
But does anybody really need the Bible to detect intelligence when they see it?
LikeLike
TurturroFan – Great comment and quote!
The Big Lebowski, Miller’s Crossing, or Rounders? Which was the best performance?
Although you may be referring to Aida Turturro (Janice Soprano).
LikeLike
Zrim, why are you using special revelation to say something about the natural world. That’s a 2k no-no.
LikeLike
gas,
Come on now, GR and SR inform each other yet without violating their dominion over their respective spheres. Look at that, that’s at least 3 contemporary strains in one sentence. I rock.
LikeLike
sean, nice try.
I’m just following the logic here.
Whether I obey or disobey the magistrate is something that occurs in the natural world. The natural world is ruled by natural law. Special revelation doesn’t speak to the natural world. Therefore, special revelation doesn’t speak to obeying/disobeying the magistrate.
Let’s face it, that makes me the more consistent 2ker (neener neener).
LikeLike
Gas,
Huh? When SR tells you that NL is adequate to temporal concerns outside the cult, and oh btw, according to the WCF sometimes NL is adequate to the ordering of the affairs of the cult, even in worship no less. I win.
LikeLike
gas, you’re a filthy sinner for breaking God’s law every day (with me). So why should I take anything you write seriously?
LikeLike
Sean, congratulations on the win, but what did you win?
LikeLike
gas, so now you’re not only a sinner but a God-denier. Disobedience only takes place in the natural world? Not before God?
And you also deny creation? The human body is part of the natural world. God’s revelation addresses humans. God’s revelation addresses part of the natural world.
Just following your drive by logic.
Maybe you want to speak in more than bumper stickers.
LikeLike
Hart, only take serious that which supports the magistrate? I get it… the Church shouldn’t be involved in politics… agreed. That doesn’t answer the question about what individual Christians should do about a unlawful magistrate. If I follow Zrim, I use special revelation and just take it. But that then looks like a confusion of the spheres, not unlike that which you are criticizing. So it appears I can’t win. If I oppose the magistrate based on natural law then why am I then being blamed for being unchristian?
LikeLike
Which brings us back to the question of why we should even listen to those God-denying Founders?
LikeLike
GAS, go ahead and rebel. It will get you locked up where I hope there is no internet access.
Is your point to find a “glitch” in 2k or are you seriously interested in trying to discern the difference between Jerry Falwell and John Calvin?
LikeLike
gas, go ahead and disregard the founders and their law. It will get you locked up where I hope there is no internet access.
LikeLike
Hart, I’m just trying to understand the glitch. Sorry that upsets you.
LikeLike
Eric C., let’s think about Gore vs. Bush. (Relating to your 1st comment.) 1. Bush halted federal embryonic stem-cell research. 2. Bush made some important judicial appointments.3. I believe Bush kept in force Reagan’s “Mexico City” policy banning some (or all?) U.S. funding of international abortion agencies (I write from memory, and am open to correction, if necessary). 4. Bush always was endorsed fully by National Right to Life and affiliated groups. These quick issues sure point to not negligible differences for Christians between Gore and W.
LikeLike
gas, if you’re the more consistent 2ker then why are you trying to find a glitch? What’s more, what’s wrong with glitch’s? Your QIRC slip is showing. But how is it a confusion of the spheres to heed the Bible’s imperatives about obedience?
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m not trying to find it… it’s the elephant in the room. And what a convienent tool that anti-QIRC mentality is… one can use it for all their inconsistencies. Theonomists, of course, claim they are heeding the Bible’s imperatives about obedience.
LikeLike
gas, yes, which means they obey perfectly secular civil magistrates. Not a terribly consistent theory and practice–see, no QIRC tool. But if they can as theos, why do you find it so hard as a 2ker?
LikeLike
gas, what glitch? you simply disagree. That doesn’t make 2k wrong, any more than the way you frame your drive by’s makes you a God denier and a gnostic.
LikeLike
Zrim, you talking about the theos that oppose the technocrats and their multiculturalism, the same as the Muslims… these are the ones that perfectly obey the secular magistrate?
LikeLike
Hart, here I am still driving by despite your best wishes that I lose my internet access. But I get it. You want the stinkin culture warriers to stop thinking less about establishing the kingdom of God on earth and more about doctrine and piety in their churches, and you think that obeying the magistrate will accomplish that goal. I agree with your goal but don’t agree that the means ncessarily will accomplish the goal through the framework of 2k. Seems Luther found that out in a hurry. Having cake and eating it appear to be two separate things. Or so history seems to suggest.
LikeLike
What is QIRC?
Re. Bush vs. Gore – I’m no Gore fan, but I do question if we would have fought 2 unpaid for wars if he had been in office. The financial system meltdown happened on Bush’s watch. He cut taxes while spending money and creating new entitlements like a Democrat. He said he didn’t take the Bible literally and said that Muslims & Christians worship the same God, and on and on. I am also a bit skeptical of the connection between who is in power and abortion. Even if abortion was illegal there would still be plenty of them (less, but plenty). I just think Christians kid themselves when they say, “If only X were in charge Y would be so much better”. Human sin will remain with us until the end, as will the Christian Church. The latter is the only place I look to for hope. I do vote, I just don’t put much stock in it.
LikeLike
What is QIRC?
LikeLike
Erik,
Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty(QIRC)- as coined by Scott Clark in Recovering the Reformed Confession
LikeLike
Oh, what the CTC’s guys do.
Re: Politicians and abortion. I do have a lot of respect for politicians who walk the talk when it comes to pro-life, especially when they go against their own party. This means a Democrat who is pro-life at all or a Republican who pushes other Republicans beyond their comfort level.
LikeLike
stop=start. Now I’m
LikeLike
less QIRC
LikeLike
Erik,
Yes
Gas,
Not so much. Think Venn Diagram.
LikeLike
I find it ironic that Evans suggests that our current class of political elites are bent on replacing our Constitutional republic with a secular technocratic state. After all, Evans is basically proposing that we replace our Constitutional republic with a Christian technocratic state.
Frankly, I sometimes wonder what world these guys live in. According to them, the sky always seems to be falling down. Except that…it isn’t.
LikeLike
I’ll just say, Eric, that who is in charge does make a difference. Would Nixon have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis the same as Kennedy masterfully did? Following WW2, General Patton wanted to push the Soviets by force back to their borders. He was relieved of his command, as I recall. I’m sure glad the conservative Wisconsin governor survived political challenges and is implementing sane fiscal gov’t policies. As Joseph and Daniel aided the public weal, so do wise magistrates today, “to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency.” Belgic Confession Art. 36 m among them with good order and decency.” (Belgic Confession Art. 36)
LikeLike
gas, don’t rebel. Obey the law. Stay on line. Read more. when has 2k ever said that obeying the magistrate will produce better churches. What 2k says — in case you missed it — is that the church holds the keys of THE kingdom. So the magistrate’s business is not as important.
LikeLike
DGH wrote:
What 2k says — in case you missed it — is that the church holds the keys of THE kingdom. So the magistrate’s business is not as important.
Concise! And one of the two is passing away.
So, as individuals, be at liberty to lend aid to the public weal. Just don’t lose your balance.
LikeLike
gas, disagreeing isn’t the same as disobeying. Pushing back on technocrats and their multiculturalism seems different from the “taxation is theft” meme you’ve pushed before. And since Jesus’ own point about rendering was really a point about obedience and submission (not so much filing honestly and on time), the meme is one about disobedience. So the next question is: Why do you disagree with Jesus?
LikeLike
I certainly agree with dgh, zrim, and jack that there’s no point in rebellion against that which will pass away. Though I don’t usually quote Karl Barth (because he is a universalist with a false double-talking gospel), I do find his comments on Romans 13 to be very suggestive of the attitude we need to have as we submit to that which is not ultimately important.
Barth: “The travesty is that men should, as a matter of course, claim to possess a higher right over their fellow men, that they should, as a matter of course, dare to regulate almost all their conduct, that those who put forward such a manifestly fraudulent claim should be crowned with a halo of real power and should be capable of requiring obedience and sacrifice as though they had been invested with the authority of God, that the Many should conspire to speak as though they were the One… This whole pseudo-transcendence claimed by an altogether immanent order is the wound that is inflicted by every existing government–even by the best. The more successfully the good and the right assume power, the more they become evil (Romans, p. 479)
Barth: From this perception of the evil that lies in the very existence of existing government, Revolution is born. The revolutionary seeks to be rid of the evil by bestirring himself to battle with it and to overthrow it. He determines to remove the existing ordinances, in order that he may erect in their place the new right…. The revolutionary must, however, own that in adopting his plan he allows
himself to be overcome of evil (Rom. 12:21) He forgets that he is not the One, that for all the strange brightness of his eyes, he is not the Christ….The revolutionary is overcome of evil. This is the tragedy of revolution. Evil is not the true answer to evil. (Romans, p.480)
Barth: What more radical action can one perform than the action of turning back to the original root of “not-doing”–and NOT be angry, NOT engage in assault, NOT demolish? This turning back is the ethical factor in the command, Overcome evil with good. Romans 12:21 There is here no word of approval of the existing order; but there is disapproval of every enemy of it. It is God who will be recognized as He that overcomes the unrighteousness of the existing order. (Romans, p.481)
Barth: Let every man be in subjection to the existing powers (Rom. 13:1). Though “subjection” may assume from time to time many various concrete forms, as an ethical conception it is here purely negative. IT MEANS TO WITHDRAW AND MAKE WAYI; it means to have no resentment, and not to overthrow. …. Even the most radical revolution CAN DO NO MORE THAN SET WHAT EXISTS AGAINST WHAT EXISTS. Even the most radical revolution–and this is so even when it is called a “spiritual” or “peaceful” revolution–can be no more than a revolt; that is to say, it is in itself simply a justification and confirmation of what already exists (Romans, pp.481-82)
Barth: It is evident that there can be no more devastating undermining of the existing order than the recognition of it which is here recommended, a recognition rid of all illusion and devoid of all the joy of triumph ,a recognizing of them for what they are, “FULL OF SOUND AND FURY, SIGNIFYING NOTHING (Romans, p.483)
LikeLike
Erik,
Going waaaaaaay back in the comments, yes, John Turturro, and I’d have to say Lebowski (though it has been a long time since I’ve seen Millers’ Crossing, and – lame fan that I am – I have not seen Rounders). The handle was somewhat of a tongue in cheek play on TurretinFan. Is he still around?
TFan II
LikeLike
Calvin, Institutes, book 4—-Whoever knows how to distinguish between this fleeting life and that future spiritual life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. It is a Jewish vanity to seek and enclose Christ’s Kingdom within the elements of this world…..
Verduin, p68–“Great allegorizer that he was, Augustine managed to overpower another Scripture to suit his purpose. Augustine found what he needed in the family situation of Abraham where there were two wives, one a free woman and the other a slave. By this Augustine justified the presence of two kinds of Christians in the church (in both water baptism and Supper), one kind by faith and the other kind without faith….If anyone does not of his own accord have himself regenerated by baptism, he shall be coerced to it by the king.”
LikeLike
What I read @ OLT today made me come out of hiding from some strange fellow Christian Brothers!— “There is no essential difference between Christians who seek cultural transformation, and Muslims seeking to impose Sharia law.” Wow! If I understand “cult.trans.,” “impose”, and “Sharia law”, and I feel sure I do, then that is the most anti-Biblical, non-Reformed, ignorant, junk I have heard in all my 84 years— 64 as a Christian and 58 as a WTS grad! Sleight exaggeration! Doesn’t anyone see that Islam is not just a religion? Not protected by First Amendment? In our language, it is both “church” AND state? One Kingdom? Not as evil as King George III in Founding Fathers’ day. but just as evil and dangerous to our USA as was (1K) Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union of the last century? Thank God for Abraham Kuyper and Focus on the Family!
LikeLike
Bob,
I somewhat disagree with Darryl, on the nature of ‘true’ Islam and where it has the potential to end up as regards nation/state considerations. However, to the extent christians politicize their faith and extend the great commission to culture transformation projects from moral majority types all the way to the reconstructionists, the rhetoric from both sides is eerily similar. And if we want to return to medieval erastian constructs, even without the whole roman bit, has the potential to get just as bloody.
LikeLike
Thanks for reply, Sean, Must go, but all I am saying is that we should all read Tom Minnery’s book, as plugged by Hugh Hewitt and many others, (Why We Must Not Be Silent), at least vote and try, without war, to help our USA at least get back to the world of our Founding Fathers. Love in Jesus, Bob Morris. PS. I can’t for my life see why DGH and others with his particular view of Two Kingdoms, should criticize great guys like Peter A. Lillback, prez of WTS!
LikeLike
Bob, you have to get out more. The words you quote are not from Old Life but from Bill Evans. He could have said “no difference.” That wouldn’t describe my position either. But he added “essential” to make the comparison all the more nutty.
But political Islamists and some Christians do object to secularism on the similar grounds of appealing to special revelation. I didn’t make that up. I simply noticed.
And for what it’s worth, here’s the comment of someone you should respect — an evangelical at the Gospel Coalition — who notices the same similarity:
LikeLike
Bob,
Without being too contrarian and considering myself a 2ker, I have to say Darryl does a good job of keeping the gloves on when it comes to the ‘in-house’ scuffles. Personally, I’d like to see some trials. Alas, politics are everywhere and the faculty lounge is in no-wise immune. Part of what 2K and reformed theology is supposed to do for us, is relegate all humans to non-hero status and turn our hope on Jesus Christ. There are no ultimate political or cultural solutions this side of glory. I like Paul’s advice to live quietly, mind your own business, and work with your hands or Jeremiah’s advice to the Israelites carried away in captivity. Jer. 29:7
LikeLike
Bob, if you set aside your American lenses for a moment you might see the comparison a little better. A large part of what gets in the way may be national pride.
LikeLike
William Cavanaugh–“The Muslim world plays the role of religious other. THEY have not learned to remove the dangerous influence of religion from political life. THEIR violence is therefore irrational and fanatical. OUR violence, by contrast, is rational and peacemaking, and sometimes regrettably necessary to contain THEIR violence.” Sins of Omission: What Religion and Violence Arguments Ignore, The Hedgehog Review 6;35
LikeLike
Sean, what kind of trials would you like to see?
LikeLike
MM,
I’d like to see Murray’s monocovenantalism ruled inconsistent and outside the pale of the reformed tradition. Murray self-confessed that he was ‘recasting’ covenant theology. So, I’d like that to be rendered much the way we’re confessing NPP and FV as ‘out of bounds’. If we can get monocovenantalism ruled out then theonomy, fv, ‘union’ re-ordering of the ordo, neonomianism and law/gospel aspersions as Lutheran can all be relegated to the trash heap as ‘ non-round’ wheels. And as is being born out even now, trying to keep Rome on the sidelines is really tough without strict justice in Eden, and clear law/gospel declarations. So, if we have any teachers who may be confused about such things or desire to continue Murray’s legacy on this score, we can show them where the exit lies.
LikeLike
Sean, what do you think of David Gordon’s comments at the end of his Murray essay about why he (David Gordon) is not ready yet to go to trials against mono-covenantalists?
If the covenant children don’t miss out on any of the promises by having to wait a while for the Supper, what would they miss out if they also were waiting for Jesus to come back while in a visible administration without OT judicial laws?
LikeLike
Bob – What happened to the CAPS? Are you under the weather?
LikeLike
Does James Dobson even have a clue who Abraham Kuyper was?
LikeLike
McMark,
I haven’t read Gordon on Murray.
McMark, huh?
LikeLike
Th essay is “Reflections on Auburn Theology”, in By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters. The remarks about trials begin on p123, but the entire essay is well worth your time.
I was assuming Sean that you do not practice paedo-communion and that you think infants who wait for communion are not missing out on any promises….
Who would be missing out by Christians not being in charge of the direction of history at this present time?
LikeLike
McMark,
Thanks for the heads up on the article.
You’re right I do not hold to paedo-communion. But, this is what I mean when I say I struggle following your covenant theology all the way through. You have to talk to me like you would a 4 year old because I just struggle, at this point mightily, drawing together all your lines of inference and points of contention. It’s not purposeful, I’m just a bit thick at times. I honestly don’t understand your question here so I don’t know how to answer it. All I can say is that Christians aren’t in charge of history, and neither is any creature, but we all believe that God is sovereign and directing all things to their alloted end.
LikeLike
Thanks, Darryl and all your fan-Commentators. I see now that I should have kept up longer my vow of several weeks not to visit OLT. I will stick to those, like my sweet CPC wife and I, weaker in mind and body, education, Bible knowledge, and care for the future of our many descendants (including 25 grands) living in this world where silence is thought superior to NON VIOLENT involvement in Jesus’ World. I wish DGH had more descendants. Might change his views a bit. Don’t know how a flawed guy like me and wife managed to parent a son like our Tim, PhD in Molecular Bio and Bio Prof at Covenant College since 1995. (Co-Author: “Science and Grace”) Not a boast; a PTL. Finally, if any of you do some evangelism (our major?) I suggest warmer words. In Him, OB
LikeLike
Bob – I sense some self-pity in your post. If you would engage rather than drive-by you might get more respect.
LikeLike
“Church Takes Firm Stand on Judicial Pamphlet” – http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20121015/NEWS09/310150027/Burlington-church-takes-firm-stand-on-judicial-retention-pamphlet?News
LikeLike