Over at Matt Tuininga’s blog, the inveterate critic of 2k, Mark Van Der Molen, makes an interesting point. In response to the charge of theocracy that came from his assertion that the state needs to be subject to God’s law, he wrote: “theocracy is the merging of church and state into one power.” In other words, anti-2kers are never guilty of theonomy or theocracy as long as they affirm a separation of church and state.
This is an important admission since many critics of secularism, as anti-2kers are, deride Jefferson’s language of a wall of separation between church and state. Whether it’s a wall dividing church and state, or simply a constitution, the separation of church and state puts anti-2kers in the awkward position of affirming a fundamental point of 2k, namely, the separation of ecclesiastical and civil powers. It is a good thing for them that they do since in Western Christianity only Roman Catholics have taught the unity of church and state.
At the same time, in the United States we have the language of the separation of powers within the federal government. The judicial is separate from the legislative, which is separate from the executive, and so on. But this separation is not really a separation in the way we think about separation of church and state. The reason is that Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court are all part of one government.
And this appears to be the case for critics of 2k who pine for Calvin’s Geneva where the Company of Pastors were an agency of the city’s government. The pastors handled spiritual matters and reserved the right of excommunication, a spiritual capital penalty. But Calvin was an officer of Geneva’s city government since the city council appointed him, paid his salary, and gave him his legal status.
In which case, an affirmation of the separation of church and state doesn’t really get us very far if the church is merely going to be a branch of government.
Old Life 
DGH, you are a history professor, who appears to have forgotten that John Cotton who was theocratic, still believed in a separation of church and state. Dr Greg Bahnsen who coined the term theonomy believed in a separation of church and state. Come on Darryl! Show a little historical accuracy! Please show a smidgen of charity towards those for whom you disagree with.
I’m just a layman, yet can easily see through your sloppy revisionist history. You’re like the absent minded Professor! Plus you portray your opponents in the worst possible light. (Something I hear you complain about from the other end) I freely admit to holding a theonomic/theocratic perspective, yet I see a clear distinction between church and state, just like the Old School Reformers, who founded New England.
Could separation of church and state be a straw man?
LikeLike
Doug, but have you learned to read. I granted that Calvin believed in a form of separation, and did so as an officer of the City (who called and paid him). Your view is akin to a Congressman saying he believes in separation of powers and then having the power to tell the president how to deploy troops in war.
As Walter said to Donny, Doug, you’re out of your element.
LikeLike
As Walter said to Donny, Doug, you’re out of your element.
That is downright mean Darryl!! Is it better to be compared to Donny or Walter? Anything coming from the mouth of Walter might be suspect so perhaps you are letting Doug off the hook unintentionally.
LikeLike
I don’t know, John, Walter was onto something when he pointed out this is not ‘Nam, there are rules. And Doug’s theonomic (and paedocommunionist) outlook makes hash of Reformed rules.
LikeLike
I’ve been lurking your blog for about a month now, I just want to say…
I love every Big Lebowski reference on here.
LikeLike
Preston,
Glad to see you are appreciative of el Duderino. But, I hope you work applying lipstick while lurking. Because that would be a little disturbing.
LikeLike
Doug – ” just like the Old School Reformers, who founded New England.”
What? Who do you think “Old School Reformers” are and when do you think New England was founded?
LikeLike
I don’t think Darryl ever understood the Westminster position. He’s the one who is out of his element: he can interact with minutiae of history, and he’s quite good at this, but he doesn’t (and apparently cannot) interact with the Scriptures, as his books make clear.
It’s not a matter of the church ruling the state, or the state ruling the church. Darryl thinks it has to be one or the other. But that’s is a false dilemma. Both are ministers of God, and are to conduct their business as his ministers. His version of 2K is impossible if both are to live as ministers of God.
LikeLike
Philip Larson: I don’t think Darryl ever understood the Westminster position. He’s the one who is out of his element: he can interact with minutiae of history, and he’s quite good at this, but he doesn’t (and apparently cannot) interact with the Scriptures, as his books make clear.
It’s not a matter of the church ruling the state, or the state ruling the church. Darryl thinks it has to be one or the other. But that’s is a false dilemma. Both are ministers of God, and are to conduct their business as his ministers. His version of 2K is impossible if both are to live as ministers of God.
RS: Would you mind expanding on your second paragraph just a bit or perhaps a little more? Thanks.
LikeLike
“That’s just the attitude we don’t need, Philip”:
LikeLike
Phil, I’ve yet to see you cite the Bible or interact with history. Talk about being out of your ELEMENTS. (Plural, get it?)
LikeLike
But, Phil, in the theocratic system it is impossible for the pagan civil magistrate to be conceived of as God’s minister. In the 2k system, there is no authority but that which is instituted by God (religious or secular), full stop.
LikeLike
Me thinks someone has smoked a pipe load of Klinien balderdash!
LikeLike
Erik, my Old Schoolers are older than your Old Schoolers, so there!
LikeLike
Zrim,
I have been compared to Walter on one of the august posts at oldlife, that is all I was referring to. However, I have also been accused of being ill-behaved and not really Moses like in following the rules (although the scriptural witness is that Moses had trouble following rules too). It seems to me that Walter was probably pretty selective in what rules he chose to obey and what rules he disregarded- is not that what makes the Coen brother movies appealing? The characters are kind of like us- a confusing and complex blend of sinner and saint.
LikeLike
And Zrim,
I have already egged your house once- are you egging me on to do it again? Just kidding: mainly.
LikeLike