Doing a little reading on the motives for Roman authorities to persecute the early church, I was struck by parallels to contemporary criticisms of 2k from the likes of neo-Calvinists, theonomists, or those who pine for Christendom or Christian America. According to Robert Wilken:
Traditional Roman religion emphasized the utilitas (usefulness) of religious belief for the well-being of the commonwealth, the res publica. Hence, it has been easy, especially for a civilization nurtured on the “personal” religion of Christianity, to assume that the Romans did not actually believe in the gods, but rather deemed belief in the gods merely advantageous to the life of society and to the state. . . .
In the cities of the Roman Empire, religion was inextricably intertwined with social and political life. Piety toward the gods was thought to insure the well-being of the city, to promote a spirit of kinship and mutual responsibility, to bind together the citizenry. “In all probability,” wrote Cicero, “disappearance of piety toward the gods will entail the disappearance of loyalty and social union among men as well, and of justice itself, the queen of all the virtues.” In the most profound sense, then, impiety toward the gods disrupted society, and when piety disappears, said Cicero, “life soon becomes a welter of disorder and confusion.”
By the standards of the individual and personal religion familiar to most Westerners, it is difficult for us to appreciate the social and public character of Roman religion. But “separation of the concept of piety into a familiar and a cultic half is clearly a product of modern sensibilities; in antiquity piety formed a unity.” For the Romans, religion sustained the life of the state. The new Christian superstition undermined it.
Isn’t that what 2kers regularly hear from their critics, that 2k relegates Christianity to the private and personal sphere when Christianity really should be part of the social order, a mechanism for protecting the well-being of society? But that is precisely what Christianity’s critics saw in Christianity. Which suggests that anti-2kers are using pagan categories for evaluating 2k, not ones that the first Christians new.
Wilken concludes:
By the beginning of the fourth century Christianity was a large and influential social and religious force within Roman society, no longer a tiny, unknown foreign sect. Yet from the perspective of Roman officials Christians remained a people apart. They contributed little to the public life of society, and by their devotion to their own deity, Jesus of Nazareth, they undermined the religious foundations of the cities in which they lived.
Again, that sounds a lot like what 2kers hear from their critics. We don’t speak up in the public square. Our faith is irrelevant. Our understanding of Christianity undermines the cause of Christ in the United States (and elsewhere).
If I were a critic of 2k, I’m not sure I’d want to be on the side of an argument that Roman emperors and officials used to persecute and execute Christians.
Old Life 
This is devastating for the “for-the-city” and Xian America crowds. Cue howls claiming false equivalence.
LikeLike
Some Christians “act as if some vast conspiracy is brewing in America over the Christian faith, with naysayers organized against Christians. They feel like they live life on the cultural margins, so they take that as their identity–they count their marginalization as their righteousness. They are not looking to Jesus as their only righteousness, and so they act from prejudice, assuming that everyone hates them, and they act in a way that confirms this.” (Crucifying Morality, p 105, R. W. Glenn)
LikeLike
Beginning in Genesis 12. Abram is promised a great nation and Abraham could not have this without also having many people, mostly all biologically related to Abraham, in a land with no other altars allowed.. God also promised blessings for other nations based on their relation to Abraham’s nation, with curses for those nations which didn’t relate well to Abraham’s nation.
The sign of circumcision was not only about pointing to the bloody sacrifice of Christ, which cuts the justified elect off from legal solidarity with Adam. Circumcision was an initiation rite for every male in Abraham’s family . To understand the advance of redemptive history is to see that we now don’t need what the theonomists have on offer.There is only one way now to be children of Abraham, and that is to be those who believe the gospel.
Now that Christ has been born and circumcised, it’s not possible for male infants to be born as types of the birth to come. The promises to Abraham were typological. But that covenant also put non-Abrahamic people out of the land to make room for the political associates of Abraham. And culture Calvinists who defend Christendom, despite their optimism about future generations being mostly Christians, are no more averse than Augustine to pushing people who are not of their faith out of the land.
LikeLike
Of course, it might be useful to remember that Wilken is himself an advocate of a sacramental Christendom. It remains to be seen what is the relation between the defense of Constantine and the defense of the wars of aggression by the American empire. Those who write for First Things are not of one mind on this.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/in-defense-of-constantine-47
LikeLike
Doesn’t nearly every political or legal position rest on some theological foundation? Otherwise, what ARE the criteria for preferring the U.S. to, say, Germany under the Nazis?
LikeLike
Dan, if you make theology the basis for preferring the U.S. (Nazi Germany is question begging comparison), then what about Canada? Do Canadians have to worship at the altar of American greatness because you have a theological basis for a constitutional republic? Why can’t the basis for preference be biological? I was born here. My families were born here. This is my country and these are my people (even though many times I wish they weren’t). Bringing in theology immanentizes the eschaton.
LikeLike
DGH, I’m certainly sympathetic to the notion that the church ought not be working to create another Christendom, that the church ought to squarely focus on preaching Christ (and doing so honestly and faithfully).
Among other things, I don’t think that “transformation” (much less a return to Christendom) is possible in today’s world (allowing that Christ said “all things are possible”). Nor is it a goal that we should be working toward.
However, it seems to me that there is a half-step, which allows that natural law in itself does not provide a sufficient underpinning to the various laws of the land all over the world, and that a failure for Christians to at least “interact” in the “public square” enables quite a bit of mischief and even harm to be done. That we get such things as “legalized abortion” and “marriage equality” precisely because Biblical values do not inform those kinds of laws.
That is to say, I don’t think the church ought to work to “transform culture”, but it certainly ought to work to prevent things like holocausts (wherever they occur). Christianity (including all of its biblical injunctions to morality) need not be construed along such narrow ideological lines as “2K” and “Transformationism”.
Being salt and light means neither taking over nor hiding in a bottle. Both salt and light require and benefit from diffusion.
Ancient Rome must not be our standard, nor should fourth century Rome, nor must medieval Rome be our standard. Anyone see a pattern here? We live in our own times with our own challenges, and we need to rise up to meet those challenges no matter what form of government is in place. To simply be Christian adults in a world where genuinely adult behavior and influence are sorely lacking. .
LikeLike
I don’t make the tidy abstract distinction between “the church” and “individual Christians” as do some 2k folks. But I would note that what “the church” (and individual Christians) did to support Hilter was done to prevent abortion and other immorality, not so much to transform but to “moderately” (with “balance”) conserve that which had come about with the passing of time and which was thought to be therefore “natural”.
Thus Cheney-Bush were unleashed on Arab civilian children in the name of conserving the hope that the Supreme Court would one day go back to the way it used to be when it came to unborn children in the American empire. Not so much “unintended” but inevitable consequences. All this, when so many in our congregations are ignorant or opposed to the imputation of Adam’s guilt…..
LikeLike
That is to say, I don’t think the church ought to work to “transform culture”, but it certainly ought to work to prevent things like holocausts…
John, what does this mean? One problem is that given the Reformed principle of having biblical warrant to prescribe what the church ought to do, one seems hard pressed to find a principle that sets the church up for being called to the tall order of preventing holocausts. After all, holocausts are usually tied to political regime. So if the church is supposed to prevent holocaust, how does she avoid being political, as in meddling in civil affairs that concern the commonwealth (WCF 31.5)?
So while the sentimentality might sound good, you’re left with biblical and confessional conundrums not easily brushed aside.
LikeLike
“Iowan Successfully Buys Insurance After 100 Tries”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20131022/NEWS/310220047/Iowan-successfully-buys-insurance-after-100-tries?archive&nclick_check=1
This would be highly comical if it wasn’t so highly pitiful.
LikeLike
Hey Mark- Did you pick up that profound historical correlation while sitting at the knee of Darryl?
LikeLike
Zrim- I’m always amazed at how the WC is referenced as though the formation of it was created in a vacuum and the writers themselves were somehow able to separate themselves from their own historical situatedness.
LikeLike
Erik: This would be highly comical if it wasn’t so highly pitiful.
This fiasco is just where the rubber hits the road. Liberals loathe and despise the unwashed and pretend to love them and give them free $$ just to stay in power.
But know they’ll promised a concrete and verifiable program that cannot possibly deliver.
LikeLike
igasx, the WCF certainly appeals to the kooks and isolationists a lot more than the 3FU.
LikeLike
kent- is there a point somewhere there?
LikeLike
Kent, but at least the American Presby’s revised the WCF, to deal with the kooks of the erastian variety. Maybe even more helpfully, we are on record as willing to correct a historical circumstance.
LikeLike
GAS-X, and I’m always amazed at how 2k critics manage to never really engage what it means for the church to only concern herself with things ecclesiastical and avoid politics.
LikeLike
John, but if you want the U.S. to avoid holocausts, wouldn’t it be good to enlist the help of everyone, not just Christians? So why turn abortion into a Christian matter? Why not make it American or human? 2k or transformation is the disjunction when it comes to making various social or political matters a Christian concern.
LikeLike
Mrs. Gas-X?
With that lady, I might actually put up with the farting.
LikeLike
Zrim- you talking about the organic or institutional church, or both?
LikeLike
GAS-X, institutional. But I’d also add that the organic has something to learn from its caution.
LikeLike
“… this fiasco is just where the rubber meets the road. Liberals loathe and despise the unwashed and pretend to love them and give them free $$ just to stay in power…but know they’ll be promised a “concrete and verifiable program” that cannot possibly deliver …”
All true. But it also makes me think that, with the change of a few words here and there, this statement might not also apply to the church itself (um, “institutional” church, that is). From what I’ve witnessed in past decades, especially among the larger congregations, the big push to “reach the lost” boils down to little more than lip service to evangelism; once they’re inside the church they’re largely dropped by the leadership and left to fend for themselves.
LikeLike
Zrim- In what way should the organic church be cautioned? Should the organic church only “humbly petition”?
LikeLike
death by a thousand silly little questions…
LikeLike
Sean: Kent, but at least the American Presby’s revised the WCF, to deal with the kooks of the erastian variety. Maybe even more helpfully, we are on record as willing to correct a historical circumstance.
Yuppers, pining over the betrayal of the DIVINES is a red flag they proudly wear…
LikeLike
GAS-X, by not putting so much stock in the powers of politics and legislation.
LikeLike
Zrim- I agree. I don’t put any stock in the power of politics and legislation to provide health care. I don’t put any stock in the power of politics and legislation to run the economy. I don’t put any stock in the power of politics and legislation to engineer worldwide democracy. However, I expect that through the power of politics and legislation that murder, theft, and fraud be punished and that they avoid policies that promote covetousness.
So the question remains, how should the church organic react when either: a) The government promotes it’s own power of politics and legislation in an idolatrous way or b) fails to implement it’s most basic function or actually legislates for the legality of murder, theft, or fraud?
LikeLike
GAS-X, I get it, you as a member of the church don’t like certain legislative policies that revolve around reproduction and healthcare and go a certain way. That’s your prerogative, but it seems to me what is good for the institutional church goose is also good for the organic church gander, and the only prescription either get when it comes to the civil powers that be is to submit to and pray for them.
LikeLike
Glenn, the church organic acts the way the early church did under Nero, Marcus Aurelius, and Diocletian. Why should we be any different?
LikeLike
Zrim, you don’t get it. I laid out principles not policy. Despite your feeble efforts, in the end you always conflate the organic with the institution.
LikeLike
Darryl, implicit within your premise is that the early church was wholly sanctified. That doesn’t comport with Reformed Confessions.
Second, the early church generally refused to bow to Caesar. So that is a good model.
LikeLike
GAS-X, I’m reading you in context. The end game of anyone signed up with the Patriot Action Network and who talks about government policies that legislates for the legality of murder, theft, and fraud isn’t too hard to figure out. But what are you saying, submitting to and praying for the civil powers isn’t sufficient? Tell that to Peter and Paul.
LikeLike
Zrim- yes, I understand that around here it’s just easier to have tidy categories that make life so much simpler to understand. Perhaps I should chastise Paul for employing his legal rights?
LikeLike
Zrim: One problem is that given the Reformed principle of having biblical warrant to prescribe what the church ought to do, one seems hard pressed to find a principle that sets the church up for being called to the tall order of preventing holocausts.
How about “and who is my neighbor?” … “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” … Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Or
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
For example.
LikeLike
Glenn, what on earth are you talking about? Every comment I make is premised on the notion that saints are sinners and saints. If I believed one age of Christians were wholly sanctified — I can’t even fathom how anyone could ever think that except for a Wesleyan — then I’d be as crazy as Tea Partyers.
LikeLike
Glenn, don’t diss the gospel for tidy categories. It’s you guys who mix Christianity and politics who make the gospel complicated. Living as a stranger and alien is never tidy, and which group around here is promoting what Peter wrote about the first Christians — strangers and aliens?
LikeLike
GAS-X, tidiness may not be next to godliness but simplicity is a Reformed virtue. And exercising legal rights in order to live another day and witness seems perfectly harmonious with the other virtues of submission and goodwill. What such exercise has to do with chastising magistrates, I’ll never know (then again, I’m feeble).
LikeLike
John, which is all well and good but none of which is nearly any good for “preventing holocaust.” If you agree that the church ought not to be in the business of social transformation, I’d suggest not using its ambitious rhetoric. Try something much more modest. Are you really suggesting that those verses call the church to “prevent holocaust”?
LikeLike