Anthony Esolen gives shelter and clothing to neo-Calvinists in his piece opposing neutrality in matters of public life. As we so often here, it’s impossible:
On the impossibility: consider the effects of a permission that radically alters the nature of the context in which the action is permitted. We might call this the Nude Beach Principle. Suppose that Surftown has one beautiful beach, where young and old, boys and girls, single people and whole families, have been used to relax, go swimming, and have picnics. Now suppose that a small group of nudists petitions the town council to allow for nude bathing. Their argument is simple—actually, it is no more than a fig leaf for the mere expression of desire. They say, “We want to do this, and we, tolerant as we are, do not wish to impose our standards on anyone else. No one will be required to bathe in the raw. Live and let live, that’s our motto.”
But you cannot have a Half-Nude Beach. A beach on which some people stroll without a stitch of clothing is a nude beach, period. A councilman cannot say, “I remain entirely neutral on whether clothing should be required on a beach,” because that is equivalent to saying that it is not opprobrious or not despicable to walk naked in front of other people, including children.
From this he goes on to comment on religion in the United States under a liberal secular government:
The virtue of religion, as our founders used the word, pertains to the duty that a person or a people owe to God. Now there either is a duty or there is not. You cannot say, “The People must remain absolutely neutral as to whether the People, as such, owe any allegiance to God, to acknowledge His benefits, and to pray for His protection.” To say it is to deny the debt. It is to take a position while trying to appear to take none. To decline to choose to pray, now and ever, is to choose not to pray. It is to choose irreligion. One should at least be honest about it.
The reader will no doubt know which side I take on these issues. My point here is that for certain questions, neutrality is an illusion. The nakedly secular state is not a neutral thing. It is something utterly different from, and irreconcilable with, every human polity that has existed until a few anthropological minutes ago. It is itself a set of choices which, like all such, forecloses others; a way of living that makes other ways of living unlikely, practically impossible, or inconceivable.
One odd aspect of this argument is that many Roman Catholics (Anthony Esolen’s religious tribe) would have appreciated a tad more neutrality from public officials for about a 170-year swath of U.S. history (1790-1960). Most American Protestants didn’t grasp the privilege they enjoyed by virtue of certain political ideas embodied in the Constitution and that the Vatican did not finally embrace until the Second Vatican Council. Protestants also enjoyed a semi-monopoly of public education, a situation that forced many bishops to sponsor parochial schools. In which case, I could well imagine that if Anthony placed himself at a different time in U.S. history he might be able to empathize with those Americans who take some comfort from a government that tries not to take a side among religions.
Related to this is empathy with state officials who are trying to decide about a nude beach. Maybe they cite chapter and verse from the Decalogue and enlist the support of Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Jews. But what if they also want the support of the large collection of journalists and engineers in town who work for National Public Radio. Maybe they use an argument against a nude-beach on the grounds supplied by a non-religious argument.
One of the problems the Religious Right has faced, in my view, is an inability to arrive at just such common rationales for what they believe. The logic of the Lordship of Christ or w-w says that all of me is religious so I need to make a religious argument. But lots of non-religious people would also favor a beach where bathers did not reveal their private parts. That this outcome seems far fetched in the case against neutrality may show how much the religion-is-all-of-me has prevailed. But why is it unlikely that many parents in the United States, even if they don’t attend a church or synagogue, would oppose a nude beach? And why is it necessarily a betrayal of my faith if I try to find a rationale for conventional Christian morality that also appeals to a non-Christian?
The bottom line I keep coming back to: if neutrality is not something we shoot for no matter how sloppy it will be, then do we need to return to the confessional state where only Protestants or Roman Catholics run things? That would certainly cut down on the pluralism of our societies and may bring a return of the ghettoization of religious dissenters. Do opponents of neutrality have a stomach for that? If not, maybe they should keep their clothes on.
Old Life 
“To decline to choose to pray, now and ever, is to choose not to pray. It is to choose irreligion.”
Why should I want to pray with Tom, Dick, & Harry in the public square?
This is where Neocalvinist arguments always fall apart. To maintain any rigid doctrinal standards in the context of broad, public religion is impossible.
LikeLike
You also see the same error in the “Slippery Slope” arguments that Neocalvinists make. “If we allow gays to marry, soon people will be marrying animals and adults will be marrying children!”
No, most consenting gay adults, and their allies, are opposed to people marrying animals and adults marrying children, just like heterosexual Christians are.
LikeLike
I could see the appeal of the state shutting down even some “churches” on the grounds of non-religious arguments. It just might effect a good that the “churches” no longer had a taste to effect. Or is it they no longer had taste?
Case in point:
http://www.flatironschurch.com/messages/_video/index2.php?vn=105999354&sn=End%20of%20Days&md=09.06.14
Where is a king when you need one.
Where is king
LikeLike
The bottom line I keep coming back to: if neutrality is not something we shoot for no matter how sloppy it will be, then do we need to return to the confessional state where only Protestants or Roman Catholics run things?
That’s a false choice, and in the real world, a non-existent one. Neutrality is not synonymous with pluralism, which agrees on ends but not means. The “confessional” state is not pluralist in its ends OR means.
The Manhattan Declaration is the rebuttal to your argument here–its “natural law” ends are agreed upon above and beyond [or below] “confessional” lines. How you arrive at your embrace of natural law is irrelevant.
LikeLike
But, Tom, the test to your rebuttal is whether the signers of the MD, for whom the so-called “sanctity of life” is number one, can abide Secularists for Life who maintain that religion isn’t needed to conclude certain similar things about human life.
LikeLike
ZRIM: I don’t completely understand your point. If it is that there are few, and mostly unconvincing arguments against “life” or “Biblical Marriage” from a secular perspective, I generally agree.
But if the answer, therefore, means give up using Biblical arguments for these things, your perspective means we will lose in the public square. We should expect that even unbelievers may respond to arguments from the 10 Commandments, because of the conscience; and based on a common grace, 2K perspective, which I hold to. I am not asking the government to be “Christian”, I am appealing to men, made in the image of God, to follow what their consciences tell them.
LikeLike
David, the point is if human beings really do have the law written naturally on the conscience then who needs things like the MD which suggest religion is needed to come to certain conclusions? The answer may be those who care at least as much about religion winning in the public square (thereby giving religionists cultural clout) as they do about those particular conclusions.
Would the framers of the MD be willing to join efforts with the Secularists for Life in order to get the job done, or are they conceiving of a future where the sanctity of life ethos wins the day and all the moral high ground goes to the religionists for making it all happen? That’s the narrative when it comes to abolition, as in slavery would never have been abolished if it weren’t for the righteous Christian arguments in the public square (three cheers for us). And since lifers say the same religionists who were behind abolition are now behind the sanctity of life, one has to wonder if at least part of the point is to credit religion for civil righteousness.
LikeLike
What I like about the transformers is that they want to influence culture from both the pew and the pulpit whereas 2kers only want to do so from the pew. But the limiting issue for them isn’t neutrality, is one of equality. How can we influence culture in a democratic society without seeking a privileged place which, in turn, corrupts democracy and starts the pendulum swinging?
LikeLike
The MD has not been successful at creating a majority coalition, and I suspect that very few people have ever been convinced to change their political stance on the basis of Natural Law arguments. But then who has ever been convinced by a philosophical argument about anything? Most of us arrive at our political views through a combination of emotion and in-group fidelity.
Adding religious ideas to political arguments does not make political arguments more compelling, it undermines the case for the religious ideas. And while I am sure you would like to argue that Natural Law is a secular basis for politics, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who buy NLT are…religious. In the broader culture, most people will likely conclude that the NL argument they are hearing is RC.
LikeLike
Curt, you still don’t get 2k. I don’t want to influence the culture as a Christian. I may as a citizen but then I am not delusional.
LikeLike
ZRIM, thank you for your gracious comments. I am still learning here. My background includes extensive involvement in Operation Rescue. In 1991, thousands of Christians risked jail to save unborn children in Wichita. Towards the “end” of the rescues, the leaders of OR called for a rally at Shocker Stadium that drew about 20,000 people. What happened next was very sad. The sheer number of people present led the leaders, not to call for more rescues, but to harness “the power” for social change: replace mayors, U.S. Reps and Senators, Supreme Court members, etc. The rescue movement literally died that day, when the focus on individual babies was lost. I understand your concerns. (My wife and I do not subscribe at all to the Bayly Brothers view that you are not a Christian if you aren’t down at Planned Barrenhood protesting.)
As “sidewalk counselors”, we often used Biblical arguments to talk women (and their husband/boyfriend/parents) out of having abortions. We did not ask them if they were Christians, before we appealed to presuppositional view (common conscience): God exists, you know it is wrong to kill this baby (Thou Shall Not Kill), etc.
Would you oppose this use of the Bible?
LikeLike
D.G.,
You want to influence culture as a Christian citizen who lives in exile. You don’t want Christian privilege but all of that depends on the issue and same-sex marriage is one of those issues. BTW, I agree that Christians should not seek a privileged position in society and that is one of those traits that I support 2k in.
LikeLike
David, no. But the point here is that you don’t need it for the immediate purpose, a point with which you seem to agree. But if your purpose also includes making sure Christianity is a public square player, which seems to be your concern when you say “your perspective means we will lose in the public square,” then you’ll worry about maintaining biblical arguments in a certain direction. So what is it you’d want, national ethos to go in the direction of the sanctity of life or Christianity to drive that ethos or both? It seems to me that if you want the latter then you also think true religion is indeed vital to the public square.
I don’t think 2k means to say true religion is a problem in the public square. I think it means to question not only the notion that its necessary to it but also if those who think it is are really vying for cultural clout.
LikeLike
ZRIM, thanks again for your comments. I think we are closer than it might appear. I wrote a whole book on politics with the running thread that the New Testament emphasizes being transformed ourselves, and little, if anything about transforming the culture.
Perhaps my phraseology (lose in the public square) betrays a lingering “earthly hope” on my part. I hope not.
LikeLike
” The rescue movement literally died that day, when the focus on individual babies was lost”
This is an astonishing, but telling, statement. The number of abortions/yr peaked in 1990. The number trended down in the 90’s and has fallen dramatically in the 21st century. In communities where IUDs have been made available to teenage moms, the abortion rate has plumeted. While restrictive laws and crisis preg support isn’t as dramatic as rescue mobilization, it is way more effective.
LikeLike
sdb,
I don’t think that is the case. I don’t think one can have an effective movement that focuses solely on one item and thus employs exclusive-or thinking. Rather, movements need multiple approaches some of which stir sympathetic interest from the public and movements must be persistent in their actions.
LikeLike
SDB, Do you understand what the purpose of what Operation Rescue was all about? It was to rescue a particular baby scheduled to die that day at the hands of a particular child killer. It is nigh near impossible to measure the impact of a specific law or movement on the number of abortions committed. I have held in my arms or heard the testimony of mothers concerning the babies saved by Rescue. No doubt some laws could have a positive impact. Most of those passed in the U.S. have likely had little impact. The only law that has passed since the early 1990s was the ban Partial Birth Abortions, which ostensibly saved NO babies. It was only window dressing to appease the consciences of pro-abortion politicians and some big-funded pro-life groups. The ruling itself told abortionists how they could “skirt” the ruling, because there are lots of different ways to kill the baby, that are that old.
SDB and Mr. Day: Many in the pro-life movement think that the IUD is an abortifacient, and the CNN article on Colorado’s reduction of pregnancy rates confirmed it:
An IUD is a small T-shaped device that is inserted into the uterus by a doctor. They’re either wrapped in copper or contain hormones, which kill sperm and make the uterine lining too thin for egg implantation.
Mr. Day, I hope that it was a slip of the tongue. A baby is not an item. It is a person made in the image of God. I agree that multiple approaches are best, as long as they are all truly pro-life.
LikeLike
I forgot to have the link to the CNN article.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/health/colorado-teen-pregnancy/
The day before they ran an article suggesting that IUDs may lead to increased cancer risks for the mother.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/08/health/iud-cancer-risk/index.html?hpt=he_c2
LikeLike
A little bit on “Influencing the culture”… .
Sen. Frelinghuysen’s ” ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE Philoclean and Peithessophian Societies, OF RUTGERS COLLEGE, 1831.
About the Author…
Theodore Frelinghuysen, A.M., LL.D. b.1787-d.1861
Captain, U.S. Vols. War of 1812;
Attorney General, New Jersey 1817-29;
U.S. Senator from New Jersey, 1829-35;
Director Princeton Seminary 1829-35;
Trustee Princeton Seminary 1829;
Mayor, Newark, N.J. 1837-38;
Chancellor Univ. City of New York 1839-50;
President Rutgers 1859-61;
A.B, Princeton 1804, A.M. 1807; LL.D. Princeton 1833, also Rutgers 1841.
President, American Bible Society, 1845-62.
—Princeton University General Catalog, 1746-1906
Quotes:
“The American Revolution, brought into action the soundest principles of political liberty; and their triumphant establishment has given an impulse to this cause, that now awakens deep concern in every crowned head of the old world—that has shaken all its thrones and struck dismay into all its high places.
The great truth developed in our contest was, that government was only so far rightful, as it sought the welfare of the whole: that it was to be maintained not for the advancement of the few, over the neglected rights of the many, but to secure and preserve to all the people, the sacred rights of life, liberty and property… .
But passing by this fruitful theme, I desire to make the prominent subject of our present contemplation, the interesting truth, that the pure spirit of the Bible, has powerfully aided, and fostered the interests of civil liberty.” Pg. 7 .
“Be not deluded by the syren counsels of a cheerless infidelity; wake up to your duty and destiny. Become familiar with the word of God. Pray over its pages, and yield up your hearts to its injunctions.
The hour is rapidly approaching when you will feel with intense emotion the virtue of its hopes, and that you cannot die in peace without them. Be persuaded to this wise choice,—make God your friend. Trust not to the world’s fair promises. They will only betray you.” Pg. 24.
Any thoughts ?
LikeLike
The following quote:
“The American Revolution, brought into action the soundest principles of political liberty; and their triumphant establishment has given an impulse to this cause, that now awakens deep concern in every crowned head of the old world—that has shaken all its thrones and struck dismay into all its high places.
The great truth developed in our contest was, that government was only so far rightful, as it sought the welfare of the whole: that it was to be maintained not for the advancement of the few, over the neglected rights of the many, but to secure and preserve to all the people, the sacred rights of life, liberty and property… .
is not only self-serving, but mixes times. The Declaration Of Independence, the document on which the American Revolution was based, referred to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Constitution, which was a response to dissent and Shays Rebellion changed that to “life, liberty, and property.” And when one looks at the economic class demographics of the participants, one can see why. One also needs to refer to other documents of the time to better understand the Constitution and our form of government. Such documents include Federalist Paper #10, Henry Knox’s Letter To George Washington, and The Constitutional Debates. These documents provide a context from which we can better understand the intent of the writers of the Constitution. And the intent was to preserve the status quo of the time, which included preserving the superior status of the landed interests.
LikeLike
Russell, do you buy this? That the Bible is on the side of civil liberty? Is that true of OT religion? Where do the apostles or Jesus speak of civil liberty?
LikeLike
Ethel, don’t look at that!
LikeLike
Speaking of Ethel, Vermont probably allows nude beaches but most of the time it’s too durn cold to be open minded.
LikeLike
Zrim
Posted September 18, 2014 at 5:12 pm | Permalink
But, Tom, the test to your rebuttal is whether the signers of the MD, for whom the so-called “sanctity of life” is number one, can abide Secularists for Life who maintain that religion isn’t needed to conclude certain similar things about human life.
Natural law. Even the Gentiles occasionally stumble upon it.
In fact, Sproul refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration because it meant getting into bed with the Catholics.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/the-manhattan-declaration/
Now if that ain’t a theological-sectarian perversion, I dunno what is, to refuse to act on the natural law because of doctrinal differences.
Thx for your reply, Mr. Z. I don’t come here to win debates. Darryl is influential and I think he’s dispensing bum theologizing with this “radical” 2 Kingdoms thing. Sit out the culture wars and the killing of the unborn if you want, but the burden of proof is on you to prove that’s God’s will.
LikeLike
OT and liberty:
Leviticus 25:10King James Version (KJV)
10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
As quoted on the Liberty Bell:
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV X
By Order of the ASSEMBLY of the Province of PENSYLVANIA for the State House in Philada.
Pass and Stow
Philada
MDCCLIII
LikeLike
Russell, so Israel practiced freedom of speech and freedom of association?
LikeLike
D.G.,
Of course Israel protected freedom of speech and association. You were guaranteed the right to be stoned with whomever you wished.
LikeLike
That’s what doctrinalists do, Tom, they draw doctrinal lines (and get called sectarian for doing so). But maybe if the culturalist MD drafters dropped the religious test a doctrinalist could get on board. After all, it works for the larger American project. But as long as the drafters seem to want to claim religion vital to certain moral and political conclusions, doctrinalists have no choice but to take a pass.
But if it helps, some of us confessionalists also refuse to get aboard Sproul’s Caribbean cruises, which as everybody knows is the first step to becoming lame.
LikeLike
Nonsense. We do know what the various restrictions have done to the rate. It is relatively straightforward to estimate the impact of a law by comparing the before and after in communities that did or didn’t pass the law. What we see is a huge drop in both the overall number of abortions and fraction of pregnancies aborted such that the number of abortions is the lowest its been since RvW. Indeed, there about half as many abortions today than there were in 1990. Passing waiting periods, etc… isn’t as exhilarating as sidewalk counseling sessions to be sure, but the evidence indicates that they are far more effective.
This is false. For example, Missouri passed a law requiring a face to face counseling session 24hrs before an abortion. This has led to an estimated 17% drop in abortions in one year in that state. Now you might say that such a requirement doesn’t “ban” abortion. Fair enough, but it does make it less convenient which reduces the incidence. Waiting periods, sonogram requirements, and parental notification laws all work to reduce the number of abortions.
And they’d be wrong. Politically charged labeling isn’t evidence. I am happy for people like the HobbyLobby folks to follow their convictions on this, but they are wrong. The cancer study you pointed to is far from conclusive. The controls don’t allow you to conclude that IUDs cause cancer (as the story you linked indicates): women who have malady X use treatment Y and have ailment Z more often than women who have neither malady X nor use treatment Y.
@CD – I agree that a multipronged approach is important, but not all prongs are equally helpful and some, while well intentioned, may be counterproductive. Groups like OpRes did a lot to turn people off from the life movement. Shedlock’s tone above is the kind of thing that makes sane people want to avoid pro-lifers. In a democracy, you have to change minds and win people over. You also have to give people incentives to act against what appears to be their own self-interest. While the pre-Roe abortion rate is often exaggerated, it wasn’t zero either. Providing better pre-natal and post-natal support for moms with unwanted pregnancies, smoothing the way for adoptions and adopting more kids with needs (especially special needs), and finding better forms of birth control that reduce the “oops” factor work hand-in-hand with laws that make abortion more difficult.
It is kind of like the environmental movement – sanctimonious tree huggers beating on the bongo drums help reduce our carbon emissions. If anything, it is clowns like this that keep people from taking environmental concerns seriously. Yet we’ve seen carbon emissions drop in the US. It is largely because engineers have figured out ways to get more and cheaper natural gas.
LikeLike
“But if it helps, some of us confessionalists also refuse to get aboard Sproul’s Caribbean cruises, which as everybody knows is the first step to becoming lame.”
http://sovereignexperiences.com/ligonier/cruise15/index.html – “Our theme will be Christ’s call to endure persecution and suffering faithfully” The irony is too rich.
LikeLike
Foxy lady, maybe you heard Pope Francis married twenty couples, many of whom were living in sin. So far the Vatican has not explained the proceedings (though every other Roman Catholic spokesman doing an imitation of Protestantism has).
LikeLike
Darryl,
If you set up a kickstarter i’ll contribute so you can join Sproul’s high adventure on the seas.
LikeLike
“I don’t come here to win debates.” -TVD
That’s good to know. Otherwise, you may be waiting for a while.
LikeLike
Re: Natural Law
There is no singular concept of “natural law.” The brand of natural law advocated by Aquinas is different from that advocated by Reformers, such as Vermigli.
Further, the brand of natural law that underlies the Manhattan Declaration is often referred to as “New Natural Law” due to its significant departure from Thomistic variants of natural law. It is widely acknowledged that NNL is entirely reliant on sectarian assumptions. See, e.g., the works contrasting the Whig Thomists (Manhattan Declaration) and the Augustinian Thomists (Aquinas).
So, I suspect that no secular person could buy into the brand of natural law that’s embodied in the Manhattan Declaration.
By the way, is there a modesty code on the Ligonier cruises? Are there women in skimpy bikinis? Guys in Speedos? Could there be?
LikeLike
CvD, I’ll have you know that cracking open lobsters can sometimes be very, very difficult.
LikeLike
The idea that every human must consent to the law is, well, humanist, not biblical. If the society denies God’s law, whether from the pew or the pulpit or the US Supreme Court, God will have His due. “You reap what you sow.” He’s really not dependent upon man’s will to ensure His “will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Mt. 6. (BTW, why do you pray that?)
If your faith is in the law as conceived by the governed, then you will have to please every single governed. You will get 300 million versions of the 10 commandments, and you’ll deserve every one of them. Thus, you receive the just judgment of pleasing man – being unable to please man.
God willing, the next generation (or one further down the line), believers and unbelievers who have some sense, will learn from our insane reliance on man as the source of law.
LikeLike
Win: “If your faith is in the law as conceived by the governed, then you will have to please every single governed. You will get 300 million versions of the 10 commandments, and you’ll deserve every one of them. Thus, you receive the just judgment of pleasing man – being unable to please man.”
Such an accurate assessment of a “Neutral” and valueless basis of law, as everyone “does what is right in their own sight.”
Our Constitutional Republic, as originally formed, had solid presuppositions on the basis of Civil Law, and I repost USSC Justice Joseph Story’s 1829 declaration:
“I may add, too, that if the student of the law entertains but a just reverence for its precepts, it will teach him to build his reputation upon the soundest morals, the deepest principles, and the most exalted purity of life and character. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is, that Christianity is a part of the common law, from which it seeks the sanction of its rights, and by which it endeavours to regulate its doctrines. And, notwithstanding the specious objection of one of our distinguished statesmen, the boast is as true as it is beautiful.
There never has been a period, in which the common law did not recognise Christianity as lying at its foundations.” Ref: https://oldlife.org/2014/07/july-4th-homily/
The recent and horrific events in Moore, OK, where a woman was murdered by beheading at her job, should be a real wakeup call to those who push for “neutrality” in civil life. “Thou shalt not murder”, is not just for “religious folks”, it is a major part of civil law, as originally conceived. And with the removal of Bible Reading and the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms (A practice going back over 300 years to the start of the colonies) via USSC ruling in Abington vs Schempp June 17, 1963, we now have two generations stripped of this key legal principle. I was in 2nd grade then, and remember the posted Decalogue torn from the classroom wall. And with that, a new, and increasingly vicious America was born… .
Francis A. Schaeffer’s “How Then Shall We Live” is being proven correct every day now… .
LikeLike
Russell, so what exactly are those of us who think a pluralist public square is a good thing supposed to get from the recent attack? Does your point also work with the attack on George Tiller? Does old-fashioned mental imbalance ever become a factor in these instances, or is all religion all the time?
LikeLike
Zrim, what is your definition of a “pluralist” society?
By what measure can be admitted to participate?
Would SW Pacific headhunters (such as our WW2 soldiers encountered there) have a place to present their religious views?
LikeLike
Russell, does the U.S.A. ring a bell, the home of 25% Roman Catholics, very few Orthodox Presbyterians, 16 million Southern Baptists (about 10 percent of whom are “Calvinist), guhzillions of Mormons, more Jews than Orthodox Presbyterians, as many witches as Michigan Radio has contributors — you get the idea.
How do you manage?
LikeLike
“How do you manage?”
Catharsis via hand-wringing.
LikeLike
Russell,
Were public school teachers and administrators qualified interpreters of Scripture and of the Decalogue? What if they also happened to be Unitarians?
LikeLike
Russell, what Darryl said. But I’d still like to know what we’re supposed to wake up and realize about the recent sensationalism. What, Muslims should be quarantined (speaking of WW2)?
LikeLike
There’s some question about how much Islam even had to do with this. He was a fired employee, I believe. African American, not Arab. More details needed.
LikeLike
J. Gresham Machen may have some help for us in the “Neutrality” and “Pluralism” discussion… .
“For Christians to influence the world with the truth of God’s Word requires the recovery of the great Reformation doctrine of vocation. Christians are called to God’s service not only in church professions but also in every secular calling. The task of restoring truth to the culture depends largely on our laypeople.”
“To bring back truth, on a practical level, the church must encourage Christians to be not merely consumers of culture but makers of culture. The church needs to cultivate Christian artists, musicians, novelists, filmmakers, journalists, attorneys, teachers, scientists, business executives, and the like, teaching its laypeople the sense in which every secular vocation-including, above all, the callings of husband, wife, and parent–is a sphere of Christian ministry, a way of serving God and neighbor that is grounded in God’s truth. Christian laypeople must be encouraged to be leaders in their fields, rather than eager-to-please followers, working from the assumptions of their biblical worldview, not the vapid clichés of pop culture.”
― J. Gresham Machen
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/90762.J_Gresham_Machen
LikeLike
Russell, yes Machen might have something to say (to you):
At some point Russell, you may have to come out from behind the quotes and actually take a stab yourself.
LikeLike
Machen’s quote on Christian Day Schools should arrive any time now…
LikeLike
Zrim, DG,
You really didn’t answer Russell’s questions, comments. How do you manage in a world with no right and wrong because everyone has their own right and wrong? Can a civil government punish the wicked in accordance with Romans 13 in a world where no one knows what wicked is? Are you defending a biblical/Christian view of civil government or plain, ole anarchy?
Maybe you’ll be martyrs for the cause of pluralism as some fanatical Muslim or Atheist or whatever religious belief de jour happens to encounter you and dislike your faith. I’d rather be attacked for standing for the word of God than for standing up for the right of people to believe in whatever they want, even murder.
BTW, Zrim, Yes, all religion, all the time. God doesn’t sleep, and He rules all.
LikeLike
Win, per Paul earlier in Romans that world doesn’t exist. Everybody knows right from wrong, otherwise how will all be held accountable in the end? It’s called natural revelation.
There is something apparently pluralists are supposed to learn from the recent attack. I’m still waiting to hear what that is. Care to give it a shot?
And if it really is all religion all the time then Scott Roeder’s murder of George Tiller had nothing to do with mental imbalance and everything to do with his Christian beliefs. Feeling marginalized yet?
LikeLike
Win, I’m not sure Russell does more than quote.
Joe Paterno? No one knows what’s wrong? Smoking?
Did the Roman authorities have a basis for knowing right from wrong? Did the apostles get all upset about those authorities or did they call believers to lead quiet and peaceful lives?
Not a trick question.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: “Win, I’m not sure Russell does more than quote.”
I “quote” to catch the reader’s attention. Quite successfully here, I presume.
It appears to me, that pluralism / multiculturalism is the issue. How does someone live in such a society? Yes, Dr. Machen, applying Constitutional theory, defended Ayn Rand’s right to promote her teachings in her school, but also for Christians to apply themselves in every vocation they perform, as, he said, “working from the assumptions of their biblical worldview, not the vapid clichés of pop culture.” Why such a polemic? Was he a double-minded man? Hardly.
He was obviously addressing two different subjects !
In the quote I posted, we see him recognize that the culture he was born in had changed, and changed radically. He noticed massive new gov’t bureaucracies were set up to supposedly deal with every societal problem, at the expense of…civil liberty and freedom. A new, and liberty crushing culture was gaining control. Pop culture had no real answers, so he called Christian lay people to…restore truth to the culture.
Now it is well-nigh impossible to lead those peaceful lives when confronting both pop culture and government designed culture that are in heated opposition to the Scripture truths about the origins and Divine purpose of Man. By their rage for innovation, those who were conducting the social engineering would raise up assaults continually, and they did. I have read some of the social theory advocated in government studies related to education in the 1930’s that Dr. Machen would have been well acquainted with, and I do recall reading that he loudly voiced opposition in public settings. Don’t forget, that a 1920-1930 era Princeton Professor like Dr. Machen still carried quite a bit of clout with the public. This is the same person who severed a long time family relationship with Woodrow Wilson over his leading the U.S. into WW 1. “Militarism” Machen called it, right he was, and a risky action to take, as opposing Wilson’s policies often was dealt with harshly.
He was with great skill, bringing his talents to bear in influencing the culture as a Christian, in teaching, preaching, writing, and radio addresses, which had to be provocative to many.
Looking back to Biblical times, if I recall correctly, wherever the people of God went, their very presence influenced the local culture, both OT and New, often in dramatic ways. The NT, especially Acts documents the sometimes violent reaction to the Gospel changing lives, and by that influence, caused idolmakers to suffer business recessions as their former customers gave up their purchasing. (Acts 19.)
As for today, the very liberty our pious Christian ancestors poured out their blood to secure is subject to greater loss than Machen saw. To merely raise a well meaning question on many topics, the charge of “hater”, or some other term of ridicule is heaped on the speaker, and as we all know, ridicule is a logical fallacy. The pluralistic market now is becoming unforgiving of one worldview in particular.
By design, the Christian history of the U.S. has been written out of the memory of the public, thereby leaving a void, only to be filled by? What, alternative, then, does anyone here suggest to fill the cultural vacuum?
LikeLike
Russell, how would you feel if I told you I know your wife better than you do?
LikeLike
Zrim,
You’re looking at a different world than I am if you think everyone knows right from wrong. See the end of Chap. 1 of Romans – sinful man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and perverts what’s right and does what’s wrong. The recent attack is an example of that principle in action.
Pluralism is different from the bible because it cannot say that anything is right or wrong, particularly if it’s religiously motivated action. Who’s to say the Muslim fanatic who beheads people is wrong? In another culture of female servitude and severe punishment for failing to keep such a servitude mindset, he might not be considered so radical. Ever heard of “honor killings” in the West Bank.
Oh, that’s right, the Muslim fanatic is not acting from a pluralistic mindset. He actually thinks his religion is so correct that he acts upon it. And it results in murder . . . for a “good” cause, like George TIller’s murder, which was not a Christian act no matter what Roeder claimed. Wait, I thought everyone knew what’s right and wrong? I thought all religions taught right from wrong? What’s happening to the pluralist worldview? It was always never-never land.
Is murder wrong? When? By whom? For what religious reason could it be right? I say use scripture, not a murderer’s personal opinion. Personal opinion is something pluralists respect above the bible, not the other way around.
So which is it? Is the murderer right to act on his religion and murder people? Please stick to a pluralist viewpoint and don’t become a moralist. Or was it wrong? Again, please stick to a pluralist viewpoint to explain; don’t use the bible, a plainly anti-pluralist book. Or is it majority rule that decides? Popular disgust? Feeling tolerant yet?
BTW, when did the practice of Suttee (widows being burned with their dead husbands) end in India? Who ended it? And how long had it been practiced there? Was it wrong or not? If wrong, why?
“Oh, how I love Thy law; it is my meditation all the day.” Ps. 119
LikeLike
DG asked: 1) “Did the Roman authorities have a basis for knowing right from wrong?” 2) “Did the apostles get all upset about those authorities or did they call believers to lead quiet and peaceful lives?”
1) It doesn’t matter. Even if they had, they wouldn’t have enacted the laws their God-inspired conscience commanded, for they themselves would have been self-condemned for their lives, acts, and words. It was not until a Christian culture of redemption and respect for God’s law set into the Roman Empire that such could happen.
2) Did the apostles get upset when Paul was beheaded for preaching the truth? Should we long for those wonderful pluralistic days of the Roman Empire (and it was very pluralistic – to the point it couldn’t stand Christians claiming to have “the Truth”)? When Christians could lead quiet and peaceful lives, as they were led to their deaths? Do you even attempt to combine a knowledge of history with your bible reading, or are you some kind of proof-texting, fundamentalist, pietistic, literalist, who can’t see past the passage’s personal application to a nice American life?
LikeLike
Can a civil government punish the wicked in accordance with Romans 13 in a world where no one knows what wicked is? Are you defending a biblical/Christian view of civil government or plain, ole anarchy?
The problem is Paul assumed that the civil govt. knew what was good and bad was in general in Rom. 13. You do what is right and the magistrate will commend you.
But it was written at a time when there were no Christian governments.
So what’s the takeaway?
Separation of church and state.
Even pagan Rome had some things right. Right of appeal. Right to face your accusers etc.
It wasn’t total anarchy and chaos or wickedness all the time.
LikeLike
Win, do you think much? If Paul commended quiet and peaceful lives when Christians were being led to their deaths, why do you act like we are living in a time worse than the early church? Why do you bitch so much? Where’s the gratitude? Oh, that’s right. Thankfulness can’t be an adequate basis for good works. No kidding.
LikeLike
Is “Win” Win Duffy from “Justified”? If so, don’t trust him. He’s a bad guy.
Or does his name just reflect the need of some P&R folks to always be playing on the winning cultural team?
LikeLike
Win, so what is needed is special revelation to govern civil life. Have you noticed it doesn’t make even ecclesiastical life hum along like a well-oiled machine? All kinds of shenanigans going on in the church, doctrinal and moral.
I didn’t say everyone interprets natural revelation well. I said everybody knows what’s right and wrong. Just because things don’t seem to be going well doesn’t mean the rule books should get switched out. It means human sin, that thing for which you don’t seem to account, is at play no matter what book is being used. It’s called screwing up. Deal with it.
ps Paul’s context wasn’t pluralist, it was theocratic. That’s why he was martyred, as in religion fostered and punished by the sword instead of the Spirit. But I’ll give theocracy one thing–it does separate the wheat and the chaff in short order. Then again, it’s chaff that tends to get hysterical about its scandal, as if the faithful shouldn’t experience persecution (though no problem if its the unfaithful–so much for love thy neighbor more than thyself).
LikeLike
Now the fangs come out. I was wondering when. Must have hit a nerve.
It’s God’s word or man’s, whether in the Church, the State, or your personal life. You can defend man’s word and argue God’s word will not win out, but you’ll be wrong. When is the only question.
I won’t win this battle for God, and I won’t try. He’s perfectly capable of watching over His word to see it upheld on earth, as it is in heaven. I just ask – for your own sakes – that you not let your poor intellects overrule the faith you should have in God’s word.
And don’t criticize those who have the courage to stand for God’s word and speak to the evils of this world on that foundation. You really have no basis for critiquing this world except your personal opinion – God won’t uphold that. He’ll just let you argue about whose right or wrong on your little blogs. Have fun.
LikeLike
Win, fangs? May you never know persecution. Man up.
LikeLike
Here are some ideas that I think the 2kers would agree with. Please tell me that I’m wrong. They are not rhetorical attacks. If I’m wrong I’d like to know. Maybe I’m just viewing y’all as a caricature.
1. Voting for a candidate who for any office who believes God’s law should apply to society’s policy is not being peaceably and godly.
2. Standing outside an abortion clinic to protest abortion is not living peaceably and godly.
3. Preaching the gospel of the kingdom on the street corner is not living peaceably and godly.
4. Standing for heterosexuality as the exclusive basis for marriage and the law of the land is not living peaceably and godly.
5. Advocating the bible as the basis for policy for civil government is not living peaceably and godly.
6. Prophesying against unbiblical policies within civil government by Christians or the Church is not living peaceably and godly.
If I’m wrong about any of these judgments, please correct me.
LikeLike
Win, it’s “peaceable and quiet.” Get biblical already.
LikeLike
DG, I would probably never know persecution if I took the position that the Church is supposed to go along with the separation of bible and state that it appears 2k advocates. I emphasize the word “appears,” for as I say in a previous post, “I hope I’m wrong.”
LikeLike
DG, You didn’t answer my question. I’m really hoping you can tell me you don’t think those six things are anti-biblical. What you said is ambiguous, at best.
BYW, you got the gratitude part backwards. We’re in a better condition; that’s the point. Our godly ancestors gave to us a country, blessed beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, blessed in liberty and wealth and churches on every corner. If we deny that it was the biblical God who blessed us, then what caused it? Our intelligence? Our hard work? Our pluralism? But that would attribute our blessings to the works of our own hands, the very belief that leads to God’s judgment, according to Moses.
So, I see ingratitude in those who seem to be doing all they can to throw those blessings away by denying God His due. If the Church sits back and lets that happen, how is that grateful?
LikeLike
“Man up,” and tell me whether I’m wrong about 2k’s attitude toward those six activities.
LikeLike
Win, you’re wrong. You can stop hoping now. Rowr!
LikeLike
So my list of six activities is not contrary to Paul’s injunction to live peaceable and godly lives according to 2k. That’s good to know. I’ll ratchet back the rhetoric . . . a little.
LikeLike
Another child who thinks a lack of huge arguments against his position means he is right.
We just don’t have the time to bicker with your endless game playing.
LikeLike
I don’t understand Kent’s point. I just expressed gratification at hearing that 2k doesn’t expect Christians to ostrich-like put their heads in the sand and ignore the departure from God a society pursues, and he says I’m playing games.
What does he mean by “huge arguments?” What is “game playing?” Is it blogging for the purpose of determining if someone is misinterpreting Paul’s injunction to live “peaceable and godly lives?” Isn’t that an important question to ask?
LikeLike
How is it that a 2K view holds the only open Reformed board that accepts all points of view with the greatest patience; letting us display our inner being without censorship or moderating (except in extreme circumstances that have been repeatedly warned)
The anti-2K crowd delights in stamping out discussion, censoring posts, and banning without adequate or fair warning or cause
That’s a reasonable question.
LikeLike
Win, I’ve been down this road before. Here‘s the first of four interviews I did. You may find the answers to your biblicism.
LikeLike
Thanks, DG. I’ll check it out.
LikeLike
I really liked the first interview (have yet to read the others), and it makes me want to relate my early young adult experience in a group called Maranatha, a campus ministry of the 70’s and 80’s. You may have heard of it. Talk about experiential, revivalist, and making you feel like you had to be “witnessing” 24/7. Don’t get me wrong. At that stage in my life, I didn’t need a whole lot of encouragement to witness, but that organization was encouraging revivalism on steroids.
Since then, 30 years later, I’ve come to respect just what you discussed in that interview – the Church, its authority, and the fact that experience is not the basis for determining church membership. In other words, I’ve become reformed. However, I still see reference to revival even among conservative Presbyterians, and it scares me for the following reasons:
1. By invoking revival, are we implying that the communion and fellowship that believers now enjoy with God the Spirit is somehow defective?
2. Will it lead to more “end-times” fever and less here-and-now ministry?
3. Is the Church ready for a great influx of people, or will the Church not be biblical in the manner it handles new people in large numbers? Will it get strange, as you referenced in the interview regarding previous “revivals?”
4. Would God pouring out His Spirit on vast numbers of people in a public way be construed as baptizing our present secular, anti-biblical culture, civil government, etc.?
God is sovereign and does whatever He chooses in the heavens and the earth, but those are my personal concerns.
BTW, what’s “biblicism?”
LikeLike
Win, biblicism is distrusting man-made creeds and assemblies of the church that run by Roberts Rules, as if you don’t have a proof text for everything you do you’re not being biblical.
LikeLike
DG, I’m a lawyer; I know there have to be man-made procedures and such to effectuate organizational policy. I’m not that type of Biblicist.
I grew up Southern Baptist, and so learning the necessity for creeds and assemblies and confessions was something I had to learn as a young adult. BTW, I learned the value of them from Rushdoony and North. In fact, I would not be reformed but for the Reconstructionists.
LikeLike
Win raises interesting questions about American prosperity and blessedness. I was reading a 2011 article in Vanity Fair about Warren Buffet recently and ran across this quote:
“Rivaling Buffett’s confidence in Berkshire Hathaway is his faith in the United States. “We had four million people here in 1790,” he tells Vanity Fair. “We’re not more intelligent than people in China, which then had 290 million people, or Europe, which had 50 million. We didn’t work harder, we didn’t have a better climate, and we didn’t have better resources. But we definitely had a system that unleashes potential. This system works. Since then, we’ve been through at least 15 recessions, a civil war, a Great Depression…. All of these things happen. But this country has optimized human potential, and it’s not over yet. It’s like what’s written on the tomb of Sir Christopher Wren: If you seek his monument, look around you.”
In the United States we definitely do have “a system that unleashes potential”, but is that “system” Christianity? Buffett & Bill Gates, the two richest people in the U.S. are by no means Christians.
We have freedom of religion, and that’s a blessing, but that could just be a consequence of a government that is indifferent to religion.
We have material wealth, but that could just be the consequence of a system that promotes human freedom which leads to material wealth.
We’re wealthy and free, but we also continued slavery longer than most Western countries and are the home of the world’s pornography industry and the market for most of the world’s illegal drugs.
Not to go Jeremiah Wright on you, but have we been more blessed or more cursed? And if we’re cursed, how far back does that cursing go? The founders were slaveowners, after all.
LikeLike
Win, you say you “know there have to be man-made procedures and such to effectuate organizational policy.” But you also say “It’s God’s word or man’s, whether in the Church, the State, or your personal life. You can defend man’s word and argue God’s word will not win out, but you’ll be wrong.”
On the one hand you make plenty of room for natural revelation. On the other hand, you don’t–there is only theonomy or autonomy. I don’t understand. As a lawyer you get to be 2k, but when others as ordinary citizens try to be 2k it’s all of a sudden wrong?
LikeLike
1. Voting for a candidate who for any office who believes God’s law should apply to society’s policy is not being peaceably and godly.
False. Christians can vote for whomever they choose.
2. Standing outside an abortion clinic to protest abortion is not living peaceably and godly.
False. It’s a free country. Hopefully the protester is not being an ass, though.
3. Preaching the gospel of the kingdom on the street corner is not living peaceably and godly.
False. Hopefully the preacher is not being an ass, though. Usually effective preaching involves an audience that wants to hear the preacher.
4. Standing for heterosexuality as the exclusive basis for marriage and the law of the land is not living peaceably and godly.
False. Hopefully the “stand” does not involve being an obstinate ass, though. By being an ass the stander will probably just turn more people against their cause.
5. Advocating the bible as the basis for policy for civil government is not living peaceably and godly.
False. Hopefully the reasoning is sound, though. The Bible does not speak to every “policy for civil government.”
6. Prophesying against unbiblical policies within civil government by Christians or the Church is not living peaceably and godly.
Prophesying? What qualifies the particular prophet to prophesy? We don’t see people declaring themselves prophets in the Bible.
LikeLike
Win,
Have you noticed that Reconstructionism and Theonomy haven’t exactly set the world on fire? They’ve kind of gone the way of the leisure suit and the mood ring.
I know, just because only around 12 living people believe in something doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
LikeLike
Win, that’s a strange way of doing history. Reconstructionists are so 1980s. I thought the Reformation went back at least to Zurich in 1522. Now you’re telling me Zwingli was a theonomist?
LikeLike
DG,
I see you haven’t read what you criticize.
LikeLike
Win,
Doug Sowers sent us all Bahnsen’s “Theonomy and Christian Ethics” for Christmas. You’re way late to this party.
LikeLike
Win, let’s just say there are better and worse ways to become Reformed. If you had read Machen and the Princetonians, you’re experience would likely be different (and so would those who interact with you — you certainly have the antithetical prickliness down).
LikeLike
Coming to Reformed Theology via Theonomy is kind of like going to Tijuana for sex-ed class. Not recommended at all.
LikeLike
I read the second interview. Let me sum up from a Reconstructionist perspective because perhaps there’s nothing more than a semantic difference here. Political actions don’t transform society; the word of God working in the hearts of men and women who then apply that word in their callings in everyday life God uses to advance His kingdom, sometimes imperceptibly but gradually toward the inevitable victory of His Kingdom. But it will never come in such a way that man as politician or activist gets the honor and the glory. (I know, I added the inevitable victory and glory part.) Politics is not the most important thing, not nearly as important as the preaching of the gospel from the pulpit. The means of grace applied in people’s lives affect the culture, the world, the civil government, etc., but that’s not the first thing; those things are affected logically, naturally, as God intended – in its proper order.
Any disagreement?
LikeLike
Win – the word of God working in the hearts of men and women who then apply that word in their callings in everyday life God uses to advance His kingdom
Erik – That would make you a Neocalvinist, not a Reconstructionist.
Are you putting us on?
LikeLike
Win,
How does a Christian plumber plumb differently than a non-Christian plumber and how does God use “Christian plumbing” to advance His kingdom?
If Jesus’ kingdom is “not of this world”, why does he need a plumber?
LikeLike
Third interview. Can’t find anything to criticize. I liked this statement, which is theonomic: “In other words, you can’t understand the church or the state apart from God’s righteous standards, that is, his law.” That was at the beginning, but it also explains how to recognize “that God’s kingdom advances even when affairs in this world are going to hell in a handbasket (such as the fall of the Roman Empire),” which is at the end of the interview. God raises up the wicked to prominence in order to bring them down, like Pharoah. And He disciplines His church and people, not to hurt them, but for good in the long run. The long run, maybe thousands of years. But always for good.
LikeLike
Win – The long run, maybe thousands of years. But always for good.
Erik – Always the out for the Theonomist and the Postmillennialist.
“Monkeys could indeed fly out of my butt, although it might not happen for thousands of years.”
O.K.
LikeLike
I liked half of the 4th interivew. For example, I can’t think of any Reconstructionist I’ve read who would disagree with the following: “The point is that one could affirm Christ’s kingship over the magistrate but regard it as part of his rule as creator rather than mediator, thus preserving the uniqueness of the visible church as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ ” You said that statement of yours was based on Rutherford’s thinking & the WCF.
However, a thought came to me. And it’s something I would think you would recognize. I mentioned it before because of your simplistic application of “live peaceably and godly.” Isn’t our country’s history different? No doubt, our fall from the Puritan ideal was a result of the Fall. (Isn’t all evil a result of the Fall?) But what about the defection by Christians from the word of God after knowing the redemption of that good God? What consequences are there for that? Isn’t our situation different from that of Paul and Daniel? How do we apply Romans 13 and “living peaceably and godly” in that situation?
Here’s an example of facing the consequences of our choice against God’s law. You said in one of your interviews that Christians can’t require that only Christians be public officials. But that is the biblical principle: Only covenanters can be king in Israel according to Deuteronomy. Such was the principle adhered to by the colonies and even for a time after the U.S. Constitution was ratified. So, in following a humanist, Athens-view instead of Jerusalem-view (van Til, forsaken by you and Westiminster), we reap what we sow. Our political chaos arises directly from our belief that it doesn’t matter who’s in charge; surely our leaders will follow natural law.
Thus you undercut all your previous statements about God’s law being our standard and the effects of people living out their redemption. You put the icing on the cake with your devotion to natural law. Maybe if Christians didn’t hold up natural law as the answer, we wouldn’t lead the rest of the world astray.
Otherwise, I agree that Christ’s kingdom is bigger, better, not based on political or military power, and redemptive in nature. I just don’t like the schizophrenia because I think your viewpoint denies His power to punish His enemies, enact justice from His position seated at the right hand of God, and demonstrate His redemption even in a society that outwardly obeys His law.
BTW, theonomy is not about avoiding suffering. Who came up with that straw man? The geniuses at Westminster who attacked theonomy a few years ago? Again, it would be nice if you read the writings of the people you criticize before you criticize them.
LikeLike
Erik, in calling me a neo Calvinist, now gets it. Reconstructionism is not some weird aberration in Christian history; it is the logical heir of that heritage.
LikeLike
Win, plenty of disagreement. When do my good works (there are some) change society? I study the actions of human beings for a living. Really hard to say when one action or set of actions changes anything. Haven’t you ever heard of unintended consequences?
LikeLike
Win, “Can’t find anything to criticize.”
This is disconcerting.
LikeLike
Win, but you presume that good works will change society for the better. Where’s the suffering in that?
Fall from Puritan society? The Puritans did not found America. That’s bad history. Bad theology too.
LikeLike
We learn so much about Win so quickly. He was itching to tell us he is an attorney (hence qualified to examine real estate abstracts), thinks Puritanism is something from which we fell, thinks only Christians should be public officials, and, of course, and is zealous for God’s “power to punish His enemies.” But no LOL! LOL! and restrained punctuation.
This has been the Gravel Report.
LikeLike
This when a true reconstructionist starts giving handgun advice.
LikeLike
*This is when…*
LikeLike
Win,
If a believer (who has been tested by the Elders for membership in the church) votes for a Democrat – sees merit in ideas from the same……..doesn’t go for the Tea Party…….and also likes Starbucks, Gardenburgers, listening to Kiss and Alice Cooper (in excerpt form – Schools Out, Detroit Rock City), as well as enjoying independent films……………but also likes hunting, Charlton Heston, William F. Buckley, Gore Vidal, and Cornel West (the profile here is an amalgamation)
Would you rate this person as:
(a) Christian
(b) Carnal Christian/backslidden
(c) Unregenerate
And last question – would you feel that it was your personal duty to ‘set them straight’ and if necessary, call for the Elders of the church and bring this person before the Session to get the ‘sin out of the camp’ (you think this is sinful) and not hinder God’s hand in bringing revival?
LikeLike
Win,
If a believer (who has been tested by the Elders for membership in the church) votes for a Democrat – sees merit in ideas from the same……..doesn’t go for the Tea Party…….and also likes Starbucks, Gardenburgers, listening to Kiss and Alice Cooper (in excerpt form – Schools Out, Detroit Rock City), as well as enjoying independent films……………but also likes hunting, Charlton Heston, William F. Buckley, Gore Vidal, and Cornel West (the profile here is an amalgamation)
Would you rate this person as:
(a) Christian
(b) Carnal Christian/backslidden
(c) Unregenerate
And last question(s) – would you feel that it was your personal duty to ‘set them straight’ and if necessary, call for the Elders of the church and bring this person before the Session to get the ‘sin out of the camp’ (you think this is sinful) and not hinder God’s hand in bringing revival?
Or, would you rebuke them in serious (the threat of bringing them before the Session is in your thoughts) ‘jest’?
LikeLike
For those making wagers, the over/under on guns for Win is 3.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart : “Win, but you presume that good works will change society for the better. Where’s the suffering in that?”
I’m quite confused on this point. In civil society, what is the reason for Christians to desire suffering…or worse, to be complicit in their own, or other’s destruction, especially by civil powers? If people are being led to their deaths as martyrs, are we to just let it happen? Do we just permit the civil authorities violate the 6th Commandment and commit murder?
I live in a town that saw a massive immigration of refugees from Europe during the 20th century, particularly after 1945. It is still possible to see people in their 80’s with numbers tattooed on their arms, survivors of a whole people targeted for extermination. Be mindful that the Jews comprised 6 million killed, out of the 13 million total. Be also mindful that Martin Bormann classed bible believing Christians as “a sect of Judaism”, and as such were to be likewise exterminated. If we were there, what should we do?
Also, there are some that left the old country as teenage indentured servants before the horrors began, leaving their families behind, where they were caught in the insane bloodlust that drenched Europe in rivers of blood. And why ? For one person, her people lived in the path of the Russian Imperial Army headed west to invade Germany, with both parents and siblings literally annihilated (no bodies left to bury) for just being in the way… . And she would be forced to contemplate her family’s massacre to the end of her days.
What do you counsel as the correct way to respond in such events?
BTW, the woman stated above was my grandmother, and the only reason I’m even here to comment, is that she literally got out in the nick of time. As for countless millions…they didn’t, which is why marauding Civil governments really concern me. And should concern all Christians.
LikeLike
Russell, turning the other cheek is one thing, acting like the Good Samaritan another. I’m not sure that either function as a model for the good ruler.
LikeLike
Wow, DG, that was a telling response to Russell’s very personal, very relevant question about people standing for or against particular forms of civil ( or uncivil) government! Why choose to live in the US versus Nazi Germany? Could it possibly be that one is closer to a biblical model than the other? Cavalier is a nice way to describe your response; heartlessly dismissive of human suffering is another.
Puritans: foolish of you, DG, to think that humanist documents carry more weight than Compacts made before God.
Laws, btw, are not made with care & philosophical consistency in America. Fads arise, one day Aquinas is respected, another day deconstruction is brought out. It’s like a cafeteria, not a university classroom. We are not facing alternative laws – alternative to the bible. We’re facing the loss of law itself.
When we proclaim (prophesy as a Church of the living God) ,we may not be addressing the Bidens & Reids who could care less about law & this country’s future; we’re addressing the watchers, those on the sidelines, those who may take the reigns later.
To whom did Jeremiah address his critiques? To those God told him would never listen? Or was it us? Us, who can learn that cracked cisterns is all you get from man’s law. Could it be us who take over when deconstruction accomplishes it’s purpose – creating a society based on such individualistic law that it can’t be recognized as law at all. Could those who predict the breakdown be preparing the way for a return to one consistent, to one unified God?
Otherwise, who will take over WHEN the breakdown happens? Who else proposes a consistent, unified law based on a unified God? That’s who takes over WHEN the society runs out of endurance of fools attempting to rule, when they’re ignorant of the law of God.
LikeLike
Win, I didn’t choose to be born in the U.S. That’s not fair.
LikeLike
More on the OT prophets (and Third Reich). Sounds like Curt. Theonomists and Socialists Together.
LikeLike
The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!
LikeLike
Win, thanks for latest reply…I really was at a loss for words.
The question now is, What makes for a trustable rule of law? Justice Story, in his Commentaries and writings on the Constitution clearly said American law is founded in Christianity…and in the early 1800’s America that was rooted in the Congregational and Presbyterian worldview.
Presbyterian run Princeton College alone produced more politicians, judges, diplomats, etc. than all other colleges. And in Princeton, the student had many Biblical studies requirements to meet, which gave them a solid theological base to perform their duties in service to “Church and State”.
Justice Story summarized American law as a three-fold design to protect the citizen’s Life, Liberty, and Property. Compare that to, say, the Soviet system, there “they” decided what rights you have (if any) and could take away at any time. Remember, in their system, we would be in a Siberian prison just for the religious activity we are conducting right now, as the USSR was violently “atheist”.
This is why refugees flooded here…a land where the Government was required to protect you, not plunder and murder you. This is the American Exceptionalism they found, and now is rapidly fading away. Perfect, in operation, no. A safe haven for millions…yes.
Contrast that, with what my grandfather’s family encountered in Eastern Europe, post 1945, as their farm community was taken over by the Communists. I have documentation of their high drama travails, and it details how “the guards are here, and you cannot say a thing.” They proceeded to steal their grain, their harvest, their land, their farming tools, their home, and the son-in law, who was taken to Russia, never to return. Quite literally, they were left only “with their eyes, with which to cry.”
Why do I mention all this? We who lived with those refugees, and remember the terrified look on their faces when forced to remember unspeakable horrors that go beyond any possible description have decided we must tell this story in order to wake people up, and to “strengthen what remains”, which is most likely what those Princeton types of old would expect… .
LikeLike
Russell, when telling stories don’t forget the one about the origins of Princeton Theological Seminary. Church leaders worried that the College of NJ was producing too many politicians.
Everything is contested. Whatever you consider a positive development, someone else doesn’t.
LikeLike
There is a legitimate place for politics in the Christian worldview, & its way down the line below personal salvation, family worship and training, and the means of grace of the Church. (All of which lead to a civil government which is not large and all-consuming, but I digress.) If you look at the history of American politics since the late 70s, you see a steady and strong increase in the activity of conservative Christians in the political arena. (That could change as legitimate choices for political office become more rare in light of the convictions of conservative Christians.)
You also see a corresponding rise in the politics of personal destruction, aka persecution of those standing for righteousness in the civil square. We’re not talking about persecution for standing for some ecclesiastical tyranny by one denomination over the rest of the nation; we’re talking about standing for things as basic as the civil government living within its means, holding to traditional marriage, and respect for human life.
We expect some of the radical left to attack those standing for the truth in these areas, but we don’t expect other Christians to stand on sidelines throwing mocking comments at those who have been knocked down in the dirt like they’re criminals with comments like: “Hey, thought you were going to transform the world!” “How’s that biblicism working for you now?” “Well, you asked for it buddy by getting involved in the civil square when you should have been staying in church and accepting the rule of the wicked humbly and submissively.”
I ask for two things from the 2k folks: Approach the world we have been placed in with the faith that God will make His people victorious in all realms, even if it comes at great cost, and don’t join the wicked in mocking those who stand for righteousness in a world of upside down ethics.
LikeLike
Win, sorry but that sounds like prosperity gospel (“approach the world we have been placed in with the faith that God will make His people victorious in all realms”). But that’s what theonomy is, prosperity gospel for the culturally and politically inclined. This is the part where you blow a gasket and bluster about being devoid of faith.
LikeLike
Victorious in all realms??
That’s a joke, right?
Christians get paved over on all kinds of realms in the world.
LikeLike
When I hear these Dispensationalists & Company talking about a revival-return to godliness in our land, or, ‘the good ole days’ – well,
……..in the ‘good ole days’ – the godly inhabitants were killing Native Americans…….oppressing African Americans through slavery, torture, and lynching………and insisting on separate rest rooms, drinking fountains, and backseats on buses for the very same. How many Klan members sang in the choir?
Is that what all these revivalists want a return to? ‘The Good Ole Days’? We are not supposed to put confidence ‘in man’, anyway. A much as I love the ‘greats’, they are not without blemish……..
LikeLike
Sounds like some kind of cosmic Lake Wobegon.
LikeLike
Semper,
No, more like the 1950s.
An Ohio theater owner was put in jail for screening Louis Malle’s “The Lovers”.
Jeanne Moreau. Oh my.
LikeLike
Yo, Semper you channeling our resident socialist extraordinaire Curt much?
Stop it.
Or we’ll lynch you in virtual reality.
LikeLike
Erik, great addendum – there is so much more to what I listed. Great Malle film……..
LikeLike
Bob S,
Let’s have lunch and let me tell you about F-86 Sabre Jets in 54’……………..
LikeLike
“Approach the world we have been placed in with the faith that God will make His people victorious in all realms,”
Well, let’s see. Jesus chose crucifixion over an earthly throne. Peter was pretty upset about that. The apostles – weren’t they poor and under hostile authorities with a number of them martyred? Then there’s the beheaded saints in Revelation and the experience of countless Christians that suffering is frequently a part of the Christian calling.
“Victory” is a carnal aspiration.
LikeLike
Like it or not, we are called sheep by our Shepherd.
That’s not really an animal I want to send to fight a bear or a wolverine.
LikeLike
Muddy, which might be why we should sing psalms and scriptural passages (preferably unaccompanied). Hymn writers and flashy instrumentalists are always finding ways to gin up some revivalistic, culture-fixing fervor. Give me a psalm set to a minor-key Welsh tune — that’s soul music.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: “Russell, when telling stories don’t forget the one about the origins of Princeton Theological Seminary. Church leaders worried that the College of NJ was producing too many politicians.”
Yes, I like to “tell stories”, in particular “stories” that support my other comments. Now, more about about the United States, and the intrepid Presbyterians and Congregationalists, who, at great personal risk, led the fight for Independence from the Crown. In particular, the “Black-Robed Army” of pastors who found themselves on the British hit-list for treason, most notably for this discussion, Princetonians like John Witherspoon, William Tennent, Jr. and John Rodgers.
What is most striking, is that the theologians of that day had a common Reformation world-view that gave a complimentary structure to “both Church and State”.
Seems to me, that their view of “secular” affairs meant the issues of life in the “State”, as opposed to the all too common modern application of life in the “State” that is separate from any Christian influence.
Some very relevant documentation material for perusal … :
1. Memoir of John Rodgers, D.D. by Samuel Miller, D.D.
Dr. Rodgers and his place in the American War for Independence.
https://archive.org/details/memoirsrevjohnr00millgoog
2. Presbyterians and the Revolution. 1876
By the Rev. William P. Breed, D.D. (Princeton Seminary, 1847)
Philadelphia. Presbyterian Board of Publication
Dr. Breed details the development of the modern concept of the “republic” from Luther, Calvin, John Knox to its fullest implementation in America beginning in 1787.
Breed traces his family lineage in America to 1630 Puritans. He was one of the premier historians of American Presbyterianism.
https://archive.org/details/presbyteriansrev01bree
3. About Rev. Dr. Breed:
In Memory of Life and Ministry of William Pratt Breed, D.D. 1889
https://archive.org/stream/inmemoryoflifemi00slsn#page/n0/mode/2up
Ah..gotta love the Internet. Real original source history…reasonably priced (free).
P.S. Win, thanks… .
LikeLike
Russell, that’s odd that you say these men had a Reformation w-w since Presbyterians in Ireland and Scotland were not so inclined to rebel against the Crown.
LikeLike
I don’t want to be seen as “odd”, so as a refresher on Reformation Era Scotland, I just pulled my Banner of Truth copy of “Samuel Rutherford And His Friends”, by Faith Cook (1992) for a fact check… .
In summary,
Looks like life in Scotland was a quite a tenuous adventure, especially when Charles II ascended the throne. Some leading figures of Rutherford’s Presbyterian brethren were singled out for execution…yes…execution for holding to the Solemn League and Covenant. Just to be aligned with the Covenant was a capital offence treason. Pretty hard to peacefully co-exist with a Monarch who viewed the Covenanters as automatically in rebellion… .
As for Rutherford himself, his book Lex Rex, which closely followed Knox, sealed his fate, and only his natural death saved him from execution, and all found copies of Lex Rex were burned right outside his window at St Andrews and in Edinburgh.
(My note: In America ca. 1770’s, mere possession of a copy of it could get you a visit from the Crown’s officers… .)
Don’t forget the 1662 Act of Uniformity, where 2000 non-conforming pastors, in the main Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. were ejected from their pulpits by law… .
Moving on, about a century later, in Colonial Virginia, being a Non-Conformist could get you into jail.
Samuel Davies, went to trial against Peyton Randolf, and successfully argued that the 1689 Act For Toleration was law in the Colonies, and only by this, did he gain the legal right to preach in VA, otherwise jail awaited Davies. He later went to NJ to serve as President of…The College of New Jersey.
Let’s just say that Presbyterians of those times weren’t looking for rebellion, but just by adherence to their doctrines, as far as the Crown was concerned, it placed them in a state of rebellion.
LikeLike
A thought for Election day, Nov. 4, 2014, courtesy of John T. Kirkland, D.D., President of Harvard, in his 1816 Election Day Discourse to Massachusetts politicians :
PSALM CVI. 4,5
“O visit me with thy salvation, that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance.”
YOU enter this temple, civil Fathers, to offer prayers to the Supreme Governor of Nations for your country, as the object of your cares and labors; and for yourselves, as the appointed guardians of that country’s welfare.
You engage in this solemnity as an act, expressing the obligations and sentiments, at once of patriotism and piety. Impressed with the belief of the presence and agency of the Most High, the source of all life and happiness, the witness and judge of character and conduct, you are led by duty and feeling to his throne. Affected with solicitude for the course of public affairs, and the direction they may receive from your deliberations and measures, you commit to God the commonwealth, and the country, for your blessing, and yourselves for his guidance and aid. It pertains to each of you to adopt the prayer of the psalmist,–O visit me with thy salvation, that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may glory with thine inheritance.
The nation, with all the separate portions of it is thine, O God,, thy chosen, thy inheritance. It has been enriched by thy bounty, guarded by thy providence, instructed by thy word, corrected by thy visitations of mercy and judgement. Accept the expression of my concern, for what thou hast shewn to be dear to thee. Give me the joy of seeing its prosperity–grant me the privilege of being permitted to co-operate with thee in advancing its felicity and glory.”
It belongs to the man, the citizen, and the christian, in whatever station, and especially in public office, to have a heart to offer such a prayer as this–to cherish and maintain that affection for the public good, which is implied in his prayer, and carefully and habitually to consider in what that good consists.”
“In these exigencies of our moral relations, our way obscured, our strength insufficient, shall we not look beyond this narrow world, this limited sphere;–and hear the call, invoke the aid of heaven-born religion? Let us ally ourselves to the power that made us. VIRTUE IS GOD”S LAW. IT IS UNDER THE PATRONAGE AND PROTECTION OF A REWARDING AND AVENGING DEITY.–By his unalterable will, virtue and happiness are, in the ultimate result, bound together in an indissoluable chain.
Think not, short-sighted presumptuous mortal, to make a computation about the possible advantage of doing wrong in a single instance. Never imagine that you have an inducement to attempt to serve or deliver yourself by a departure from right–or any reason to be discouraged from duty by a doubt of final support and reward.
Say you that natural religion leaves these truths open to question? we have the articulate voice of God, an extraordinary light from heaven to dispel every doubt, to make them clear and certain.”
As a matter of interest, aside from WCF Chapter XXXIII, does anyone recall hearing from any modern pulpit any warning like that which is rendered in the last two paragraphs?
Election Day Discourses were a standard practice in New England right from the first Colonial days through the late 1800’s. Usually they were a major effort by a leading N.E. pastor, and typically an Ivy League alum / President.
LikeLike
Russell,
I’ve always taken inspiration from the Psalter:
LikeLike