I’ll start this post by referencing one of the comments on the thread from which this fisking comes. One of the comments insinuated that I was a uber Republican. Just, FYI … I haven’t voted Republican in 20 years. Just one continuous stream of errant assumptions flows from R2K’ers.

Darryl wrote,

The good Rabbi posits once again that I am a dunce (along with all 2kers) for not recognizing that the church and the state are all part of one cosmic government under the authority of God. (One of his fans suggests I am not regenerate.) Actually, I do understand this. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of divine sovereignty and powers delegated to parents, churches, and magistrates knows that God’s rule extends to the secondary means by which he orders all things.

1.) I never posited that Darryl was a “dunce.” I said he was out of his element. I got that line from Darryl himself as he addressed Mr. Doug Sowers saying,

“… Doug, you’re out of your element.”

A little “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander treatment in my previous title.

2.) Still, I do believe that Darryl is out of his element. The element is Historical traditional Reformed understanding of Church State relations per the original Reformed Confessions. Even Darryl admits that his reading is nouveau. Darryl wrote in his post “If Theonomy, Then No Machen (or United States),”

Or maybe theonoomy and the original Reformed confessions’ teachings about the magistrate lost when the Reformed and Presbyterian churches embraced the politics associated with a certain eighteenth-century republic founded in North America.

3.) Darryl has a funny way of expressing God’s cosmic sovereignty when he insist that the Magistrate has naught to do with God’s law. (See previous post on Iron Ink, “Straight to the Hart.”)

Darryl continues

The problem for the Rabbi is that he goes back and forth between this cosmic government and the specific relations between nations and their churches. Talking about divine sovereignty and human institutions in the abstract is one thing. Talking about the relations between church and state in a particular polity is another.

The signs of this confusion come when the Rabbi concludes:

1.) Darryl is saying Calvin was wrong and that Geneva was a unbiblical model. Sinful Calvin. Sinful Geneva. I’m sure glad we have a clearly superior model working for us now in these uSA that we can look to for an example.

2.) In an ideal social order the Pastors serve God by obeying God’s revelation for the Church and civil magistrates serve God by obeying God’s revelation for the Civil realm. The Pastors don’t work for the Government and the Magistrates don’t work for the Church. Both, however are subject to God in His revelation. This isn’t that difficult.

First, I am wrong to challenge the superiority of Geneva even though Christ and Paul did not establish a polity anything like Geneva. This would suggest that the Rabbi is not pleased with the early church that did nothing to make sure that the magistrate was following God’s law. Personally, I’d rather be in the camp of criticizing Calvin than the one that questions Christ. But most critics of 2k never really look at what’s happening in Acts to understand what the church’s mission properly is. Instead, they pine for the days when pontiffs in Rome were christening Holy Roman Emperors.

1.) And The problem with Darryl is because he gets it wrong in the abstract he also gets it wrong in the concrete. Darryl has it wrong in both abstract and concrete.

2.) We have on record that Darryl thinks that Calvin was wrong. Obviously Darryl would also have to disagree with Knox also when Knox referenced Geneva as, “the most perfect school of Christ that was ever on earth since the days of the apostles.”

3.) Of course Darryl’s hermeneutic of discontinuity differs from my Reformed hermeneutic of continuity that allows me to see that God’s word does teach a polity like Geneva. When it comes to questions like these I don’t start with the NT. I start with all of the Scripture. Also, keep in mind that the implication of what Darryl writes above is that Calvin’s position was in defiance of Christ’s position.

4.) The early Church did do something to make sure that the Magistrate took seriously God’s law. The martyrs of the Early Church died to force the first commandment on the Magistrates. In their deaths they made sure the Magistrate took seriously God’s law, and eventually, by their Martyrdom, the civil realm became Christendom.

5.) Darryl obviously skips Acts 19 when he reads the book of Acts. In Acts 19 we see the effect on the common realm when Reformation visits a people. St. Paul spends two years reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus and as a result of that teaching and Miracles occurring confirming the Gospel, God was pleased to give Reformation. This turned everything upside down in Hart’s common realm. The common culture of occult was extinguished. The economics of the common realm was so threatened that there was riots by those whose livelihood was threatened by the advance of the Kingdom of Christ. Indeed, because of the success of the Gospel, the religion that drove the culture was threatened to be overturned in favor of a Christ informed culture. Diana, the Queen of Ephesus was on the ropes as King Christ, via Reformation, was overturning everything in the common realm.

Of course, in R2K, that isn’t supposed to happen. In R2K, souls are saved, but culture, by definition, can’t be Christian.

So, in short Darryl … yes I read the book of Acts and yes I know that the theme of the book of Acts is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. Do you read the book of Acts?

Darryl writes,

Second, the Rabbi takes as soon as he gives. Geneva by his reckoning was not an “ideal” social order because the pastors did work for the government. So Brett is no fan of Calvin’s town either, but this leaves him with no historical home (maybe that’s why he kvetches so much).

This from David Hall’s “The Geneva Reformation and America’s Founding,”

“One of Calvin’s demands before returning to Geneva in September of 1541 was that a presbytery … be established. When it came to replace ineffective centralized structures, rather than opting for an institution that strengthened his own hand, this visionary reformer lobbied for decentralized authority, lodged with many officers. He also insisted that the church be free from political interference — separation of jurisdictions helped to solidify the integrity of the church too — and his 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances specifically required such a separation….

Calvin’s and Farel’s first priority upon their return was the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Ordinances which allowed the Church to supervise morals and teaching of its own pastors without the hindrance from any other authorities. The sovereignty of the Consistory to monitor the faith and practice of the Church was legitimized by this Ordinances. This arrangement marked a departure form the traditional union of Church and State under Roman Catholic auspices…. With the establishment of the Ordinances, Geneva created a unique Christian commonwealth whereby church and state cooperated in preserving religion as the key to their new identity….

What is special about Geneva is the assumption of both church and state conformed to the will of God, and each had its proper sphere in the Christian commonwealth.”

Maybe Darryl should read Hall’s book before he implies that Geneva was a Protestant version of Roman Catholicism’s union of Church and State?

I know where my home is Darryl … and it’s not Paris, circa 1789.

Darryl plods on,

Third, this is easy stuff. Yes, despite the long and troubled history of relating religion to politics, from Israel to Kuyper’s Netherlands, it’s not difficult. Pass the mints.

It’s not difficult since the heavy lifting has been done by Calvin, Bucer, Ponet, Viret, Althusius, Beza, Buchanan, Bullinger, Daneau, Goodman, Farel, Hotman, Knox, Rutherford, Vermigli, the authors of Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, and a host of others. The problem that Darryl and the R2K’ers are having is that,

a.) they don’t seem to be familiar with these men
b.) they are trying to reinvent the wheel.

So, no… this isn’t that difficult. Certainly there continues to be disagreements, but it is not that difficult when dealing with R2K’ers when they are making this stuff up as they go.

Darryl finishes,

One last point to notice is this notion of an “ideal social order.” The Rabbi presents himself as a true-blue political conservative and loves to deconstruct the social engineers on the Left who are trying to usher in the kingdom of justice and equality. He should know then that conservatives don’t believe in ideal social orders. They refuse to immanentize the eschaton. It’s the Stalins of the world who actually believe ideal social orders are possible. Conservatives simply endure the infirmities and woes of this world.

Turns out life in this world is difficult.

It is true that conservatives don’t seek Utopias but to speak of an “ideal social order,” in my jargon, is only to speak of that social order towards which God’s renewed people should be aiming. It is no different then to speak of sanctification in terms of reaching an “ideal character.” Darryl tries to read to much into the phrase in order to try and discredit me. It is a clever but unsuccessful ploy.

And I do believe that God’s ideal social order is possible. Not because men are going to usher in it — sans the techniques of the Stalins of this present wicked age. But I believe it is possible because the Holy Spirit is going to continually, incrementally and progressively bring to pass what is already true in principle and shall be one day true consumatively. I am a postmillennialist. This is what the Scriptures teach. This is what I confess.

So, it is not I, nor my ilk, who will immantize the eschaton, but the Lord Christ who will as, His will is increasingly done on earth as it is in heaven that His already present Kingdom comes.

For He must reign til He has put all enemies under his feet. As such, the day is coming in space and time history where the Kings will kiss the Son.

And yes life in this world is difficult. Living with R2K is enough to make the strongest of Reformed men weep.

Dr. Hart,

The folks who lament the decadence of the contemporary West most (who also happen to be some of the biggest whiners about 2k) seem to think that a return to God’s law in the United States would fix our social and political woes. Aside from the problem of finding unregenerate citizens who will follow God’s law, these law lovers do not grasp a fundamental point of U.S. legal and political life (and this may explain why the so-called Religious Right is so easily ridiculed).

Bret

1.) Does this mean that Darryl does not bemoan the decadence of the contemporary West or that he does not believe that the contemporary West has become decadent? Does this mean that R2K folks think the contemporary decadent West is just fine? I mean, after all, Darryl’s first few words in that block-quote above indicates that the only bemoaners of the decadent West are “whiners about R2K,” leaving us whiners to wonder why R2K’ers don’t bemoan wickedness.

2.) I know of absolutely zero Kuyperians or other standard vanilla Reformed folks who believe that a return to God’s law, absent a turning to the Priestly work of our great High King, Lord Christ, will fix our social and political woes.

3.) However, vanilla Reformed folks don’t advocate a return to God’s law because it will, absent of Reformation in the citizenry, fix our social and political woes but rather they advocate a return to God’s law because that is how God has revealed that our social and political order should be ordered.

I Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

Calvin speaks on this text writing,

“(Paul) … maintains that the law of God was given in order to restrain the licentiousness of wicked men; because they who are good of their own accord do not need the authoritative injunction of the law.”

4.) So, Darryl seems to be disagreeing with both St. Paul and John Calvin who understood that the law must be advocated in order to control the lawless. Is Darryl advocating getting rid of laws against Murder (as one example) all because laws against Murder do not by themselves fix our social order in relation to our Murder problem? Is the answer to our pedophilia problems getting rid of laws that prohibit pedophilia? I mean, since unregenerate pedophiliac citizens won’t follow God’s law then obviously it is stupid for Christians to continue to advocate laws against pedophilia right?

(Is insanity accounted for by nurture or nature or belief in R2K?)

5.) Darryl refers to his opponents as “law lovers.” Does this mean that Darryl is a law hater?

6.) If we are not to return to God’s law for our social and political order problems then whose law would Darryl have us return to? To Allah’s law (Sharia)? To postivistic law (Humanist)? To Talmudic law (Jewish)? If we will not return to God’s law then whose law shall we be governed by? Or has Darryl gone all Randian on us?

Darryl continues,

For Americans, as well as the Brits before them, law is not simply the embodiment of God’s moral standards. Laws against stealing and perjury do, of course, reflect God’s righteousness. But legal documents like the venerated Constitution are not primarily about morality. They are primarily procedural. Such laws place limits on government. The Constitution, for instance, prescribes and limits the powers of each branch of the federal government. Such restraints are at the heart of the Anglo-American notion of liberty, namely, the idea that people need to be protected from arbitrary and despotic power. To enjoy a life free from a potentially coercive government, we as a people drew up a body of laws that were designed not to constrain the actions of individuals but to prescribe the power of the magistrate. Placing limits on the government for the sake of civil and religious liberties is at the heart of libertarianism and is a major theme in J. Gresham Machen’s thought and political activities. (Whether or not he was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, he was sympathetic to the ACLU, a sympathy that would drive the likes of Doug Wilson and Greg Bahnsen batty).

Bret

1.) Darryl will be pleased to know that R. J. Rushdoony agrees with him. Rushdoony, agreeing with Darryl, wrote that the Constitution provides us with “procedural morality, not substantive morality”. I’m sure Darryl will want to re-think his position now that he has learned that the great Theonomist Rushdoony agreed with him.

2.) If Machen was sympathetic to the ACLU he was completely uninformed about the origins of the ACLU, their original purpose and intent, and their ideological commitments. This being uninformed should drive any Biblical Christian batty.

3.) Is Darryl suggesting that any law from a government that coerces is therefore evil?

4.) Is Darryl suggesting that Kuyperians or other vanilla Reformed Christians who advocate for God’s law are against civil and religious liberty?

5.) Let’s remember the restriction of Congress to make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, was a restriction at the Federal level. States could still, and many did at the time, have established religions.

6.) Darryl says he stands for religious liberties but does he support the religious Liberty of the Hindu to preform Sati? Does he support the religious liberty of an American Indian to smoke Peyote as part of a religious ceremony? Does he support the religious liberty of a Muslim to enter into honor killings against wayward Muslim women?

I didn’t think so.

As such Darryl’s complaint about religious liberties is not consistent. Darryl wants to draw lines regarding religious liberty the same way I do. Darryl just wants to draw different lines. By what standard will we determine what religious liberty will be allowed and what won’t be allowed?

In short Pluralism is neither faithful to Scripture nor even logically coherent. (“Yes … Yes, I can here the R2K’ers saying now, “We have to live with hyphenated lives that may not seem coherent.”) Contrary to the demand that all the kings and judges of the earth, “serve Jehovah” specifically (Psalm 2:10-11), pluralism instead calls upon the rulers of the state to honor and protect all religious positions, regardless of their avowed hatred for the God of the Bible. Further, pluralism guarantees that the god of all the competing gods in the public square is the State as the State has to be the god who insures that none of the gods are allowed to get the upper hand in the public square. In the pluralist social order the God of the Bible has to be limited in His ability to be embraced by the citizenry as God over all the State. Christian Pluralists like our good Dr. Hart is advocating that God be restricted in His authority in the public square.

Darryl continues,

Those who want more of God’s law in public life do not appear to understand this basic aspect of civil society in the U.S. They seem to think that if God’s moral standards are on their side, they have the power, duty, and right to make sure that the rest of Americans know that they are deserving God’s wrath. They also apparently believe they have responsibility to condemn the state if it fails to enforce God’s law, hence the double-down point about the magistrate’s duty to require observance of both tables of the law.

1.) It is the responsibility of all those who would see men evangelized to tell those outside of Christ that they are under God’s wrath and that they must turn to the Lord Christ for salvation.

2.) The nature of the State is to enforce the law of some god. Law itself, is a reflection of the will of some religious order that is headed by a god. Whenever a State enforces any law it is at that moment enforcing the law of some God. Darryl is frightened to death of the State enforcing the God of the Bible’s law but he seems perfectly content for the State to enforce the law of some other god. Is Darryl good with the State’s recent enforcement of the law against those who refuse to use their respective businesses to help the sodomite agenda? Is Darryl good with the Canadian State’s recent prosecution of citizens for hate crimes because they were advocating Biblical truths?

3.) What does Darryl do with John the Baptist’s condemnation of the Magistrate? Let me guess … that is dispensationalized away since John was still in the old Covenant?

Ok … what about Paul’s refusal to obey the Magistrate in Acts 16?

Darryl continues,

That argument about both tables of the law is almost entirely at odds with the American notion that law restrains government from exercising power unspecified in the Constitution. It also runs up against the legal tradition of assuming an accused citizen’s innocence until proven guilty. Just because we “know” someone broke the law doesn’t mean that district attorneys and police are free from following the laws that keep us from being a police state. In fact, the appeal to God’s law by some culture warriors has the flavor of vigilantism, that is, taking the law into their own hands. The problem for theonomists and other moral breast beaters is not simply that they don’t have power to execute God’s law. They also don’t seem to understand that the “rule of law” as we understand it in the United States actually prevents government from enforcing a whole host of laws, including God’s.

1.) The powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution are enumerated and delegated. The Federal Government ought to be limited those powers. I hold no tuck with the FEDS becoming more of a National Behemoth. However, the States themselves have the responsibility to enforce Biblical moral order. Darryl will be pleased to know that many of the original State constitutions were explicitly Christian.

2.) And whoever denied the principle of “innocent until proven guilty?” Certainly no Theonomist who insists that two or three witnesses must be brought to give testimony. Darryl is giving us a red herring on this one.

3.) Every Theonomist and moral breast beater (as opposed to every anti-nomian and immoral breast beater apparently) understands the whole idea of due process. Really, Darryl is being so silly here. The implementation and following of God’s law by the States is done in conjunction with due process.

4.) Still, when the State does enforce law, it ought to be God’s law that it enforces. Not Sharia law. Not Talmudic law. Not Humanist legal positivism law. But God’s law. This is no law from nowhere. No law that doesn’t belong to some God, god, or god concept. This reality is what Darryl can’t get through his academic head.

5.) Darryl’s appeal to pluralistic law has the flavor of cowardice and treason.

Darryl then goes on to talk about the dangers of arbitrary power. What Christian in their right mind would advocate arbitrary power? And yet arbitrary power is exactly what we get when we don’t follow God’s law Word. By what standard will our laws be based if not God’s law-word? Natural law? Our country is being balkanized along ethnic and religious lines. Does anybody really believe that Hindus, Muslims, Talmudists, Humanists and Christians are all going to agree on Natural law? If they do believe that they’ve been smoking too much Peyote. If we do not follow God’s law word as our standard than all that is left is the arbitrariness that Darryl is so frightened of.

Darryl writes,

Maybe the Anglo-American tradition of law and constitutional liberties is wrong (though it finds expression in Presbyterian government). Maybe the West if fundamentally flawed and should follow political patterns and traditions established by the Persians and Turks. Or maybe theonoomy and the original Reformed confessions’ teachings about the magistrate lost when the Reformed and Presbyterian churches embraced the politics associated with a certain eighteenth-century republic founded in North America.

1.) At least we are getting an admission here that R2K is a innovative reading of the original Reformed confessions. Darryl’s views and R2K are historically innovative.

2.) Darryl isn’t advocating the tradition of law and constitutional liberties. Darryl is advocating some kind of Randian objectivism or a kind of anarchism.

3.) Theonomy wants nothing to do with the Persians and the Turks. It is the Theonomists of all people who are screaming the loudest about the FEDS overstepping their constitutional boundaries as established by enumerated and delegated powers. It is the Theonomists who are trying to remind people that there is such a thing as a 9th and 10th amendment. Darryl is just being silly when he tries to combines Totalitarianism and Theonomy. After all, it is Theonomy that talks about Jurisdictionalism and Sphere sovereignty, which is hardly a recipe for Totalitarianism.

3.) What Darryl wants is not a return to a certain 18th century republic founded in North America. What Darryl wants, it appears, is a return to the Enlightenment. There is more of French Revolution and “The Rights of Man,” in Darryl’s reasoning then there is historical traditional Reformed understanding of the relation of Church and State.

Darryl writes,

Over at Matt Tuininga’s blog, the inveterate critic of 2k, Mark Van Der Molen, makes an interesting point. In response to the charge of theocracy that came from his assertion that the state needs to be subject to God’s law, he wrote: “theocracy is the merging of church and state into one power.” In other words, anti-2kers are never guilty of theonomy or theocracy as long as they affirm a separation of church and state.

BLM responds

This is accurate. No Theonomist, nor any Kuyperians believe that Church and State should be rolled into one. Darryl shows he is out of his element and his naiveté by not understanding the distinction between an ecclesiocracy and a Theocracy. No Christian desires an Ecclesiocracy while all Christians understand that Theocracy is an inescapable category.

Classic Reformed theology has always stated that God is Sovereign over both Church and State and yet Church and State remain distinct institutions with distinct roles and authority for distinct, though interdependent spheres of authority. Even in the Old Testament there is no Ecclesiocracy as Church and State were distinct in the Old Covenant. Kings were not Priests and Priests were not Kings. (Remember the story of Uzziah.)

Darryl writes,

This is an important admission since many critics of secularism, as anti-2kers are, deride Jefferson’s language of a wall of separation between church and state. Whether it’s a wall dividing church and state, or simply a constitution, the separation of church and state puts anti-2kers in the awkward position of affirming a fundamental point of 2k, namely, the separation of ecclesiastical and civil powers. It is a good thing for them that they do since in Western Christianity only Roman Catholics have taught the unity of church and state.

BLM responds,

Yes … it puts us in the same awkward position of the Old Testament where there existed an affirmation of the Separation of roles and functions of Church and State. The same Old Testament that R2K insist was naught but a “intrusion ethic.” So, we anti-R2K’ers agree with the Old Covenant that there must exist a distinction between ecclesiastical and civil powers. The civil power holds the sword and the ecclesiastical power holds the Keys but both are obliged to handle their instruments of power consistent with God’s revealed word.

Darryl continues,

At the same time, in the United States we have the language of the separation of powers within the federal government. The judicial is separate from the legislative, which is separate from the executive, and so on. But this separation is not really a separation in the way we think about separation of church and state. The reason is that Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court are all part of one government.

BLM responds

Actually it is much the same. All three branches of the Government are distinct and yet all are under the same Constitution. Each of the three branches have their own roles but neither of the three Branches may violate the authority of the Constitution. Just so, with Church and State. Each are under the Same God. Each have their own roles but neither Church or State may violate the authority of God.

More of Darryl,

And this appears to be the case for critics of 2k who pine for Calvin’s Geneva where the Company of Pastors were an agency of the city’s government. The pastors handled spiritual matters and reserved the right of excommunication, a spiritual capital penalty. But Calvin was an officer of Geneva’s city government since the city council appointed him, paid his salary, and gave him his legal status.

In which case, an affirmation of the separation of church and state doesn’t really get us very far if the church is merely going to be a branch of government.

BLM responds

1.) Darryl is saying Calvin was wrong and that Geneva was a unbiblical model. Sinful Calvin. Sinful Geneva. I’m sure glad we have a clearly superior model working for us now in these uSA that we can look to for an example.

2.) In an ideal social order the Pastors serve God by obeying God’s revelation for the Church and civil magistrates serve God by obeying God’s revelation for the Civil realm. The Pastors don’t work for the Government and the Magistrates don’t work for the Church. Both, however are subject to God in His revelation. This isn’t that difficult.

Sigh … that we live in an age where even putative College professors can’t understand the simplest of matters.