More Carson Weakness

“The first will be most clearly perceived when we recall that up to that point in history, religion, and state were everywhere intertwined. This was true, of course, of ancient Israel: at least in theory, Israel was… a theocracy. Similarly in the pagan world: most of the gods of the people were necessarily the gods of the state. When the Romans took over some new territory, they arranged a god-swap: they adopted some of the local gods into their own pantheon and insisted that the locals take on some of the Roman gods….But nowhere was there a state that was divorced from all the gods, what we would call a secular state, with the state and religion occupying distinct, even if overlapping, spheres. But on the face of it, this is what Jesus is advocating. At the very least, insofar as he envisages a transnational and transcultural community that is not identified with any one state, he anticipates the obligation to give to Caesar that is in power whatever is his due.”

D. A. Carson
Christ And Culture Revisited — pg. 56-57

1.) The idea that a state could be divorced from all the gods is a comparatively recent Baptistic notion and it shares in the nonsense that characterizes much of Baptist theology.

2.) This insistence that the scriptures teach that a non-theocratic state can exist is exactly that which has given us a state apparatus that believes itself to be god, which has in turn yielded a state a state dedicated to no gods will be allowed to challenge its primacy.

3.) State and religion can no more be separated then body and soul. Carson asserting that such a situation is a reality doesn’t prove that it is a reality.

4.) Carson’s interpretation of what Jesus says (“Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars the things that are Gods unto God”) is not the same as what Jesus actually said. When Carson invokes the words of Jesus to support the idea that the New Testament model is one that supports a state that isn’t beholden to and reflective of some God or god concept is eisegesis of the worst sort.

5.) The reason that the ancients never had a state that was divorced from the gods is that the ancients were smarter then us, realizing that such an arrangement is literally impossible. Since God is an inescapable category, it is no more possible to posit a non theocratic state then it is to posit a person who can have no god.

6.) All of this in no way denies that the State and Religion occupy distinct spheres. Just as in Israel the King and the Priest fulfilled distinct offices though both were responsible to the God of the Bible so today the Magistrate and the minister have distinct offices though both remain responsible to God. Carson tries to say on one hand that State and Religion occupy distinct spheres while saying at the same time that while some God or god concept should rule the religious sphere no god of god concept need be present in the sphere of the state. Carson seems to think that it is acceptable — nay even Biblical — for the State to de-god God. This kind of theology is madness. Does he really believe that God wants the state to de-god God?

7.) Jesus may indeed envision a trans-national and trans-cultural community but that is not the same as envisioning a a-national and a-cultural community. Carson seems to be suggesting that in the Kingdom people lose their nationality and culture. But there is another understanding of the Kingdom that is more respectful of the diversity that reflects trinitarian thinking and that is to suggest that the community that Jesus envisions is a community that includes all nations and all cultures as their own nations and cultures. This would be a vision that is pan-cultural instead of trans-cultural.

8.) Carson’s view implicitly supports cultural pluralism. If there is no god over the state then there is no one god over the people. But if the State must rule the people then Carson’s state must be that which rules over the people’s varying gods thus making the state the god of the gods.

9.) Carson’s a-millennialism skews his interpretation about Christ and Culture as it pertains to the Christ transforming culture paradigm.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him. View all posts by jetbrane