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.
This isn’t that difficult.
As long as one is regenerate.
palm to face
I do like your your comparison of church/state to the branches of government. Each branch has distinct roles assigned by the Supreme Law. Each branch has its genesis in, and is subject to, that Lawgiver. And while separate and co-equal, they are interrelated in carrying out their task assigned by that Law.
Part of Hart’s problem is that when he hears the word “separate” his brain translates it as “no relationship” or “hermetically sealed off”. Distinctions turn into dichotomies.
So when reading the R2k fellows, it is helpful to have the confessions in one hand, the Bible in the other,and a dictionary close by.
Mark, you’re thinking of the legal secularist who hermetically seals off religion from the public square. But the Christian secularist wants to make a more careful distinction such that religion still plays a part in the commons, contra the legal secularist. And contra the theonomist who wants religion to swallow up the public square as much as the legal secularist wants to banish it. You might want to re-read the intro to “A Secular Faith.”
Mark, you’re thinking of the legal secularist who hermetically seals off religion from the public square.
Zrim, I know it may be hard for you to accept, but sometimes there are distinction without a difference, as we we see from “A Secular Faith”:
“Beyond these similar perspectives on Christianity, Christian and legal secularists will likely agree or disagree on public policy or legislation or candidates on the basis of political philosophy or gut instincts about public life, not on the basis of belief or unbelief.”
“The question pursued in this book has been whether Christian-inspired policy, arguments, or candidates are appropriate on Christian grounds. My conclusion is that such involvement is inappropriate, because using Christianity for political ends fundamentally misconstrues the Christian religion.”
“Christ himself appears to have been pointing in the direction of this hyphenated existence when he told the disciples to render some things to Ceaser and some things to God. The split duties inherent in Christ’s teaching, some belonging to Christians as citizens and others to them as church members, run directly counter to the current quest for individual wholeness that fuels the politics of identity and invites Christians to enter the public square as believers rather than as ordinary citizens. But Christ’s instruction, along with Christianity’s historic distinction between the realms of church and state, suggest that the politics of integration are not necessary for followers of Christ. Because Christians are pilgrims and exiles in the world, and long for their true spiritual home, a hyphenated existence is essential to Christian identity….Christians have genuine grounds for accepting that life on this earth require negotiating dual sets of duties.”
“Keeping religion out of politics along the lines proposed by Christian secularism may be a welcome relief…”
Do you love Jesus but hate being persecuted?
Ever wish you could have the best of both worlds?
Well NOW you CAN!
“out of his element”. That is a really petty and arrogant thing to say. As if anyone who disagrees with you is out of his or her element.
Caleb,
Ask Dr. Hart about that statement since I lifted it as a quote of his in addressing Mr. Doug Sowers, whom he told was “out of his element,” in his comments section. I’m merely aping Dr. Hart’s word to Mr. Sowers.
Dr. Hart even admits in a recent post that his reading of the confessions is Historically innovative from the way the Confessions were intended.
But at least it’s good to hear he’s out of his naivete…
That is a really petty and arrogant thing to say.
I thought it was rather benign considering that R2K is high treason.
Excellent post Pastor Bret! Keep pressing on!
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.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. Next step of course, is determining what is God’s revelation for the Church and what is God’s revelation for the Civil realm?
Read the bible and don’t create an intrusion ethic and do embrace the general equity Rube?
Mark, I know distinctions without differences when I see them. And one example is the theocracy of false religionists (Islamists) and the theocracy of true religionists (Xn theonomists) while being very distinct having more in common with each other than either does with 2k. Not too unlike the dictinctions between revival and revivalism being different from Reformation.
Zrim, distracting with other examples does nothing but confirm what I said–it would be hard for you to acknowledge that Hart and a “legal secularist” [as defined by you} are indistinguishable.