Apologetics – Page 160

Marxism, Sovereignty, and R2K

Eternally speaking, God is absolutely sovereign and holds all sovereignty as His own. No one can challenge God’s sovereignty, though many imagine that they can and do. God, in His infinite wisdom, has appointed certain spheres where Federal Representatives are delegated temporal sovereignty in order to rule in God’s stead in the spheres to which God has appointed them.

So then, temporally speaking, there is only so much sovereignty to go around. Reality doesn’t expand, and as such temporal sovereignty over reality does not expand either. What this means is that no matter how temporal sovereignty is sliced up and divided at the end of the doling out of temporal sovereignty if one was to add all the temporal sovereignty together its total amount could be neither increased or decreased. Hence, if any one agency is able to accrue an increase in its temporal sovereignty that agency does so at the expense of some other agency losing some sovereignty.

To put this in concrete terms, if the State increases its total amount of sovereignty the result is that it does only at the expense of the family or the church losing the sovereignty that it formerly exercised before the state successfully seized the amount of sovereignty it lost from the state. Similarly, were the family to increase its total amount of sovereignty it could only do so at the expense of other agencies.

All this is background to consider how it is that Marxism is a sovereignty sucking plausibility structure. Marxism, by its nature, consistently seeks to seize sovereignty from all other social order spheres in order to locate all sovereignty in the state. By doing so Marxism, seeks to attack all other temporal sovereignty not delegated to it so that it might ascend to the most high in order to convince itself that the sovereignty it wields is of the eternal type.

By its very tenets Marxism consistently attacks two of the basic spheres God has ordained and it does so because these basic spheres of family and religion impede the state’s attempt to garner into its fists a monopoly on sovereignty, power, and authority. The Marxist state attacks the family through tax policy, education policy, and its ongoing attempt to take away the family’s ability to own private property. The Marxist state attacks religion by cordoning it off from the public square and by drawing the circle ever tighter as to where and when religion can be displayed. The Marxist state, regardless of what degree of Marxism it is currently at works to confiscate property, break up families, and legislate against faith expressing itself in the public square.

Marxist states, given their dialectic philosophy, may, from time to time, enter into detente with family or religion but if it does so it only does so as a way to prepare itself for the next blow against these spheres. Such politically calculated detentes are akin to a hammer lifting itself away from the nail. The hammer is not in retreat but is only building energy for another blow against the nail. If Marxist states are successful in this seizing of sovereignty it may allow family and / or religion to exist but only as satellites that serve as a pretense that the Marxist state has not seized all sovereignty, and as to lend credibility to the Marxist totalistic rule.

The attempt to seize sovereignty may be violent as in communist take overs or it may be more benign and incremental in its methodology as is found in Fabian socialism, progressivism, Corporatism, Liberalism, Welfarism, or the Nanny State. Whereas communism advocates the seizure of sovereignty by cutting of the head, different forms of socialism prefers to slowly, silently suffocate those who will not surrender their sovereignty.

Of course this Marxist seizure of sovereignty as it becomes more and more totalistic ends up stealing another sovereignty and that is the sovereignty found in self-government. As Marxist and collectivist approaches succeed in sucking up temporal sovereignty the end result is that the individual likewise loses his / her self sovereignty and they themselves become effective wards of the state. Individuals, no longer being independent agents and no longer having personal sovereignty are reduced to being cogs in the Marxist civil-social order machine. Individuals become merely extensions of the state.

All of this explains why radical two kingdom theology is such a poison pill for the church because radical two kingdom theology insists that the Church as the Church has no role in declaiming against the Marxist state’s attempt to seize all temporal sovereignty. R2K “theology” would stand silent as the state seeks to absorb all temporal sovereignty so that it becomes the idol state that has raised itself up against the almighty God. In R2K “theology” the only time the Church can protest this seizure of sovereignty is when the state seeks to dictate to the Church about its formal worship patterns. But if the Church is only concerned about its formal worship patterns then why would the state ever have any reason to want to absorb a sovereignty that it views as irrelevant? In point of fact if the R2K church is telling its people that they must obey the state, the state may very well view the R2K church as already effectively one of its agents.

Eavesdropping on the R2K Lads ….

R2K acolyte writes,

It remains a mystery to me how anyone could have the sort of trouble with VanDrunen that Mark does. My own suspicion after years of reading and engaging 2k interlocutors like Mark is that the push back owes at least in part to a sense that 2k isn’t very useful for the culture wars. In fact, it suggests more caution and the possibility of common ground and life than warriors are comfortable with. In this way, the interesting thing is how the Reformed culturalists seem to parallel the Protestant liberals. The 2k critics will balk at such a comparison, but it remains unclear what keeps anybody from slouching toward some form or another of cultural Christianity without the doctrines of the two kingdoms and the spirituality of the church.

1.) “2k isn’t very useful for the culture wars”

Keep in mind that (R)2K sells itself as Reformed Theology. What the acolyte is telling us is that R2K theology is a theology that is unrelated and unconcerned with matters cultural. There is such a separation between theology and culture that R2K theology can exist without creating culture. This reinforces what I’ve heard from R2K chaps before that Christianity is not a culture creating belief system. This is why R2K chaps insist that there is no such thing as Christian culture. R2K desires to isolate and compartmentalize Christian theology from impacting culture, cultural institutions, and academic disciplines. Because they believe this they hurl epitaphs at those who understand that culture is some theology externalized. For R2K Christian theology is supra, trans or a-cultural. R2K theology is a plant that can be transplanted into any cultural environment and is specifically designed to not have any impact on the culture where it is transplanted and grows. For R2K Christian theology exists for individuals but as those Christian individuals cooperate unto cultural enterprise Christian theology is mute.

2.) The acolyte mentions disdainfully culture warriors and yet seems to miss the irony that he, himself, is a culture warrior against cultural warriors. This gent will go all warrior on anyone who insists that Christianity looks like something particular in the common realm. So the acolyte is not comfortable with Christians who are cultural warriors but he is perfectly fine with the contradiction that finds him being a warrior for culture that is denuded of any explicit manifestation of Biblical Christianity.

3.) The acolyte insists that those who advocate for culture that grows out of Biblical Christianity are parallel with those who advocate for a culture that grows out of Liberal Christianity. One thing that R2K doesn’t seem to realize that Liberal Christianity is not Christianity, not only because it denies certain Biblical-Theological truths but also because in doing so it advances anti-Christ culture. What R2K seems to conclude is that because Biblical Christianity and Liberal Christianity both create their own unique culture, and as such are at cross-purposes, therefore the answer is to insist that Christianity has nothing to do with culture. R2K, by such an approach, believes it clears the ground to advocate a Christianity that is set free from the encumbrance of having to deal with issues cultural. However, R2K Christianity when it takes this tack plants itself squarely in the Liberal Christianity camp as their refusal to resist Liberalism (a resistance that Machen advocated in his book “Christianity and Liberalism”) clears the field for the advance of anti-Christ theology which produces anti-Christ culture.

4.) R2K acolyte believes he has avoided “slouching towards some form or another of cultural Christianity,” but he doesn’t realize that his R2K theology is just another form of the cultural Christianity he despises. Liberal Christianity slouches towards Liberal culture. Biblical Christianity slouches towards Biblical Culture. And, R2K Christianity slouches towards whatever culture happens to be the majority report at the time. R2K slouches there because the refusal to resist is a tacit means of support for whatever theology is in the ascendancy creating the prevailing culture.

2nd R2K acolyte chimes in,

I think a major challenge facing the church today is the need to adjust to a post-Christendom mindset. The task of ethicists such as VanDrunen, myself, and Nelson Kloosterman (who taught ethics at Mid-America) is not to teach us how to conquer culture, but how to witness to Christ in a culture that is often hostile to the Gospel. The primary way in which we do that is by preaching the Gospel clearly, and acting with loving service, not by proclamation of a law or cultural-political conquest.

1.) Here the surrender to pagandom is explicit. Christendom has sashayed off the scene and what R2K is intended to do is to help Christians acquiesce to the reality of social order being organized by a theology other than Biblical Christianity. Some people might call that mindset cowardice.

2.) I’ve never once took any class on “how to conquer culture.” However, I have studied plenty on how to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ, and I’ve found that as thoughts are made captive to Christ that leads inevitably to be accused by these types as being only concerned with conquering culture.

3.) Notice how “preaching the Gospel clearly” and “acting with loving service,” is set in dichotomous opposition to the ministry of “proclamation of law.” One might ask, “How do we preach the Gospel without setting the table by preaching law?” One might ask, “Isn’t advocating a culture of life (political-cultural conquest) acting with loving service towards those living in cultures of death?”

4.) Notice also how “acting in loving service,” is seemingly cordoned off from God’s law that provides the content for what loving service means. Can a Christian “act in loving service,” towards those outside of Christ without God’s law defining for them just exactly what that loving service might look like? Is there a dichotomy being created here between the “law of love,” and God’s law that defines the content of love?

5.) R2K is forever complaining that Christianity doesn’t conquer in post-Christendom by proclamation of a law. R2K apparently thinks it wrong to have a proclamation of the law for pagans in post-Christendom and yet R2K does have a proclamation of the law for Christians in post-Christendom and that law is, “Thou shalt not appeal to the politicus usus of the law for the public square or in order to reinvigorate Christendom. So, R2K does have a public proclamation of the law but the proclamation is to Christians and that proclamation says, “don’t proclaim law to the pagan.”

Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, & Cries Of “Institutional Racism” In The Christian Reformed Church

Though the term “institutional racism,” has been around at least since the 1960’s it seems, of late, to be entering more and more into the conversational lexicon of the Church. The Christian Reformed Denomination, for example, as a overture before it that calls,

“The denomination to repent of the personal and institutional racism that causes separation between fellow members, excludes some from full participation in the life of our denomination and hinders the denomination in achieving the diversity goals it has set for itself.”

When the overture insists that we need to repent of institutional racism we should back up and consider the meaning of institutional racism so that we can know what we are repenting of. The term “institutional racism” describes societal patterns, as implemented through our various cultural institutions, that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. “Institutional racism,” it is thought, is so pervasive that only those people who admit to its existence can see it for what it is. “Institutional racism” has so stacked the deck in its favor that if one denies that “institutional racism” exists that only proves that one has been infected by “institutional racism.” So, if one agrees that “institutional racism” exists in our culture, it is an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism,” but if one disagrees that “institutional racism,” exists it is also an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism” in as much that such disagreement only proves that “institutional racism” is successfully doing its evil work causing the “institutional racism” deniers to not see that they are victims and so perpetrators of “institutional racism.” It is always convenient to back a theory where those who agree with you prove your theory, while those who disagree with you also prove your theory.

The phrase “institutional racism” was coined at least as far back as the 1960’s by Kwame Ture (nee — Stokely Carmichael). Carmichael felt that it was important to distinguish personal bias, which has specific effects and can be identified and corrected relatively easily, with institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. So, as originally coined, “institutional racism,” is a incarnating of personal racism into our civil-social institutions that remains pushing the culture as a whole in a racist direction because the institutions themselves supported racism. So, here we are as a culture which transfers billions of dollars annually to minority communities through various entitlement programs and people want me to believe that we suffer from “institutional racsim? Here we are as a culture which has created affirmative action programs, quota requirements, and minority set aside expectations in order that minorities might get ahead and still we are being told that we suffer from “institutional racism?” Here we are absorbing, millions upon millions of minority immigrants and the intellectual elite want to convince me that there is work yet to be done in tearing down “institutional racism?” We just elected a Black President, who named a Black Attorney General, who has refused to apply the law to Black Panthers because they are Black and we are yet informed that “institutional racism” is a ongoing problem in these united States?

What most folks don’t realize is that “institutional racism,” is just the most recent expression of the critical theory Hermeneutic that belongs to the Cultural Marxists. Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist tool of destructive criticism intended to pull down Western Civilization, as influenced by historic Christian categories such as domestic family, commonwealth, authority, hierarchy, tradition, decentralized and diffuse civil government, sexual boundaries, and other similarly Christian informed realities that comprised historic Western culture. Critical theory’s technique was to see all of these historic Christian categories as wicked tools of oppression against minorities, women, and heretofore those considered sexual deviants. The work of Critical theory was and is to place and spin these Christian Categories so that they are seen to be the means of power by which victims are kept down, abused, and negated their rightful place of cultural hegemony. Critical theory has, as its goal, the replacing of the formerly Christian cultural gatekeepers with new cultural gatekeepers who will build cultural institutions that reflect the values of cultural Marxism. The cry of “institutional racism,” is, more often than not, the cry of those who desire the values of variant forms of Marxism to be the shaping influence on Western Society — values that include Marxist economics that call for redistribution of wealth, Marxist sociology that calls for a leveling of all formerly stratified hierarchic relationships (men vs. women so that matriarchy is superior to patriarchy, heterosexuality vs. homosexuality so that the marriage of two men is superior to the marriage of a man and a woman, children vs. parents so that children have equal rights with parents). The end goal is to create a distinction-less, egalitarian New World Order. And as all this is embraced by large swaths of the Church it has the added benefit of having a Jesus candy coating on it that makes it “Christian.”

Critical theory’s technique is akin to what C. S. Lewis described as the technique of the “Spirit of the Age,” in his book Pilgrim’s Regress,

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

In Lewis’ story the Spirit of the Age (Waiter) had captivated John (Lewis’ main Character) and insisted that what was intended for nourishment was garbage. Like the Waiter, in Lewis’s work, the Cultural Marxist critiques the healthy and normal as unhealthy and abnormal.

Our prevailing zeitgeist is not interested in creating a conscience that tells us that cow milk is a secretion akin to urine or feces. No, what our Cultural Marxist Spirit of the Age is set upon convincing us is that Christ informed culture is evil and that Christian white people are the devil.

Martin Luther anticipated the rise of Critical theory 500 years ago.

“It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

Critical theory is the technique of the false prophets of Cultural Marxism to create a false consciousness in white Christians, and the cry of “Institutional Racism,” is just one of the many buzz phrases that Cultural Marxists are using to overthrow Christian civilization.

Finally, on the score of “Institutional Racism” we must wonder if that buzz phrase from Critical theory is in point of fact a desire on the part of those who use it to decimate what little remains of White Christian civilization. When someone laments institutional racism they are lamenting the meager existence of white Christian institutions, and thereby, it would seem the very existence of Whites themselves.

The amazing success of the Critical theory cry of “institutional racism” is driven by its ability to laden people with guilt. Guilty people are people who then can be manipulated at will by the sense of guilt that they are seeking to overthrow. So strong is the guilt that Western Man feels now, in part due to the work of Cultural Marxism, but more because Western man has turned his back on God, that those who offer relief from that guilt (the Cultural Marxists) essentially become movement Messiahs to modern man. The Cultural Marxists use critical theory to make Western Man feel guilty. The Cultural Marxist offer a plan on how Western man may atone for his sins. Western man gladly will do anything to deliver himself of this contrived and artificial guilt.

And the blood atonement that Cultural Marxists are requiring of Western Man is his own death. The guilt that Critical Theory lays on Western Man is of such a nature that it can only be atoned for through the death of Western man as Western Man as been influenced by Biblical Christianity. And so cries of “Institutional Racism” can only be alleviated by Western Man going all masochistic and destroying himself so that he can be replaced by a new Soviet (cultural Marxist) man, who will be informed by the new faith of Cultural Marxism.

The first part of the solution to resist this is by Western man to repent and turn to Christ. In Jesus Christ Western man’s real guilt is taken away and he is raised up to walk in newness of life with Christ. Only once our guilt is seen as being carried by Christ can Western man no longer be manipulated by false Critical theory charges of “Institutional Racism.” Only once Western Man’s guilt is seen as having been born with Christ can he deal with whatever racial problems might yet remain in a way where his eyes are wide open to the agenda of those who have as their desire what is left of Christian civilization.

The second part of the solution to resist this is by thinking Biblically. As long as we are not thinking God’s thoughts after him in every area of life (History, Social Order, Economics, Family Life, Education, etc.) we are prime candidates to be blown about by every strange wind of doctrine. Cultural Marxism is a strange doctrine and critical theory is the wind that fills its sails. We have to return to the conviction that there exist distinct ways of thinking that Christians are identified by. If we refuse that conviction then Christianity becomes a wax nose that the Cultural Marxists can shape in their direction in order to call their cultural Marxism “Christianity.”

God grant us grace to repent for the open window for repentance is closing fast upon us as a civilization.

Addressing the confusion of those who think they are addressing the confusion about the two kingdoms doctrine: what about the law?

I stumbled across the blog of a irenic young man who is working on his Ph.D on something related to R2K. On his blog he was, in his most irenic fashion, seeking to help dissipate what he perceived as the confusion of an Elder in his denomination that does not agree with him on R2K. This entry is intended to be my irenic address of the irenic and well intentioned blog post of our earnest Ph.D candidate. We will call him “Irenic” for posting purposes.

Irenic

In this first post I want to take up two of the concerns mentioned by the elder at once. The first is the idea that the Decalogue is not binding in the common realm. The second is the idea that natural law provides the exclusive ethic for the civil kingdom.

Now a basic familiarity with the classic Reformed two kingdoms doctrine as expounded by Calvin, as well as with the writings of a contemporary two kingdoms advocate like David VanDrunen, suggests that there is confusion underlying these concerns, particularly when viewed side by side. Simply put, for Calvin, as well as for VanDrunen, the Decalogue essentially is the natural law. So how could the Decalogue not bind the common realm, while natural law does? The reality is that both bind the common realm fully, even though neither should be fully enforced by the state.

Bret

First, as we want to avoid confusion we should immediately note that the two Kingdom theology of John Calvin is not the two Kingdom theology of David VanDrunen. For example, could VanDrunen’s two kingdom theology agree with Calvin’s two kingdom theology when Calvin says,

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginning of His Kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s Kingdom, I deny that on that account it nature is changed. For, although, it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed w/ the Word alone like sheep among wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring Kings under his subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Last four Books of Moses.

And again,

John Calvin 1509-1564

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

I have many more quotes like this from two kingdom Calvin that radical two kingdom VanDrunen would likely choke upon.

On this score, secondly we would say that obviously Calvin would not agree w/ Mr. Irenic that neither the Decalogue nor Natural Law “should be fully enforced by the state.”

Third, if the Decalogue and the Natural Law both bind the common realm fully why is it that neither should be enforced fully? And, so as to help with our confusion, is it the Natural law or the Decalogue that teaches us that even though they bind the common realm fully they are not to be enforced fully?

Mr. Irenic,

This is a classic example of how misunderstanding among Christians caused by differences in terminology and emphasis can make a minor disagreement seem like a major one. Let me explain.

When two kingdoms advocates (or Reformed people generally) say that the Decalogue is not binding in some sense, they do not mean that the moral will of God (the law of love) as revealed there is not binding. What they mean is that as a covenantal document, as the two tablets of stone representative of the Law (the Sinaitic Covenant, or, as Calvin would have called it, the peculiar ministry of Moses), the Decalogue is no longer binding. Christians are justified by faith alone, and they now fulfill the Law by obeying the law of love.

Here Mr. Irenic seems to assume that the Mosaic covenant was a recapitualtion of the covenant of works. This is something that is not conceded by many Reformed men. So, the differing views of the Mosaic covenant would have to be hashed out (and great would be that work) in order to deliver all of us from all the confusion that currently exists on all sides.

Second, when we talk about God’s law for the common realm we are talking about the civil use or the normative use of the law and not the pedagogical use. It is the pedagogical use of the law that leads us to Christ so that we might be justified by faith alone. All Christians rejoice in God’s justifying of sinners apart from works. However, when we talk about the law as it applies to the common realm or as it is taken up by the Christian Magistrate (something at least some R2K’ers do not believe exists) we are not asking whether or not we can be saved by keeping the law (we can’t) we are asking, “what is the standard for the Christian life as he lives out his life in the common realm” and “what is the standard by which civil magistrates must rule.” The answer to both those questions is God’s Law Word as exhibited in the Decalogue which might also be called, “the law of love.”

And of course the “Law of love,” is exactly synonymous with the Decalogue so that if I want to know what love is I refer to God’s law in order to give love stable definition.

Mr. Irenic continues,

Now when two kingdoms advocates say that the Decalogue is not binding on the state, they might mean several things. They might mean that the state is not obligated to enforce all of the Ten Commandments. The state cannot, for instance, punish people for coveting.

Bret

And of course we remember that nowhere in the Old Testament law (Decalogue or Case law) did God require the Magistrate to handle the sword against thought crimes such as coveting. The OT has a distinction between sin and crime.

Mr. Irenic,

Nor should it punish people for worshiping false gods, let alone for using images in worship. On the other hand, they might simply mean that the ceremonial law as found in the Ten Commandments is not binding (for instance, the commandment not to work on the seventh day Sabbath, which just so happens to be Saturday). Finally, they may mean that citing the Ten Commandments is not a sufficient reason for demonstrating that the state should do something, given all of the above reasons. To prove that the state should do something one would need to show that it is part of God’s timeless moral law (i.e., natural law), and that it is within the state’s realm of responsibility. But I do not know anyone who would say that the moral law as revealed in the Ten Commandments is not binding on all people everywhere. No one says this.

First, let’s remind ourselves that Mr. Two Kingdom John Calvin did believe the State was responsible to punish people for worshiping false gods.

Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Second, note that Mr. Irenic holds a not universally agreed upon view that the 4th commandment is ceremonial and so eclipsed. Mr Irenic suggests that because the 4th commandment of the Decalogue is ceremonial therefore the Magistrate is not obligated to it. Of course those Reformed folks who don’t agree with Mr. Irenic’s view of the fourth word are hardly going to agree with his peaceful reading on this matter.

Third, if the Decalogue and Natural Law are one and the same why would it be necessary to appeal to Natural law to support a Civil Magistrates decision if the Decalogue clearly supports it? If the Decalogue and Natural Law are one in the same then why would an appeal to the Decalogue not be sufficient reason for the State to do something?

Mr. Irenic set out to dispel confusion must I must tell you that my confusion increases with each sentence.

Mr. Irenic,

The key here is to remember that in Reformed theology going back to Calvin, the law of love, the Decalogue (interpreted properly in light of Christ), the principle of equity, and natural law are all the same thing. What this debate is about is not whether or not the civil kingdom is under the law of God. What this debate is about is how we should determine what parts of God’s law the state should enforce by means of the sword, and how we should go about persuading people who are not Christians that the state should enforce something like say, traditional marriage, or the sanctity of life.

Bret,

Ah … has Mr. Irenic slipped us a Mickey? Mr. Irenic talks about, “the Decalogue interpreted properly in the light of Christ.” But wasn’t the Decalogue always supposed to be interpreted properly in the light of Christ even when it was first given? In terms of the civil use of the law and the normative use of the law how does “interpreting in the light of Christ” cause the law to differ from the OT to the NT?

The debate is about whether or not the civil kingdom is under God’s law. If Tommy Two Kingdom comes along and insists that God’s word has nothing to say on Marxist economic policies pursued by the State I am going to see him saying that God’s Law does not condition the civil realm even though he might be insisting that all he is saying is that God’s law does not speak to Marxist economic policies. So, we are left debating what it is we are debating.

Finally, of course we are going to disagree upon how we should go about persuading people who are not Christian that the state should enforce something if we can not agree upon the scope of God’s law.

Mr. Irenic,

In truth, we should be clear to our neighbors about the fact that we keep God’s law because it is revealed in his word. We should not hide the fact that we are Christians, but should always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us. But we should also clearly and lovingly show our neighbors how the law is written on their hearts and how it is part of the very fabric of creation. By doing this, we can better communicate to our neighbors that God’s law is for their own good, intended for their prosperity, and in so doing, indirectly point unbelievers to the Gospel. In fact, as my recent posts on marriage have sought to demonstrate, Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage in this country if we approached it in this way, rather than by simply quoting Scripture ad nauseum to those who reject it. The same is true for abortion or for any number of issues. But I am now getting into the subject of my next post, on the concern that two kingdoms proponents claim the Bible is not for the civil realm. I’ll return to that issue in the next post.

Bret,

Here we are back to the first use of the law. If I want to lovingly communicate to my neighbors how the law is written on their hearts then I must also lovingly communicate to them that they are suppressing the truth of that law in unrighteousness. I must also communicate to them that they can not keep God’s law. I must do this to them so that they might despair of their ability to keep God’s law. We must keep in mind that only lovers of God can conclude that “God’s law is for their own good.” And so, while we seek to convince them that God’s law is for their own good, we realize that they will never see that apart from a regenerating work of grace.

I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Irenic that Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage if they appealed to Natural Law over the Decalogue. People who hate Christ hate God’s law whether you serve it straight up or with a beer chaser.

J. Gresham Machen On Christianity & Cultural Transformation

“The “other-worldliness” of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life…. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in “applied Christianity.”

Only—and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion—the Christian man believes that there can be no applied Christianity unless there be “a Christianity to apply.”

That is where the Christian man differs from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that applied Christianity is all there is of Christianity, Christianity being merely a way of life; the Christian man believes that applied Christianity is the result of an initial act of God. Thus there is an enormous difference between the modern liberal and the Christian man with reference to human institutions like the community and the state, and with reference to human efforts at applying the Golden Rule in industrial relationships. The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm….

Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which the transformation of society is conceived. But according to Christian belief, as well as according to liberalism, there is really to be a transformation of society; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race.

Machen
Christianity and Liberalism