*****
From Democracy Now:
Meanwhile, Obama is drawing criticism from gay and lesbian activists for his choice to deliver the invocation at next month’s inauguration. Obama has selected the Reverend Rick Warren, a leading evangelical opponent of abortion and same-sex marriage. Warren supported California’s recent gay marriage ban and has compared abortion to the Nazi Holocaust. He’s also backed the idea of assassinating US foes, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a letter to Obama, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign said, “Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans.”
Wow, it sure is scary having such a pinko-progressive president, innit? With "liberals" like this, who needs conservatives?
*****
In intrest of full disclosure, I hasten to add that I'm not a fan Rick Warren or his praying at the White House. I am on board with the thoughts in, say, Christless Christianity.
Anyway...
Stellman's trying to persuade here. So it's an argument. It's obvious that he wants you to draw the conclusion that Obama is not going to fit into the categories that some in the "Christian right" said he would.
Apparently, the argument is something like this:
[1] The "Christian right" thought Obama was going to be a pinko-progressive president.
[2] If you invite a leader of a mega church who has affirms some conservative social values to offer a prayer at the White House, then you're not a pinko-progressive president.
[3] Obama invited Rick Warren to offer a prayer.
[4] Therefore, Obama is not a pinko-progressive president.
[5] Therefore, the "Christian right" was wrong.
But what justification is offered for [2]? Why think a thing like that? Can Warren appoint anyone to SCOTUS? Is having him pray at the White House a relevant premise that would undercut some Christians' or conservatives' concerns?
Furthermore, the cautious person, rather than the person looking for a cheap shot in advancing two kingdom via straw men, would take account all the relevant data when making such an argument, no?
Isn't it a fact that Obam is also inviting the Rev. Joseph Lowery to also offer a prayer? As one commentator writes,
Rev. Lowery is sort of an anti-Warren, actually. Warren threw his considerable church resources into ensuring the passage of Proposition 8, the California anti-gay ballot initiative that took away the civil right of gay people to marry. Lowery, by contrast, has courageously supported gay marriage. In 2004, Rev. Lowery told ABC News he supported same sex marriage. "When you talk about the law discriminating, the law granting a privilege here, and a right here and denying it there, that's a civil rights issue. And I can't take that away from anybody."http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/12/rev_joseph_lowery_the_anti-war.html
Thus, given's Stellman's logic, shouldn't also write a post denying the post I cite? If his Warren post leads to the unstated conclusion that was obviously in his mind, wouldn't a Lowery post lead to the opposite conclusion?
Why was this relevant information suppressed? it does not bode well for one's intellectual integrity to suppress this kind of information just so your soap box looks more sturdy than it really is.
If Stellman wants to undercut some of the statements made by some on the "Christian right", he's going to have to resort to more sturdy stuff than one-sided rhetoric that makes a point by being careless with all the relevant data. In fact, one might say that Obama's asking both Warren and Lowery to pray evidences his irrationalism. What would one think of asking (say) both Golda Meir and Joseph Goebbels to offer a prayer? Not that I'm equating either Warren or Lowery to these two, but I'm just illustrating that asking people who hold polar opposite positions on many moral questions could be seen as evidence of sloppy thinking rather than any support for the "Christian right" or the "Christian left," for that matter. It would seem that these two appointments cancel each other out. It could look to some like evidence of their concerns about Obama.
So I find Stellman's attempt to persuade one of his political insights grounded on two kingdom theology, ultimately unpersuasive. These kind of sophisms might actually have the opposite effect.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI plan to respond to your points, but before I do I would direct you to read some of my early posts on the two kingdoms before you say publically that I am an example of those who employ mere rhetoric and caricature rather than actual argumentation. To criticize my latest post is a bit unfair, as it's obviously satirical. Instead of walking into the middle of a conversation right when I crack a joke and then assume that this is all 2K proponents have to offer, I would suggest you take the time to do a bit of homework and then come back when you've got some context and constructive criticism.
In addition to my blog (which is a blog, after all), there is plenty of scholarly literature out there, such as the many recent journal articles published by VanDrunen. DG Hart has done some work here as well, in addition to that of Meredith Kline.
Cheers,
JJS
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI'm struggling to see how you know what I have and haven't read on your blog and the larger corpus of two kingdom literature.
As I indicated in my post, I have defended, and respect, some of the DVD arguments. And of course along with many of his articles, I read his monograph as well. I also am looking foreword to his book on such matters.
I also read more than a few of your posts on your blog, including your definition of two kingdoms, your posts on transformationalism, and some others.
D.G. Hart has done some historical analysis, and though I have appreciated and profited from some of what he has to say, it's a leap to move from the historical points about the "myth of a Christian nation" and the unfortunate outcomes of what happens when some Christians have tried to "mix" church and state, to the *arguments* needed to substantiate two kingdom theology. Add to that that much of what he says is not applicable to theonomists but many a internet two-kingdom warrior have tried to carry his comments about, say, a Falwell type and transpose it on to what theonomists have said - thus embarrassing two-kingdom "scholarship" in the process.
"To criticize my latest post is a bit unfair, as it's obviously satirical."
As I've read some of your other posts, the post I responded to was intended to have more umph. And, btw, Swift wrote a satire of his das and it could also be considered an argument.
"Instead of walking into the middle of a conversation right when I crack a joke"
It's all fun and games until some loses an eye. :-)
"and then assume that this is all 2K proponents have to offer"
As my post indicated, I don't assume "that this is all 2k proponents have to offer.
" I would suggest you take the time to do a bit of homework and then come back when you've got some context and constructive criticism."
As is now obvious, you may want to heed your own advice.
"In addition to my blog (which is a blog, after all),
Same here.
PM
Paul,
ReplyDeleteBut it's hard trying to find much substantive material when it seems that many two kingdom advocates are either unable to, or don't care to, offer cogent arguments for their positions.
I'm sorry, but I took this to mean that you have not read anything substantial from a 2K proponent. But if you have done more reading than I gave you credit for, then I fail to see how you can make the above statement.
I still hope to respond to your post, but it will have to be later tonight.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou write,
"I'm sorry, but I took this to mean that you have not read anything substantial from a 2K proponent."
I'm sorry you took it that way, because that is not something that could be logically inferred from my statement that, "it's hard trying to find much substantive material when it seems that many..." (notice the bolded portions)_.
Indeed, given my qualifications in the statement you quote, and my explicit statements in my post to the contrary, I'm unsure what excuse you have for "taking me" that way other than a knee-jerk reaction.
"But if you have done more reading than I gave you credit for, then I fail to see how you can make the above statement."
I trust you can make that inference for yourself now.
"I still hope to respond to your post, but it will have to be later tonight."
Looking foreword to it. Defend that "joke" you cracked. Substantiate that "satire."
Defend that "joke" you cracked. Substantiate that "satire."
ReplyDeleteWell, the entire evangelical community turned into doomsday prophets when it became clear that Obama was pulling ahead of McCain, warning us that he would take the country down a dangerously socialist, anti-traditional path. So then he picks Warren, the quintessential evangelical, to deliver the invocation, raising the ire and fierce rebuke of the very people in whose corner he was supposedly in.
So I was just pointing out the irony, that's all.
I am curious, Paul, what exactly about the 2K model do you find unpersuasive? I have been offering (what you deny are) cogent arguments for it for years, as have weightier men such as Kline, Godfrey, Horton, Clark, Van Drunen, &c. What exactly is it in our position that you find so flawed?
ReplyDeleteActually, before you answer that I'd like to know if you can state correctly what the 2K position is. I don't mean to be condescending, it's just that the majority of its opponents don't seem to grasp the position well enough to fairly represent it when they argue.
And by the way, there was a bit of knee-jerking on my part in my initial response. I wish I had taken a few more minutes before attempting to answer you.
Jason,
ReplyDelete"Well, the entire evangelical community turned into doomsday prophets when it became clear that Obama was pulling ahead of McCain, warning us that he would take the country down a dangerously socialist, anti-traditional path."
Wait, so when I say "many" and "much" you take that as "all." So, how should I read your "entire?"
And, "doomsday prophets?" Isn't that using emotive language to malign your opponent so you don't have to do as much actual arguing?
Look, on one hand I understand using the rhetoric. I think everyone does it. They do it when preaching to the choir, though. If you're trying to persuade, though, you should ditch the rhetoric. I mean, cautious thinkers are going to find you unpersuasive. But, perhaps your blog is only intended to preach to the choir?
"So then he picks Warren, the quintessential evangelical, to deliver the invocation, raising the ire and fierce rebuke of the very people in whose corner he was supposedly in."
Why lump all evangelicals together as liking Warren? Or, if you don't like Warren are you not a "true" evangelical? And, he also picked Lowery. The "quintessential liberal." So, were they right?
"So I was just pointing out the irony, that's all."
I'm not sure I find it "ironic," but I'm even more sure that your supressing the Lowery evidence makes the point blow up in your face.
Jason Stellman said...
ReplyDeleteActually, before you answer that I'd like to know if you can state correctly what the 2K position is. I don't mean to be condescending, it's just that the majority of its opponents don't seem to grasp the position well enough to fairly represent it when they argue.
I assume you're not asking for a treatise in my meta, right? On that assumption...
God rules over everything, yet in two distinct spheres - the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of God. Or, the city of man and the city of God. Or, the kingdom of the culture and the kingdom of cult(no reference to Walter Martin!). Or, the kingdoms on God's left hand and right hand. Or, kingdom of creation and kingdom of Word and sacrament. There are various ways to say it. I covered most the bases, I hope!
Christians are citizens in both - one by way of pilgrim, the other by way of new birth. In the kingdom of the culture they work in common with all kinds of pagans, work for the peace of the city and often making compromises in the interest of the public good. In the kingdom of the cult, the stance is uncompromising. We are governed by one Lord and his covenant document, the Bible. In this kingdom we rest and get fed. We hear declarations of what was done for us.
Christians are in the awkward position, Hart would call us "hyphenated", of being citizens in both kingdoms. A blending of the above kingdoms is dangerous for Christians in many ways. One way is that one kingdom is under a covenant of works, the other, one of grace. So a mixing may lead to errors and confusions of law and gospel. This is why, say, Kyperians tend to be more law-oriented in their ways. Other problems happen because in trying to make the church "relevant" to the un-churched culture, we frequently water down its uncompromising teachings. We, ironically, forget to preach what is, in fact, most "relevant" - the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. What sinners need most. But a survey of much of contemporary Christianity shows a Christless Christinaity. A Christianity that presents a Christ, if at all, as some kind of moral role model. Thus pastors turn into self-help gurus. The church breaks apart into all kinds of cell-groups and is "involved" with so many activities that we get burnt out, needing another "pep" talk. Rather, what we need is to hear the gospel. Hear what was done for us. But we assume we know all of that, and so we are trapped in an endless cycle of "being on fire" and being "burnt out." Where it stops, no one knows.
So, those are some possible dangers that result from mixing the two kingdoms.
Moreover, one kingdom is temporary, the other is eternal. We should never try to turn the temporary and fading into the eternal. This world is Babylon, and we should not place our hope in it. Babylon will be judged, it will fall, there is no hope that it will survive (Rev 18:2) - though its citizens can flee it and run into the salvific kingdom of God.
Above it was stated that the cult was governed by Special Revelation - but in the culture, we have little hope to "seek the peace" of that city by running around and hitting people over the head with our Bibles, so to speak. So, God governs that kingdom by natural law. Both unredeemed and redeemed men can appeal to this law as it is written on our heart. This can be shown, for example, by Abraham and Abimelech. Abraham thought Abimelech, or his people, would kill Abraham to have Sarah. He said that he thought there was no "fear of God" in that place. This fear of God is a general sense of moral accountability. To claim that we cannot appeal to natural law because man is fallen is about the same as saying we can appeal to logical laws since man is fallen. The only other way to get around it is to posit that the fall was only moral, not intellectual - thus denying total depravity. So, natural law is how God governs the city of man, and it is a standard we can appeal to apart from the Bible in working toward peace with the unbeliever. But, this doesn't mean that we "check our worldviews" at the door. Moral decisions depend upon the facts, and our worldview gives us certain facts that we deed to take into account in making moral decisions. These facts are facts about the world, mans constitution, etc. The Bible can also help us epistemologically to see natural law - so the proverbs. So, those who claim that two kingdom and natural law proponents totally disregard special revelation are misunderstanding it at some level.
So, two kingdoms theology teaches that there are two distinct kingdoms, believers live in both. Their contrary natures mean that they should not be blended. Each kingdom is governed by a standard, so relativism obtains in neither.
I take it that something like that is close enough for a comment section.
"I am curious, Paul, what exactly about the 2K model do you find unpersuasive? I have been offering (what you deny are) cogent arguments for it for years, as have weightier men such as Kline, Godfrey, Horton, Clark, Van Drunen, &c. What exactly is it in our position that you find so flawed?"
I'm unsure I said that I found anything "unpersuasive." But, I do find some of the *arguments* for it to be, rather, assertions looking for arguments. I find the way some adherents *present* 2k theology to be unpersuasive.
Other questions I have are at a more detailed level, not with the broad landscape. It's not like all 2k proponents agree. For example, over at Baggins' blog, I presented a quote from DVD and your fellow 2ker, "Zrim," said "I disagree with DVD here." Another example is when David Gadbois, member of DVD's church, said on this blog that Steve rightly called out guys like you and Irons. Then you have Irons critiquing R.S. Clark on things two kingdom related. So, there's much I need to see parsed out. But now's not the time to get into the more detailed questions I'm working out right now.
Btw, can you point me to the "cogent arguments" you say you've put forth? Are they on your blog, or are they in journals somewhere?
Well, I hope that answered some of your questions...
Not to change the topic, but I don't see how anything said of 2k theology in your summary precludes theonomy.
ReplyDeleteIt seems you would have to go further and argue that revealed OT law was for a special people/time/place (as it seems some 2k people do). But is this *further* view essential to holding to 2k theology or just coincidental?
Could one assent to all that you have summarized, Paul, and still hold to theonomy as Hayes argued for it against Tipton and DVD in his posts on this blog?
To put it differently, why couldn't it be the case that God prescribed and recorded in the OT laws for Israel, as a temporary city, that are adaptable to every society (given your def. of 2k)?
Red Monkey,
ReplyDelete"Not to change the topic, but I don't see how anything said of 2k theology in your summary precludes theonomy.
That's one of the things I'm looking into. But at one level, that's true. The more distinctions people build into the respective positions, though, that encompassing may dissolve.
I think you'd say the same after reading Jason's summary of 2k theology:
http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2006/01/two-kingdoms-definition.html
Of course, how he *fleshes out* those terms may shed light on any incompatibility.
"It seems you would have to go further and argue that revealed OT law was for a special people/time/place (as it seems some 2k people do). But is this *further* view essential to holding to 2k theology or just coincidental?"
That's ambiguous, even the confession says that the laws given *to that body politic* have expirired. You'd probably want to argue for the moral *principles* found in those laws. And here we'd get into discussions of a mora austere theonomy, or theonomy Lite.
At the very least, living as a pilgrim seems to look different than living in the holy land. There's a lot of qualifications to make here that I'm not prepared to go into at the moment.
"Could one assent to all that you have summarized, Paul, and still hold to theonomy as Hayes argued for it against Tipton and DVD in his posts on this blog?"
My summary was quick and vague at points - there's more that needs to be said. We'll see if Jason even grants that I "understand" 2k theology. Maybe it's like the Federal Vision and "no one gets it?" We'll see.
I took Steve to mostly be offering a negative post in his Tipton/DVD posts - critiquing rather than setting forth a positive presentation of his position.
The most I think we get in terms of a positive statement is his statement that:
"True, the Mosaic Law is not our constitution. This doesn’t mean it contains no transcultural norms. The Mosaic Law is not an arbitrary fiat. It commends some conduct because some conduct is inherently commendable; it condemns some conduct because some conduct is inherently condemnable. It assigns certain penalties because they are inherently just. There’s more to the Mosaic law than ritual purities or impurities."
So it apears his view is similar to those like Frame and Poythress, and others. There are ethical *principles* that can be found in the laws and these can carry over across time and culture.
Stated at this general level, I find no prima facie reason 2kers would be forced to deny it. For example, DVD writes,
"Before turning to a specific bioethics issue, it is helpful first to consider some general guidelines. When confronting difficult bioethics decisions, Christians initially must strive to identify relevant theological truths. Though Scripture does not speak specifically about contemporary bioethics, its teaching does have important implications for it.
http://wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/06.10.php
I assume DVD doesn't restrict this to the NT. So, if one finds some "transcultural moral principles" in an OT law that has "important implications for" making ethical decisions, it apears DVD wouldn't be opposed to appealing to them.
As I said, I've been purposefully limited in how detailed I've been. I'm still parsing a lot out and reading more broadly in political theology (e.g., O'Donovan), natural law (e.g., Grabil), etc. So my more studied opinions will have to wait a bit longer. My purpose here is that I've found a lot of the online comments by guys like Stellman and some of his internet 2k amigos, to be larely unhelpful and only opperating at a superficial level. It seems they're stuck on picking on the most extreme forms of cult/culture mixing fundamentalists, like Warren, Hybels, Fallwell, etc. or picking on some of the overrstated, IMO, statements of a "Christian America" from guys like (say) D. James Kennedy.
One of the problems with Stellman’s post is its moral superficiality, as well as the way he deliberately caricatures his political opponents. The conservative opposition to Obama involved substantive criticism with respect to his stated policy objectives on such issues as abortion, SCOTUS nominees, and his limp-wristed approach to counterterrorism.
ReplyDeleteWho he chooses to delivery a prayer at his inauguration is purely cosmetic and, in fact, precisely the sort of empty symbolism which politicians use to deflect attention away from their real policies.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWho [Obama] chooses to delivery a prayer at his inauguration is purely cosmetic and, in fact, precisely the sort of empty symbolism which politicians use to deflect attention away from their real policies.
I totally agree, and I think the whole brouhaha is pretty silly myself. Again, I just found it ironic that the people most angry at Obama lately are the far-left culture warriors. Does no one else find this funny? You guys are acting like this tiny post of mine was meant as some kind of manifesto or something.
Lighten up, fellas, I was just having a bit of fun....
Case in point:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I find it "ironic," but I'm even more sure that your supressing the Lowery evidence makes the point blow up in your face.
So now I am "suppressing evidence"?! Sheesh, remind me never to invite you guys out for a pint, I'd find myself feeling the pressure to offer an airtight, I's-dotted, T's-crossed argument for why I need to use the restroom.
Jason Stellman said...
ReplyDeleteI think the whole brouhaha is pretty silly myself. Again, I just found it ironic that the people most angry at Obama lately are the far-left culture warriors. Does no one else find this funny? You guys are acting like this tiny post of mine was meant as some kind of manifesto or something.
Lighten up, fellas, I was just having a bit of fun....
12/21/2008 2:37 PM
And,
Case in point:
I'm not sure I find it "ironic," but I'm even more sure that your supressing the Lowery evidence makes the point blow up in your face.
So now I am "suppressing evidence"?! Sheesh, remind me never to invite you guys out for a pint, I'd find myself feeling the pressure to offer an airtight, I's-dotted, T's-crossed argument for why I need to use the restroom.
12/21/2008 2:41 PM
******************
Yet the post gathered some 70 comments with many a 2ker coming out of the woodshed to gladhand and mock the "Christian right" and the "culture warriors."
I wonder why Stellman never stopped the ever-so-serious comments from piling up in his lighthearted joke post? When 2kers were slapping their knees in glee, why didn't Stellman tell them to "lighten up?"
As I said, it is *clear* that Stellman meant his post to function as an *argument* against "the Christian right." It is *clear*, given his *other political posts* that he intended the Obama appointement to serve as putative *evidence* undermining some of the claims he critiqued *many other times* in his *other* posts.
Then he resorts to his usual anti-intellectualism and offers an emotively laden response claiming the irrational conclusion that we'd ask him to dot his i's and cross his t's if he were to ask to go to the restroom.
One wonders how *that* follows, at all.
Oh, maybe he was "just joking" again. Well, haw, haw, haw.
Good one Jason.
If I may offer my two cents: don't quit your day job!
:-)
Btw, how'd I do on my 2k homework assignment? Am I qualified to talk about such things with you?
"Yet the post gathered some 70 comments with many a 2ker coming out of the woodshed to gladhand and mock the "Christian right" and the "culture warriors."
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Stellman never stopped the ever-so-serious comments from piling up in his lighthearted joke post? When 2kers were slapping their knees in glee, why didn't Stellman tell them to "lighten up?"
As I said, it is *clear* that Stellman meant his post to function as an *argument* against "the Christian right." It is *clear*, given his *other political posts* that he intended the Obama appointement to serve as putative *evidence* undermining some of the claims he critiqued *many other times* in his *other* posts.
Then he resorts to his usual anti-intellectualism and offers an emotively laden response claiming the irrational conclusion that we'd ask him to dot his i's and cross his t's if he were to ask to go to the restroom."
That's not cool Pastor Jason Stellman.
Paul Manata busted you, didn't he?