Christians in the public square

With minor edits, to avoid duplication, I’m going repost some comments I left over at Wes White’s fine blog.

steve hays says:

February 2, 2011 at 5:49 PM

1. For some reason, this thread quickly digressed into a debate over theonomy. But in my post I didn’t present theonomy as the alternative to 2K.

2. In what sense is Lee and Misty’s position on sodomite marriage, which is one representative outcome of their position on the law, firmly within the Reformed tradition?

3. What does Sean include or exclude vis-à-vis the mission of the church? And what does he mean by “the church”? Pastors? Laymen who belong to a local church?

steve hays says:

February 2, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Sean,

I’m not clear on how your 2k position cashes out in policy terms. For instance:

i) Do you think it’s okay for Christians to be voters? Is it okay for Christians to hold public office?

ii) Assuming a Christian is a Congressman or state legislator, is it okay for him to draft laws which reflect Christian social ethics? If not, what’s your alternative?

iii) To be more specific, should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children? Should Christian lawmakers ban euthanasia? Involuntary organ harvesting?

Should Christians be allowed to homeschool their kids or send their kids to private Christians school in lieu of compulsory public education? Should there be conscience clauses for Christians physicians who oppose abortion?

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 7:35 AM

sean says:

“I’m certain neither I nor anyone else can definitively delineate what christian social ethics are, of course if you’re referring to Israelite theocracy, see deuteronomy. Natural law, general revelation are the appropriate references for defining common grace social ethics.”

i) Does natural law “definitively delineate” “common grace social ethics”?

ii) What do you mean by “definitively delineate?” Is that a synonym for “exhaustive”? “Absolutely certain?”

iii) To assert that natural law/general revelation are the appropriate sources begs the very question in dispute.

iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we accept natural law as the source and standard, do you deny that some OT laws codify natural law? For instance, when the Mosaic law prohibits murder, doesn’t that codify natural law? So why would you relegate the entirely of OT law to an obsolete dispensation if natural law is, in fact, your standard?

“In answer to all, and any potential hypothetical, or particular application you care to profer, I’m terribly comfortable entrusting God’s sovereign hand as He rules this common grace world.”

i) Well, that sounds very reverent, but is it Biblical? What does the Bible have to say about the social mores of the heathen? Here are two representative statements (among many):

Lev 18:21-25

21You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

24 “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

Nahum 3:1-4

1Woe to the bloody city,

all full of lies and plunder—

no end to the prey!

2The crack of the whip, and rumble of the wheel,

galloping horse and bounding chariot!

3Horsemen charging,

flashing sword and glittering spear,

hosts of slain,

heaps of corpses,

dead bodies without end—

they stumble over the bodies!

4And all for the countless whorings of the prostitute,

graceful and of deadly charms,

who betrays nations with her whorings,

and peoples with her charms.

Doesn’t seem to be a ringing endorsement of natural law ethics.

ii) How does your appeal to divine providence distinguish 2k from any other position or policy? The New England theocracies were providential. The Hindu custom of suttee was providential. Aztec human sacrifice was providential.

iii) Are the utilitarian arguments of Peter Singer to warrant abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia consistent or inconsistent with natural law? Isn’t Singer the beneficiary of general revelation and common grace?

“I don’t feel a compulsion to divulge my particular beliefs about any number of issues, as that would really lead this thread off on any number of tangents.”

So you’re not prepared to present a real alternative to the position you oppose. In that event, 2k is just a label. But you can’t oppose something with nothing.

“What I’m not comfortable with is the church stepping beyond it’s NT mandate and illicitly binding the conscience of it’s pew-sitters nor confusing the Gospel with social reform.”

i) Of course, that begs the question. What is the church’s mandate?

ii) When does a church “illicitly bind the conscience of the pew-sitter?” If a pastor opposes euthanizing the elderly, does that “illicitly bind the conscience of the pew-sitter”? What sort of thing do you have in mind, exactly?

“I did offer Daniel’s behavior in Babylon as example of upholding cultic fidelity while outside a theocratic state. I believe our situation in many ways mimics Daniel’s.”

How is our situation analogous to kosher laws in the Babylonian exile?

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 8:16 AM

sean says:

“Natural law, general revelation are the appropriate references for defining common grace social ethics.”

That’s an idiosyncratic definition of common grace. In standard usage, common grace isn’t limited to natural law/natural revelation. Rather, it has reference to any type of divine influence that exerts a restraint on sin. That can include special revelation as well as general revelation. The gospel. Christian ethics.

Take a churchgoing family. Say the mother and daughters are Christian, while the father and sons are not. The husband goes to church because he loves his wife. He does it for her. And the boys come along for the ride because it’s a family, so they do things together.

The fact that unbelieving family members are sitting under weekly Christian preaching and fellowship exerts a restraint on their conduct and outlook. They’d behave very differently if they were pre-Christian Iroquois.

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 8:28 AM

sean says:

“If you’re truly that wooden and uncharitable in your interpretation of others words and if you’re at such a remedial level in your prooftexting, I’m sure nothing I say in either summation or point by point rebuttal is going to facilitate understanding. If you feel that such a response renders you justified in your belief system, then by all means declare victory and 2k untenable.”

Well, if you refuse to present a reasoned counterargument, and simply resort to ad hominem attacks, then, yes, my position does win by default.

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Thanks, Matthias.

So how should believers work to relieve the effects of the fall? For instance, if a Christian layman is a Congressman, should Christian social ethics figure in his legislation? Should OT social ethics ever figure in his legislation? Is that even permissible?

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Matthias Martinius says:

“I believe that the mission or mandate of the church is to ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I[Christ] have commanded you.’”

Okay, let’s run with that, shall we? Here’s a dominical command: “17 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven'” (Mt 5:17-19).

So the mission/mandate of the church includes teaching disciples to observe that command.

Of course, the passage is subject to differing interpretations. Still, the mission of the church extends to that dominical command, however we best decide to construe it.

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Matthias Martinius says:

“I am not a theologian, a seminary grad, a pastor/elder. I am simply a concerned pew sitter. I have been on the receiving end of ‘Christians MUST do these things.’”

Suppose a pastor has a US senator in his congregation. Suppose he has a private meeting with the senator to explain to him that he has a duty to protect innocent life. To try to enact legislation that protects the unborn, newborn, and elderly. That murder is wrong. That, out of neighbor-love, the senator should do what he can to defend the lives of his vulnerable constituents.

Or suppose he exhorts the senator to oppose homosexuals adopting children, because that’s harmful to children.

Is that out of bounds? If so, why?

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

sean says:

“That’s it Steve, don’t let him get away with that, just hit him harder. When in doubt, get a bigger hammer. That’s what I say.”

I’m struck by your unprovoked hostility. I’ve said nothing harsh to you or about you. What accounts for your emotional reaction?

If you can’t offer a rational defense for 2k, then what does that way about your commitment to 2k?

What do you think you contribute to a constructive dialogue over the pros and cons of 2k when all you have to offer are sniping comments? It’s anti-intellectual, and a poor witness to the gravity of the issues.

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM

I didn’t argue for theonomy in my post. Among other things, theonomy posits a standing presumption in favor of the abiding validity of the Mosaic civil laws during the church age. A presumption that can only be overcome by specific NT repeal. I, by contrast, left the status of any OT civil law open-ended. To be decided after the fact on a case-by-case basis. Whether any given law is timeless or timebound remains to be determined. That’s not theonomy.

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

You seem to use “theonomy” as a well-poisoning tactic to tar and thereby preemptively discredit any position that isn’t 2k. Any position that’s not 2k becomes “theonomy” by default, and suffers from guilt-by-association.

Years ago Walter Kaiser published a classic monograph on OT ethics (Toward Old Testament Ethics). Does that make him a theonomist? More recently, Gordon Wenham published a fine monograph on OT ethics (Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically). Does that make him a theonomist?

Or what about A. A. Hodge’s position on sifting OT law:

“Where there is no direct information upon the question to be gathered from the New Testament, a careful examination of the reason of the law will afford us good ground of judgment as to its perpetuity. If the original reason for its enactment is universal and permanent, and the law has never been explicitly repealed, then the law abides in force. If the reason of the law is transient, its binding force is transient also.”

http://www.mbrem123.com/creeds/wcf_19.php

Does that make him a theonomist? It just becomes a lazy, prejudicial label.

Why are hypotheticals beside the point? That’s a basic feature of ethical discourse, including biblical discourse.

If you think 2k should be taken seriously, then 2k must deal with hypothetical cases.

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM

sean says:

“Like I said I’ve been down this road more than once. If you want to have to have a long drawn out back and forth with someone go ahead. I already admitted to having erred in saying anything. I don’t consider a dialogue with you or you with me to be a determining factor in whether 2k is taken seriously or not. I think it’s beyond the medium of the combox to effectively have this conversation, at least with the usual suspects.”

Except that you want to be given the benefit of your conclusions without the spadework of the supporting arguments.

“Difficult as you may find this, I think the use of the Bible as test case arbiter of social ethics is missing the point and largely misuse of biblical narrative and didactic teaching.”

And how is that distinguishable from practical atheism? Even though we know that God has spoken to us on a range of social issues, we’re going to pretend that God never spoke to those issues. As if he didn’t exist.

“NL ASSUMES imago dei creation and as such ASSUMES basic/common moral consensus.”

i) What “basic/common moral consensus” would that be, exactly? The combined social mores of the Assyrian Empire, the Aztec Empire, the Shogunate, Peter Singer, &c.?

ii) Even if you could distill a lowest common denominator, how is that relevant? Isn’t the real issue what duties God requires of man, and not what we agree to among ourselves (e.g. Assyrians, Aztecs, Samurai, Peter Singer)?

iii) Isn’t “imago dei creation” an OT category? As such, aren’t you smuggling the Bible into your natural theology?

iv) If you limit ethical guidance to natural revelation, isn’t that equivalent to deism? God spoke once in creation, and that’s that? And doesn’t deism quickly fade into atheism?

“My move to justify it or prooftext it based on OT case law is itself a confusion of kingdoms, a blurring of cult and culture dichotomy and an argument against my claim, not for it.”

i) You’re not entitled to issue Klinean IOUs until you establish a line of credit by arguing for your Klinean position.

ii) Moreover, you like to fly at the safe altitude of 40,000 feet, but why should anyone care about your airy abstractions if you’re unwilling to bring the discussion down to earth and deal with real-life concerns?

iii) For instance, Singer has argued that parents ought to have the right to euthanize hemophiliac newborns. What, if anything, is the 2K response? Is there a natural law argument against his utilitarian argument for the rationing of medical resources (to the detriment of hemophiliac newborns)? If so, what does the argument looks like?

What, if anything, does 2K think should be the role of a pastor in opposing the euthanization of hemophiliac infants? Or, like the religious figures in the parable of the Good Samaritan, should pastors avoid tainting themselves by direct contact, lest they “confuse kingdoms” and sully the “spirituality of the church”?

What, if anything, should be the role of Christian laymen on this issue?

iv) And ultimately, there’s only one kingdom: God’s kingdom. All earthly kingdoms are subservient to God’s kingdom. And God is the lawmaker. Indeed, that’s a basic royal prerogative.

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Matthias Martinius says:

“Steve- in my opinion, you have caricatured 2k positions.”

That’s your opinion. Where’s the argument?

steve hays says:

February 3, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Matthias Martinius says:

“Steve- in my opinion, you have caricatured 2k positions.”

Here’s a real life, real time example of 2K statecraft in action:

“Evangelical Christians in this country complain that they are persecuted for their faith — witness the hurt feelings in response to the gay protests ‘targeting’ the Saddleback Church in the wake of Proposition 8. And yet, is it possible that we are not suffering as Christians, but as troublesome meddlers? At least, that’s how some people see it: ‘That the supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by religious beliefs cannot be denied. Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution and, until overturned, govern us all whether we like it or not.’”

http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=242

This is Lee Irons, siding with the San Francisco Chronicle on Prop 8. Lee characterizes Christian citizens and Christian voters who supported a ban on sodomite marriage as “troublesome meddlers.”

Lee Irons is a protégé of Meredith Kline. Along with David VanDrunen, he is one of the two leading intellectuals in the 2k movement.

So explain to me how I’m “caricaturing” 2k positions. I look forward to your informed explanation.

steve hays says:

February 4, 2011 at 7:45 AM

sean says:

“Natural law, general revelation are the appropriate references for defining common grace social ethics.”

Well, that’s deeply problematic for 2K, since, as 2K proponent Lee Irons pointed out, grounding 2k in natural law simply leads to a natural law theocracy:

http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=240 

steve hays says:

February 4, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Sean,

i) Another purely emotive response from you, complete with tendentious, derogatory characterizations. The fact that you invariably take the low road in these exchanges doesn’t exactly commend the virtues of 2k.

ii) At the risk of stating the obvious, public debates are rarely about one debater convincing another debater. That’s not the purpose. Rather, public debates are for the benefit of the onlookers, not the debaters. It was never my ambition to persuade you. That’s a red herring.

“I really don’t think this argument is that difficult, nor do I think trading on mine nor my neighbors God-given sense of right and wrong is really that dangerous and certainly not a denial of the kingship of Jesus. Nobody actually tries to live the way you guys argue for reality in a combox.”

Well, to take just one glaring counterexample, if you were to spend some quality time over at Wesley J. Smith’s bioethics blog, you’d see that these are by no means merely academic debates:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/ 

Your Pollyannaish optimism is scarcely justified by actual trends in public policy.

iii) One of the basic problems with grounding ethics solely in natural law is that you have no independent criterion to distinguish what social mores reflect natural law, and what social mores reflect the noetic effects of sin. Take sharia law. Can you even begin to tell me which parts of sharia law embed natural law, and which parts embed the noetic effects of sin?

steve hays says:

February 4, 2011 at 9:24 AM

sean says:

“Ah yes, another misrepresentation of the position(which you are WELL aware of) yet you continue to capitalize upon and prove your unwillingness to argue in good faith.”

You assert a misrepresentation, you assert failure to act in good faith, but you never document your allegations. Adjectives don’t do the work of arguments. Taking intellectual shortcuts doesn’t get you to your desired destination.

“Yes, there are exceptions, to moral consensus, of course NL adherents don’t try to argue that there is not.”

i) You don’t state what the moral consensus is. I’m waiting for the specifics. All we’re getting from you is just another one of your promissory notes.

ii) And, as I pointed out before, even if you could abstract a “moral consensus,” that’s irrelevant to our duties before God. Our duty is not to follow a sociological consensus (whatever that amounts to), but to obey God.

“That’s why God provided the state and why we make distinction between sin and crime. Sharia law is a great example of religious fundamentalism run amok of it’s cultic bounding. Proves my point thank you very much.”

Except that you’re dodging the question. Once again: what parts of sharia law embed natural law, and what parts embed “religious fundamentalism run amok”? If natural law is your template, then show us how natural law sorts out the natural law intuitions instantiated in sharia law from the “fundamentalist” injunctions.

“What I actually think is astounding is you think so much of yourselves that you simply think that applying a christian version of fundamentalism doesn’t or won’t run into the same traps. (see medieval christendom). We’ve been there done this before in history. See this really isn’t that long of a walk.”

i) That disregards the question of whether we have a duty to God to obey his commands.

ii) Moreover, I don’t see that, say, modern Sweden is a signal improvement over medieval catholicism on the scale of values. And, in any case, medieval catholicism is hardly the standard of comparison. That’s just a decoy on your part.

“Like I said, I’m unimpressed with bullying on the otherside of a keyboard. I get that you like an audience. I hope everyone is terribly impressed with you.”

You seriously need to work on the bitter animosity that’s consuming you.

steve hays says:

February 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM

sean says:

“I really don’t think this argument is that difficult, nor do I think trading on mine nor my neighbors God-given sense of right and wrong is really that dangerous and certainly not a denial of the kingship of Jesus.”

Well, I suppose that all depends on where you live. If you live in the barrios, where lots of your neighbors are dope-dealers and gang-bangers with the honor-code of the Mexican Mafia, then the “God-given sense of right and wrong” seems a bit amiss, all things considered. Or maybe you disagree. Other examples are readily available, if you prefer.

steve hays says:

February 4, 2011 at 1:33 PM

sean says:

“Come on now, what is a combox on a blog but a shortcut. Your desire to treat it as more than that is misplaced. Document allegations! give me a break. Anybody who’s read on this at all, including you or I, can read your comments and mine and determine where we both screw up.”

Except that I’ve been presenting a series of arguments while you’ve been presenting a series of assertions, or more often, block comments consisting entirely of foot-stamping, fist-shaking, red-faced rhetoric. So, no, there’s really no comparison.

“Again, people in the barrio may act bad, my neighbor may act bad, I may act bad, your/my pastor may act bad, it’s not from lack of information or not knowing what’s right or wrong that they do so. They do it IN SPITE of what they know. This is right out of Romans and human experience.”

Which, once again, ducks the question of how you use natural law to distinguish the residual natural law elements in social mores from sinful rebellion. Do you think that if you just repeat yourself often enough that you can successfully avoid all the tough questions?

“Civil use of the law isn’t even on the table in this discussion and YOU know it, it’s assumed and it has long standing in the reformed tradition.”

Well, I quoted A. A. Hodge, and you showed him the door.

“Shoot, even the legitimacy of a theocracy (ultimately, when Jesus returns) isn’t even contested.”

Which conveniently ignores the objection of Lee Irons, where he links natural law to theocracy. You keep blowing past things you can’t deal with.

“I’ll take my ‘biblical’ stand on amillenialism, ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’, ‘ my kingdom is not of this world’, ‘submit to the authorities and pray for the peace of the city’, Romans 13:1-5; submit to the authorities and render obedience because they have their mandate from God.”

i) Your perfunctory prootexting jumbles together a lot of distinct issues. Moreover, prooftexting is a nonstarter unless you’re prepared to exegete your prootexts, and defend your exegesis.

ii) The argument in my post, which Wes reproduced, wasn’t predicated on postmillennialism. My position is compatible with amillennialism, premillennialism, and postmillennialism. So you’re tilting at windmills.

If, however, amillennialism is a prerequisite for 2k, then 2k will automatically marginalize itself. Which is fine by me.

iii) This also goes to a chronic deficiency in your replies, such as they are. You’re trapped in the timewarp of your personal background, where you recast the debate in a Manichean choice between the theonomic paradigm of Bahnsen/Rushdoony, and your version of 2k. While that maybe a revealing tour through the autobiographical museum of your past, it’s consistently tangential to the actual state of the argument.

iii) You need to show how you actually extract a two-kingdoms paradigm from the ironic God/Caesar parallel.

a) To begin with, there’s no compelling reason to even think Jesus is articulating his own position on statecraft. On the face of it, he presents a quoque argument. In context, his enemies pose a trick question to box him into a dicey dilemma. He responds on their own terms by shifting the dilemma back onto his opponents. He calls their bluff with a counter bet they don’t dare to meet. The answer is evasive, but if they press the issue, they will lose. So retreat is their only option.

b) Even if (arguendo), we think Jesus is stating his own position, his formulation doesn’t establish two autonomous domains. What does it mean to give (or give back) to God all that’s due him? Think about that for a moment. What doesn’t belong to God? God is “Lord of heaven and earth” (Mt 11:25).

c) God/Caesar are hardly equivalent to church/state. For God is over both.

If you have a better interpretation, present it.

iv) Jn 18:36?

a) The point of contrast is not between two kingdoms. The point, rather, is that Jesus derives his authority from heaven. As such, he is the overlord of each and every earthly lord.

In no sense does that imply church/state separation.

Keep in mind that I’m not arguing for or against church/state separation at the moment. Merely commenting on the quality of your prooftexting.

b) You’re also disregarding the temporal marker (Gr. nun=“now”). As of “now”–in contrast to the future. This statement was made prior to the Ascension. Not from this “present” world–present in relation to the time of the statement.

v) You view Rom 13 as a prooftext for 2k? Really? Where does Rom 13 enunciate the separate of church and state? And it’s not as if Roman emperors, from the Augustan age and beyond, exactly championed church/state separation. Remember the imperial cult (which looms large in Revelation)? Remember the correlation between princeps and pontifex maximus?

Far from being a prooftext for 2-k, the challenge for 2k is to erect barricades to keep Rom 13 at a safe distance.

“This in spite of the fact of an active emperor’s cult.”

So how do you square Rom 13 with separation of church and state? Did you think your throwaway line suddenly harmonizes 2k with Rom 13?

“Proverbs itself demands and trades on the idea that ‘everyman’ can take wisdom and learn from the world and human experience how to live; ‘observe the ant, take note of the sluggard, see the foolishness of the young man in the way of the harlot, note how the man of violence is caught in his own trap and on and on and on.’ Wisdom she cries out on the street corner. This isn’t an appeal to special revelation it’s a particular noting of the adequacy of general revelation for this life.”

i) The Book of Proverbs is scarcely a treatise on natural law. It is written by, to, and for Jews. It presupposes the Torah. Cf. T. Longman, Proverbs (Baker 2006), 78-81; B. Waltke, Proverbs 1-15 (Eerdmans 2004), 64-65; 78-80.

ii) Moreover, this is just a diversionary tactic on your part. The existence of natural revelation doesn’t obviate the need for special revelation. Your argument is a non sequitur.

“I could care less of your exceptions to the rule or quite frankly abject failures of entire cultures.”

Let’s see. You’ve gone from “moral consensus” to “exceptions” to “abject failures” of “entire cultures.”

“The problem isn’t one of knowledge or information. NEVER has been. The world is fallen, it doesn’t do as it ought, no newsflash here, but it’s not for lack of knowledge.”

Of course, the Fall is a primary reason for the necessity of special propositional revelation, as a corrective to, and supplement to, the noetic effects of sin.

steve hays says:

February 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

sean says:

“Proverbs itself demands and trades on the idea that ‘everyman’ can take wisdom and learn from the world and human experience how to live; ‘observe the ant, take note of the sluggard, see the foolishness of the young man in the way of the harlot, note how the man of violence is caught in his own trap and on and on and on.’ Wisdom she cries out on the street corner. This isn’t an appeal to special revelation it’s a particular noting of the adequacy of general revelation for this life.”

Quoting from the Bible to prove we don’t need the Bible is self-refuting.

steve hays says:

February 4, 2011 at 6:35 PM

sean says:

“Really, you think your rapid fire, Gatlin-gun style of overwrought logical propositioning doesn’t qualify as petulant posturing? I beg to differ.”

You may beg to differ, but you offer a pejorative characterization in lieu of a reasoned argument.

“I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to extract from me here; but I’ll just wing it and say as regards ordering society, from a civil magistrate perspective, I’m certain that after I’ve made the distinction between sin and crime, it’s no longer my business and an illegitimate extension of my authority outside a theocracy to then parse out the underlying sin(cult violation).”

Irrelevant. You invoke “moral consensus,” absent any supporting material (much less supporting material commensurate with the sweeping scope of your claim). You also invoke natural law. Yet you fail to show how your natural law criterion distinguishes moral social conventions from immoral (or amoral) social conventions. Appeal to “moral consensus” is both a historical and normative appeal. Your appeal fails on both counts. You don’t support your claim with suitable historical evidence, and you don’t show how a natural law theorist can distinguish descriptive social mores from normative social mores.

“No, I didn’t I just felt no compulsion to respond to every tittle you throw my way, and I still don’t. After watching the reformed internet world make a wax-nose of Calvin’s words to anachronistically support whatever particular hobby horse they were riding that particular day, I just don’t find the marshalling of historical quotes necessarily definitive. Again, limitations of a combox and the medium itself.”

You were the one who appealed to “longstanding reformed tradition.” When I cite a representative counterexample, you refuse to honor the terms of your own argument. I answered you on your own grounds. How do you respond? By acting as I was imposing on you when I merely answered you according to the way in which you yourself framed the argument.

The honorable course of action would be for you to respond in kind when I respond to you in kind. But when I play by your rules, you change the rules. Is your conduct the fruit of 2k ethics?

“Why is it my responsibility to own and defend everyone else’s manifestation of 2k. I have vague recollection of Iron’s development, but quite frankly I haven’t gone back to read it in a while. Sorry. Looks like somebody’s getting red-faced about it though.”

This is how it goes, Sean. You present an argument. In this case, you grounded 2k in natural theology. I then draw attention to the argument of another (indeed, a leading) 2k proponent who points out that making that move simply conduces to a different type of theocracy. And theocracy is anathema to your stated position. So if you had any genuine concern for moral and intellectual consistency, you’d be concerned about his argument. But you don’t. Yet you’re the one who bandies the term “petulant posturing.” Uh-huh.

“I actually like my verses and my brief, condensed shorthand of the issue.”

Yes, the advantages of intellectual theft over honest toil, as Bertrand Russell used to say. Why bother making a rational case for your position when you can simply stipulate that whatever you say is true?

“It saves a lot time and I like to trade on well-established, popularly understood themes.”

The 2k statecraft of Meredith Kline and his epigones is far from well-established. To the contrary, that’s highly innovative and idiosyncratic. Likewise, contemporary 2k goes out of its way to distance itself from traditional Reformed statecraft, viz. Calvin’s Geneva, 17C Holland, Colonial New England.

That’s not to say it’s wrong. But your interpretation is, at best, only well-established in Quaker or Amish circles.

“Again I’m sorry if you don’t.”

To the contrary, your intellectual surrender serves my purposes just fine.

“I obviously don’t have the time available that you do.”

For someone short of time, you spend an inordinate amount of time wrangling about not arguing for your position. Which suggests to me that your problem lies, not in the lack of time, but the lack of a defensible position.

“And it’s common place within the context of a tradition to make use of well-established and accepted ideas and words within that tradition.”

Except that, unfortunately for you, 2k doesn’t qualify. Following the analysis of Steven Wedgeworth and Peter Escalante over at Wedgewords, for some documentation. 

“I feel zero need to reinvent the wheel, for the sake of this argument.”

That’s just disingenuous. Why do you think David VanDrunen is having to churn out so many books and articles to expound and defend 2k? To convince the Reformed community to accept a new paradigm, that’s why.

Now, if you want to defend contemporary 2k on the merits, fine. But don’t pretend that this represents the status quo ante, which absolves you of having to marshal the arguments.

Again, though, if you shirk the burden of proof, that’s fine with me. You lose, not me.

“Now there’s an ad hominem if i ever heard one. Talk to the man.”

You were the one who volunteered your background. And it’s not ad hominem for me to point out that you chronically play bait-n-switch.

“Actually, it dovetails quite nicely with some of the other verses I quoted and was rather revealing of an attitude Jesus seemed to have toward questions of the legitimacy of political authority.”

That’s not an argument, Sean. That’s a self-serving characterization of your claim, minus anything resembling an argument. A string of flattering assertions does not an argument make.

“I heartily disagree with the first sentence.”

Hearty disagreement is simply your unargued opinion.

“Yea I think this is a reach on your part. Granted a single verse doesn’t establish this one way or the other but I do think a more amillenial perspective of kingdom distinction spiritual/historical works well here. Jesus at a number of places goes out of His way to distinguish the kingdom He’s inaugurating through His incarnation and life and ultimately death with the kingdom’s of this world. This isn’t an argument against Him being Lord of heaven and earth but it is a distinguishing of His kingly rule of one against/over the other.”

i) My position is compatible with inaugurated eschatology. Try again.

ii) Moreover, you’re sidestepping the real issue, which is the legitimate source and standard of social ethics. Is propositional revelation a permissible and, indeed, preferable source of moral norms?

Quoting Jesus hardly helps you, for that, in itself, is a conspicuous appeal to propositional revelation.

“That’s really reaching. I understand why you want to make a mountain out of the temporal marker ‘now’ though.”

Your usual tactic of trying to dismiss an argument through a tendentious characterization of the argument rather than an actual counterargument. Every time you do, that, Sean, you lose. For there’s no parity between my arguments and your assertions. You can deny everything I say, but a denial, however loud, is not a disproof.

“Now that’s an interesting take on that verse; do you plan to argue that the Roman governance was not actually wrong in marrying cult to state but that they merely chose the wrong cult? Furthermore, if that were the case it’s seems actually blasphemous of Paul to commend submission at all. Not sure where you’re headed but you may be proving too much.”

You’re the one who cited Rom 13 in support of 2k. Now, however, you do an about-face.

(For the record, I’m in essential agreement with Robert Jewett’s interpretation.)

“Actually it’s an argument for the adequacy of GR for ordering moral life.”

Quoting from special revelation (i.e. a book of the Bible) is a self-defeating way to argue for the adequacy of general revelation. Moreover, your appeal to Proverbs also disregards the canonical function of Proverbs. Proverbs was never meant to depict general revelation as a stand-alone source of moral norms.

“Or rather the “common” availability of wisdom to regulate temporal life. It is however inadequate for all cultic mores, much less worship. Then again I never argued against the need for special revelation to order cultic life. You misrepresent my line of reasoning.”

To the contrary, you misrepresent the Bible when you act as if the only or primary rationale for special revelation is to order “cultic mores.”

“I know you think you’ve accomplished something by arguing that my citing of SR as it points to the adequacy of GR as therefore being a refutation of the same said GR, but that line of refutation only works if I’ve argued that there is no overlap or continuity between SR and GR which of course is not the situation of NL or 2k. In fact if God truly is sovereign over both, we should in fact expect to find this and lo and behold we do. Overlap does not mean or equal synonymous.”

Except that you act as though the “overlap” only goes in one direction. Although natural law overlaps with Scripture, we must never (according to you) turn to Scripture for documented cases of natural law. Yet it’s quite illogical to treat an “overlapping” relation in unilateral terms.

“Now I need to go eat and workout. I’m sure I don’t have the endurance to keep this up. If you want I’ll give you my phone number and we can hash it out on the phone. This is pedantic.”

I understand that you’d rather not go on record with your reasons, such as they are. As we’ve now seen, when you’re forced to make a public case for 2k, it exposes the intellectual poverty of your position. So I appreciate your reluctance. A losing hand can only be palmed off as a winning hand so long as you don’t tip your hand. But the moment you lay your cards on the table, the game is up. Now it’s time for me to cash in the chips.

steve hays says:

February 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM

1. Toward Old Testament Ethics, by Walter C. Kaiser

http://tinyurl.com/6bogtlt 

2. Story as Torah, by Gordon Wenham

http://tinyurl.com/48g6bk7 

3. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, by Christopher J. H. Wright

http://tinyurl.com/49w45wz 

4. The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible, by James K. Hoffmeier

http://tinyurl.com/4b5o8wk 

steve hays says:

February 5, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Sean,

i) §2 of my post is basically a tu quoque argument. Adherents of 2k frequently pride themselves on their identity as “Confessional Calvinists.” What is more, professors at WSC, which is the flagship of the 2k movement, are sworn to uphold the Westminster Standards (as well as the Three Forms of Unity). In addition, 2k proponents like Hart attack alternatives to 2k like the Kuyperian paradigm because that (allegedly) represents a theological innovation in Reformed historical theology. Likewise, they also attack “Biblicists,” drawing a distinction between solo Scriptura and sola Scriptura (a la Mathison).

So I’m making the point that if you take the Westminster Standards as a touchstone, then that commits you to the continuing relevance of the Decalogue. And given the generic/specific interrelationship between the Decalogue and the case laws, that, in turn, logically commits you to considering some of the case laws (suitably cross-contextualized),to be of abiding relevance as well.

Of course, if one doesn’t take the Westminster Standards as a given, then the conclusion loses the operating premise. But it’s a legitimate appeal, given the target audience. Insofar as they claim to be “Confessional Calvinists,” who attack alternatives to 2k as innovative, then they can’t, at the same time, help themselves to Quaker, Klinean, and Anabaptist arguments. That represents a radical break with Reformed tradition.

ii) As I also pointed out, the Decalogue is clearly dealing with social ethics. As such, it can’t be reduced to a private rule of sanctification for individual Christians. And I think that’s incontestable (on grammatico-historical grounds).

That, however, also piggybacks on (i).

iii) The church is made of many members. And church members wear different hats, both inside and outside of church.

If, say, a church member happens to be a politician, then he has a foot in church and state alike. For instance, a Congressman already has an official duty to formulate public policy.

Citizens and voters also have civic duties, but it’s a matter of degree. That’s not a professional obligation, unlike, say, an elected official.