Pastor Lane has responded to my questions. I appreciate his taking the time to do so.
My motivation in asking him these questions is not so much to grade his answers based on whether I think he gave the right answers, but whether his answers are consistent with 2k. Whether his answers are justifiable by 2k principles. For the most part that’s how I’m going to evaluate his answers.
Put another way, the question is whether Pastor Lane has a stable position. How does his position compare and contrast to Frame’s position?
When introducing his review of Frame’s book, Pastor Lane said: “My political views are what I might call ‘mild’ two kingdoms. I would acknowledge the distinctions that the two kingdoms make without taking them as far as some WSC folks take them.”
Just to set the stage, there are at least three different positions on social ethics and church/state relations. Actually, there are more than three, but I’m going to focus on three as a handy way to frame the basic alternatives:
1. Amish paradigm
On this paradigm, there is no common morality between believers and unbelievers. Rather, the Amish have a code of conduct for insiders. The Amish try, as best they can, to live and work in self-contained communities, minimizing contact with the outside world.
When Amish are forced to leave the community and interact with outsiders, the Amish will treat outsiders according to the Amish code of conduct, but there’s no effort to impose their code of conduct on outsiders, no attempt at obligating outsiders to observe the Amish code of conduct. This is a two-kingdoms paradigm taken to its logical extreme. For instance:
A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness which the devil planted in the world; in this manner, simply that we shall not have fellowship with them (the wicked) and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations. This is the way it is: Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who (have come) out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other.
To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters.
He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them.
From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from.
Finally it will be observed that it is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate because of these points: The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christian's is according to the Spirit; their houses and dwelling remain in this world, but the Christian's are in heaven; their citizenship is in this world, but the Christian's citizenship is in heaven; the weapons of their conflict and war are carnal and against the flesh only, but the Christian's weapons are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God.
Of course, the Amish community can only survive at the indulgence of the “world.”
2. Two-Kingdoms paradigm
On this view, there’s a dual code of conduct. On the one hand, Christians have their own code of conduct, which includes what is unique to Biblical ethics. This doesn’t apply to believers and unbelievers alike, but only to (or within) the community of faith. That’s the “spiritual kingdom.”
On the other hand, there is also a common morality, based on natural law. Biblical ethics obligates unbelievers only insofar as Biblical ethics overlaps with natural law.
Christians cohabit both kingdoms. When interacting with unbelievers in the “civil kingdom,” they switch to natural law ethics.
3. Common truth paradigm
On this view, truth is truth. Our source of information is inconsequential. If a general moral norm comes from Scripture, that’s applicable to believers and unbelievers alike. If it’s true, then it’s true for both groups. It doesn’t cease to be generally true just because it’s a revealed moral truth. It isn’t right for believers, but wrong for unbelievers–or wrong for believers, but right for unbelievers. What’s intrinsically right or wrong is universally binding. Not relative to believers or unbelievers.
Each of these positions is subject to further qualifications. But that supplies a rough frame of reference. With that in mind, let’s consider Pastor Lane’s answers:
1. The duties of the civil magistrate are primarily related to upholding justice, punishing criminals and praising upstanding citizens. I believe his purpose is to uphold the second table of the law, and that he should not force people to believe in Christianity, although he certainly should not shackle Christianity.
i) So Pastor Lane thinks the civil magistrate is obligated to enforce Biblical ethics up to a point. In this case, the second table of the law.
I take this to mean he thinks the civil magistrate is obligated to enforce our duties to our fellow man (the second table of the law), but not our duties to God (the first table of the law).
Does Pastor Lane take this position because he thinks the second table of the law coincides natural law? If so, that’s a prety artificial way of parsing the Decalogue. And we’d need to see how natural law underwrites the second table of the law, but not the first table of the law.
Wouldn’t a natural law theorist argue that idolatry is contrary to general revelation? If so, then isn’t the civil magistrate obligated to punish idolatry (e.g. blasphemy laws)? Consider, for instance, how Thomas Aquinas glosses the 1st commandment:
As we have already said, the First Commandment forbids us to worship other than the one God. We shall now consider five reasons for this.
God’s Dignity.—The first reason is the dignity of God which, were it belittled in any way, would be an injury to God. We see something similar to this in the customs of men. Reverence is due to every degree of dignity. Thus, a traitor to the king is he who robs him of what he ought to maintain. Such, too, is the conduct of some towards God: “They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man” [Rom 1:23]. This is highly displeasing to God: “I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven things” [Is 42:8]. For it must be known that the dignity of God consists in His omniscience, since the name of God, Deus, is from “seeing,” and this is one of the signs of divinity: “Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods” [Is 41:23]. “All things are naked and open to His eyes” [Hb 4:13]. But this dignity of God is denied Him by practitioners of divination, and of them it is said: “Should not the people seek of their God, for the living and the dead?” [Is 8:19].
God’s Bounty.—We receive every good from God; and this also is of the dignity of God, that He is the maker and giver of all good things: “When You openest your hand, they shall all be filled with good” [Ps 103:28]. And this is implied in the name of God, namely, Deus, which is said to be distributor, that is, “dator” of all things, because He fills all things with His goodness. You are, indeed, ungrateful if you do not appreciate what you have received from Him, and, furthermore, you make for yourself another god; just as the sons of Israel made an idol after they had been brought out of Egypt.
These are essentially natural law considerations, based on general revelation and classic theistic proofs.
ii) Or does Pastor Lane think the distinction between the first and second tables of the law is analogous to the fact that some OT laws were applicable to Israelites and resident aliens alike, whereas other OT laws were only applicable to Israelites, as members of the covenant community?
If so, then Pastor Lane is using the Bible as a common moral standard, but making allowance for distinctions which the Bible itself has drawn. Yet his public policy stance would still be based on special revelation rather than natural law–although the two might incidentally coincide from time to time.
2. The civic duties of American citizens are to obey the laws up until the point where they are forced to disobey God’s law. I believe that citizens should participate in the political process, and should seek to uphold natural law in the political arena. This will involve activism in such areas as abortion and marriage protection.
By this answer, Pastor Lane seems to be saying natural law supplies the common social morality for believers and unbelievers alike. That natural law rather than special revelation ought to be the source and standard of our criminal law code–except where Biblical ethics happens to coincide with natural law.
If so, it’s not clear to me how that squares with Pastor Lane’s appeal to the second table of the law in answer #1 (see above).
3. Should pastors preach on social ethics when such becomes politicized? I don’t know what Steve means by social ethics in this context. I believe the preacher should preach what is in the Bible and only what is in the Bible. He should not preach politics from the pulpit.
i) By politicized social ethics, I mean issues like LGBT rights, women in combat, abortion, infanticide, eugenics, euthanasia, human experimentation, population control, stem cell research, reprogenetics, “medical marijuana,” self-defense (e.g. right to bear arms), capital punishment, corporal punishment, immigration, prostitution, age of consent, income redistribution, public sex-ed, church/state separation, animal rights, no-fault divorce, environmental ethics, “hate crimes,” “racial profiling,” juvenile justice, needle-exchange programs, pornography, school vouchers, home-schooling, civil disobedience.
ii) If Pastor Lane think the preacher should preach whatever the Bible has to say about social issues, then how does that correlate with his position natural law ethics? What are his parishioners supposed to do with that information? Does that set the agenda for their political activism?
iii) How can a preacher avoid preaching “politics” if he preaches what’s in the Bible, and what’s in the Bible intersects with hot-bottom political issues? How does Pastor Lane draw the line?
Then Steve raises some excellent questions about what I might say to people who have some issues regarding various things. I haven’t researched all the sermons I have on this blog with regard to these particular questions, but I think I have addressed some of these things in the Genesis and Ephesians sermons.
Here he’s turning to the Bible for moral guidance on social ethics. But how does that correlate with his natural law criterion? Should the Bible inform public policy?
1. If a young man decides he wants to be in the military, I would tell him that he desires an honorable profession. I would certainly not seek to discourage him. However, I would tell him about some of the temptations that often come to people in the military.
I’m sympathetic to that answer. But it raises questions from a 2k standpoint:
i) An American soldier is a gov’t employee. He is operating in the “civil kingdom.”
ii) An American soldier is duty-bound to obey lawful orders from his superiors–whether or not he agrees with those orders.
But those orders aren’t governed by natural law ethics. They may be pragmatic or utilitarian.
iii) Military deception (e.g. disinformation) is a standard tactic:
Yet Pastor Lane says “it is not permissible to lie ever.” But unless he draws a hairsplitting distinction between an explicit lie and more subtle forms of deception, how is it honorable for a Christian to have a job that requires him to dissimulate?
To be clear, I’m not speaking for myself. I’m just probing the consistency of Pastor’s Lane’s mild 2k position.
2. I would counsel a young woman not to join the military, at the very least not to join in such a way that they might possibly be in the line of fire. Call me a chauvinist, but I firmly believe men should defend women, not vice versa. So, if she is bent on being in the military, and I could not dissuade her, I would tell her to join in such a way that she would not be in the line of fire, and I would also counsel her concerning the many temptations to which she would be exposed.
Once again, I’m quite sympathetic to Pastor Lane’s answer. However:
i) This means he thinks a pastor has a right to wade into a highly-charged political issue. Is that consistently 2k? If not, why not?
ii) Does he oppose women in the military on natural law grounds? If so, what’s the argument?
In general, woman lack the strength and stamina of men. On the other hand, in a hitech military there are many important jobs that don’t require peak physical performance.
iii) I suspect Pastor Lane’s opposition to women in the military is based on his complementarian interpretation of the Bible. He deems that to be in tension with what the Bible teaches about male and female social roles.
If so, that’s not a natural law argument. Rather, he’s taking a public policy position based on Biblical distinctives. I don’t object to that, but is that consistent with 2k strictures? And if it’s not consistent with 2K strictures, where does Pastor Lane draw the line on the use of Scripture in formulating public policy positions or adjudicating what’s permissible for Christians to do in the civil kingdom?
3. Reproductive technologies is a very broad term. I would probably want to get a bit more specific about that.
I agree. An additional question is whether he thinks a specific reproductive technology is morally licit or illicit purely on natural law criteria. Are natural law considerations sufficiently fine-grained to distinguish licit from illicit reproductive technologies? Or is natural law too coarse-grained to answer these questions, at which point it must be supplemented by special revelation (where that speaks to the issue)? If the latter, then Scripture informs public policy.
4. Sterilization I would definitely counsel against, because God may want a couple to have a child that has a disease. Why would that be the worst thing that could happen to a couple?
i) Is Pastor Lane speculating on what God would want based on natural theology, or revealed theology?
ii) Apropos (i), does natural law say it would be wrong not to conceive a child for fear of transmitting a serious genetic disorder to the child? Put another way, do parents have an obligation to conceive a child at high-risk of contracting a devastating congenital disease? How would Pastor Lane argue for that conclusion from purely natural law considerations? Or is his position tacitly indebted to the Biblical value of childbearing?
iii) To be clear, I’m not stating my own position at the moment. I happen to think it’s permissible for a couple to either conceive or contracept under those conditions. On the one hand I don’t think the parents are wronging the child by bringing it into existence–even if it has a short, painful life. On the other hand, you can’t wrong a nonentity by not bringing it into existence.
5. I think it is not permissible to lie ever. We need to tell the truth, and trust God for the consequences. What about someone in Holland hiding Jews when a German soldier comes knocking? I would hide the Jew (well!), and then tell the Germans to look, since they wouldn’t believe me whatever I said. I wouldn’t necessarily believe that everyone should be told all the truth all the time. But I think it is wrong to lie.
i) I happen to disagree with Pastor Lane, but that’s not the point my question, so I’ll bracket my own views.
ii) The immediate question is whether Lane can justify his position on natural law criteria alone. Does general revelation tell us that lying is intrinsically wrong? Does the general obligation to be truthful automatically override every other obligation? What happens in case of conflicting obligations? Does natural law say honesty is a higher obligation than saving innocent life? Is so, why so?
iii) I suspect that Pastor Lane’s position isn’t actually based on natural law. Rather, my guess is that Pastor Lane finds John Murray’s exegetical argument convincing (Principles of Conduct, chap. 6). If so, then Pastor Lane’s universal prohibition against lying is based on special revelation (as he construes it) rather than general revelation.
But does that carry over into the “civil kingdom”? Is it wrong to lie in church, but not to lie outside of church? Is it wrong for Christians to lie to each other, but permissible to lie to unbelievers?
6. Regarding mothers working outside the home, I would suggest that their children need them, and that financially it is actually easier to have the mother at home (given all the hidden costs of two-income families). I would encourage mothers to be at home, although I would not go so far as to say that a mother is living in sin because she works outside the home.
I’m sympathetic to that answer, but is that based on natural law or is that also colored by Pastor Lane’s complementarian position? Children need both parents, and some women can make far more money than their husbands. So I don’t think natural law criteria suffice to justify Pastor Lane’s position. If so, then is he taking a public policy position based, in part, on a Biblical distinctive?
Regarding education, parents are responsible for the schooling of their children. That is a decision they need to make. I think public schools are in general pretty awful. Their standards are generally very low. John Gatto’s book The Underground History of Public Education is a very eye-opening book. That being said, I don’t think that homeschooling is the answer for everyone.
i) Once again, my purpose is not so much to register my agreement or disagreement with his answer, but to assess his answer in reference to 2k considerations. Couldn’t the NEA justify compulsory public school education on natural law grounds by arguing that, given the specialization of knowledge, most parents lack the professional expertise to properly teach their kids a range of vocational skills?
I wonder if Pastor’s Lane’s bottom-line isn’t dictated by parental duties according to Scripture rather than natural law.
ii) It also seems to be that Pastor Lane is answering several questions the same way Tim and David Bayly would answer them. Yet the Bayly brothers represent the antithesis of the 2k position. Likewise, Darryl Hart is constantly at loggerheads with Tim and David Bayly.
"It also seems to be that Pastor Lane is answering several questions the same way Tim and David Bayly would answer them. Yet the Bayly brothers represent the antithesis of the 2k position. Likewise, Darryl Hart is constantly at loggerheads with Tim and David Bayly."
ReplyDeleteIs there a transitive property at work such that Pastor Lane would also be at loggerheads with Darryl Hart?