“Equality” and Social Hierarchy in Calvin’s “Two Kingdoms”

Calvin’s Social Agenda:

Calvin’s two-kingdom theology, though affirming spiritual equality in the (spiritual) kingdom of God, does not support the “flattening” of social distinctions (that is, the reforming of social hierarchy into social egalitarianism) in the civil realm; nor does it have much room for what we today call “equal opportunity.” At the same time, it does call for what today would be a rather radical social agenda….

According to Calvin, the spiritual, inward kingdom of God does not “disturb civil order or honorary distinctions.” … For Calvin, consistent with others in the Christian tradition, the hierarchical social order is natural and “it is not without reason that he has been pleased to join us together in this way.”

“Servants must also be cognizant of their rank and station; and everyone must apply himself in the thing which he has been called. It certainly accords well with Christianity that the rich man should enjoy his wealth (provided, of course, that he not devour everything without attending to the needs of his neighbors), and that the poor man should endure his station patiently, and beseech God, not desiring more than is proper.”

“Judging by history, the natural state of things is warfare with Islam”

Regarding the attacks in Paris: This is one side of the discussion:

I don’t see how any American can have any sympathy with the notion that the magazine “provoked” the attack. Our constitution enshrines the right to make fun of the prophet and anyone else. Of course there are limits, as the court has said, but making fun of the prophet or Mormons or Christians is well within the freedoms protected by the constitution. That’s why I used the category of “taste” rather than “right” earlier. One may find the magazine distasteful but that’s quite another thing than saying that they had no right to provoke Islamists.

The notion than free persons in the west can avoid “provoking” Islamists betrays significant naïveté about what Islam (the Qur’an and the Hadith) and Islamists expect from the rest of us. They will not be satisfied with not making fun of the prophet. They cannot be pacified. Read the history of Islam. Read the Qur’an for yourself (start at the back then go toward the front'; it’s an odd book, disconnected with no coherent narrative really). They will not be satisfied until we are all in submission to Allah and to them. There is a small handful of reasonable Muslims who are willing to live in peace with the rest of us. All the polls tell us, history tells us, that the vast majority of Muslims want Sharia to be imposed on the rest of us. We must not assume that they are just like us except for a different god. They are not.

As to the history, [keep in mind that] the West resisted Muslim/Ottoman military advances in the 16th century, ending 8 centuries of warfare with Muslims. The colonial powers then crushed and colonized Islamic countries. The violence we’ve seen since the revolution in Iran in 1979 is all post-colonial. Whatever evils may attend colonization it did keep them from doing what they’re doing now.

Judging by history, the natural state of things is warfare with Islam. As best I can tell it was never an enlightened culture. Most of the alleged cultural artifacts are now thought, by some historians anyway, to have been appropriated from the West. In other words, we’ve been fed a good bit of nonsense about what is even possible relative to Islam. It is an inherently violent, dangerous, threatening movement now and that is its natural condition.

If this is true, then those who value civil liberties (as the relative absence of restraint) should be truly wary about Islamic immigration to the USA and the growing number of mosques that are being established even in surprising places (e.g., TN). Mosques traditionally (and today) are not mere places of worship. They are places where social revolution are plotted. This is certainly what is happening in Nigeria where Christians live in terror. I have first hand-testimony of what happens in Nigeria, what happens in the mosques there, and what the consequences have been for Christians across Nigeria. The news is that Boko Haram has murdered another 2,000 people there.

Here is the context.

Peter Escalante puts his finger on the root of the “Two Kingdoms” debates

From Peter Escalante at “The Calvinist International”:

John Calvin, of course, said that reason and natural law themselves both point to the architectonic necessity of civil theology, ...

But more is involved here than reason and revelation. For [Roman Catholic writers], the papalist distinction between nature and supernature, and it is important to understand this lest we simply assume that evangelicals and papalists are really talking about quite the same things in these discussions.

Thus a brief reflection on the end of man is in order, since the end of man is the central affair of politics. Both [Roman Catholic writers he is referring to -- see the original articles at the link above] assert the papalist doctrine of the two ends of man, though neither really deal with the controversy about this doctrine among papalist doctors, let alone between those and the evangelical doctors. But in short the idea is that man has a temporal end – roughly what Aristotle calls happiness – and also a “supernatural” end, which is the beatific vision, in which the original nature will be aufgehoben [repealed].

The beatific vision is St Paul’s “face to face,” the final and perfect communion of man with God. Christians have always wondered what exactly the relation of this world, not simply as fallen, but even in original integrity, is to that final status promised by the Scriptures, and the controversy about that relation long predates the great reformation of religion five hundred years ago. And it continues to this day. Although it has become something of an Arcanum, it is the crucial center of the question of what it is for Christians to live in the world.

Attentive readers will see in [the Roman Catholic’s] reply not only the idea of the two ends of man, but also the idea of the donum superadditum.

Helping to put things aright

Down below, Jason Engwer left the following comment on my post entitled Reformation Season.

That’s a good idea, John.

To expand on one of the points you made, we should keep in mind that Roman Catholicism’s liberalism has had a major impact on other holidays and seasons. Much of the anti-Biblical material that’s published during the Christmas season, for example, comes from Roman Catholic scholarship and former Catholics (e.g., Raymond Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Geza Vermes). Then there’s the failure of so many Catholics, not just liberals, to do much to defend the traditional view of the infancy narratives or the Biblical resurrection accounts, for instance. Evangelicals are at the forefront of conservative Biblical scholarship and apologetics, whereas Catholics are much less so, despite their advantages (larger size, more money, more media access, etc.). As I’ve worked in apologetic contexts over the years, and in the process of watching what’s going on elsewhere, I’ve been astonished by how much bad and how little good Roman Catholicism does relative to its opportunities.

My response to him was a bit long, so I thought I’d turn it into a fresh post:

Thanks Jason -- We're about to have a presidential election, and I think that Romney will win, and that we'll be able to see an improving economy for a bit. But longer term, a presidential election is not going to solve a lot of problems.

In this country alone, the number of abortions performed every year is so outrageous, the debt structure is so massive, and the morality is such an indictment on our culture, that I honestly think that the only cure for our ills is Christ alone, and by extension, the true church bringing Christ to the world, “making disciples of all nations” as it has been commissioned to do.

I would qualify slightly one thing that you say. You talk about “how much bad and how little good Roman Catholicism does relative to its opportunities”. That much alone is true, looking across the world in our day.

But historically, I think that very many of the evils in the world are the result of things that “the official church”, “the church which perceives itself to be in authority” has done, officially -- extending back into the early church. While many individual Christians have done many good things -- and many of these were either “Catholics” from the first millennium (like Augustine), say, or “Roman Catholics” in the last 500 years, by far it seems to me that what is wrong with the world today is traceable to causes put into motion by the official church.

Some of these are inadvertent. We may think of the sudden rise of Islam. Islam was able to conquer areas of the world where the Christian church was cut off by schism. That includes Monophysite Africa and “Nestorian” Asia. Islam was able to spread so quickly, in part, because huge parts of the church had been cut off from larger portions of the church and did not have the wherewithal to stop its earthly spread.

The Medieval European church, while fostering the rise of learning and the universities, also officially took doctrinal positions which had to be opposed, and the Protestant Reformation, while offering the best hope to the world of that day, was mightily opposed by the Roman church, and had to make strange alliances with secular governments, alliances that turned out not to be in the best interest of the cause of Christ.

This is not an attempt at placing blame, but really, an honest look to try to see what went wrong, and what might be done to try (from our end) to help put things aright.

I continue to think that Roman Catholicism’s claims of authority, the claim that “the church that Christ founded subsists in the Roman Catholic Church”, is the biggest impediment in the world today, working against “the church” being what “the church” really ought to be in the world.

With that said, I’m tremendously encouraged by some of the discussions I’m seeing around the Internet. I think Andrew Clover’s Lutheran and Reformed Discussion Group is a model that we’ll want to look at moving forward. While there are still some disagreements, the potential for folks from one side understanding the other side are tremendous.

And while the “two kingdoms” discussions generate a lot of heat, some of the rough edges on the various sides of this debate are being worn down, and the result, I think, will be that Christians, on the whole, will have a better understanding of the role of the church vis-à-vis government.

As well, The Gospel Coalition has just recently published The New City Catechism, which is very much like one of the earliest confessions from the Protestant era. Using the latest technology to promote some of the best theology is only going to have a good effect on the church.

While I don’t think The New City Catechism will turn the Trinity Broadcasting network into Orthodox Puritans, it will enable far more evangelicals to be honestly and historically informed about the Christian faith. Far more opportunities along these lines are coming. And that’s cause for great hope.

Resisting Hitler

Why did some Christians support Hitler? And what informed the ones who opposed him?

What those Christians and churches who maintained this [Barmen] confession – and their opposition to the Nazi regime – seemed to recognize, in contrast to many of those Christians who supported Hitler, was that the allegiance of Christians and of the church to Christ is preeminent in every area of life, and that therefore the authority of Scripture must always be the ultimate judge in matters of justice, political ideology, or politics. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued so carefully, versions of the two kingdoms doctrine that divide life into distinct realms, one of which is outside the authority of Christ, are denials of the Christ in whom all things exist. To conceive of any action or authority apart from Christ is to conceive of an abstraction.

Christians who held to the two kingdoms doctrine but who lacked this Christocentric perspective had little with which to resist the claims of a state that masterfully channeled the spirit of the times. Given our contemporary debates, that something we need to take seriously.

Kline, 2K, and Judaism

A debate has broken out in the Reformed blogosphere over the 2-kingdoms view. Meredith Kline is the modern father of this movement.

I’m going to pose a question that I’ve never seen discussed in relation to his intellectual development. I wonder if Kline's Jewish background wasn't a factor in his radical church/state separatist ideology. He once told to me that as a boy, he attended synagogue with his dad. He seemed to indicate that his dad was a nominal Jews. Just going through the motions. But it’s possible that I misunderstood him. I’ve also read that his granddad was a pious Jew.

This raises the question of whether his Jewish upbringing may not have been an influential consideration in the formation of his views on Christian statecraft.

To my knowledge, Jews have a historical antipathy to state churches because they were often persecuted by the Christian establishment. And I don't think it's coincidental that church/state separatist outfits like the ACLU and People for the American Way have such a heavy Jewish representation.

I think many Jews harbor conscious or subconscious fears of "Christian theocracies." This is deeply ingrained. Something that conservative Jewish pundits like Michael Medved and Dennis Prager must constantly push up against. It's more emotional than intellectual.

I also suspect that's one reason so many Jews go into the field of law. That's a preemptive defensive maneuver.

Although Kline was a devout Christian, his political views may have been haunted by ancestral memories of anti-Semitic state churches. Historically, Jews faired poorly at the hands of Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Eastern Orthodox.

(Ironically, the Reformed tradition is exceptionally philo-Semitic by contrast.)

Does Two Kingdoms Lead to or Entail This?

Recently, Two Kingdomer Steve Zrimec made what I take to be an outlandish comment. Now, I'm more congenial to Two Kingdom theory than my co-bloggers, as far as I know. But if Zrimec's statement is a proposition of or an entailment of two Kingdom theology, then count me out. I'd appreciate if a Two Kingdomer could affirm or deny that one must affirm what Steve Zrimec says in order to be 2Ker. Here's what he said:

I think this might turn on the distinction between the moral and political. Believers are personally obligated to that which is moral in faith and practice. But that doesn’t mean they are obligated to a political outlook or conclusion. So, Christian Jane mayn’t herself have an abortion, but she may vote or even make legislation contrary to this. As someone opposed both morally and politically to abortion, I’ll certainly grant that there is something obviously wrong with the sort of logic that opposes abortion morally but protects it politically (paging John Kerry). But the personal obligation a believer has is moral, not political or logical.

i) What is this "distinction" between the moral and the political? What is meant by these crucial terms? Considering that people vote and think according to political philosophies (whether they are good philosophies or well-worked-out ones is not guaranteed), it is interesting to note what one respected political philosopher says: "What is distinctive about political philosophy, however, is its prescriptive or evaluative concern with justifications, values, ideals, rights, obligations--in short, its concern with how political societies should be, how political policies and institutions can be justified, how we and our political office holders ought to behave in our public lives. . . .Political philosophy can thus be aptly characterized as a branch or an application of moral philosophy" (Simmons, Political Philosophy, Oxford, 2, emphasis original).

ii) In response to the claim that it is a sin to have an abortion (because it is murder?) but not to vote for other people to legally have one, this seems confused. May she drive her friend to the clinic and pay for the abortion? If so, may she pay for a hit man to kill her parents so long as she doesn't pull the trigger?

iia) Is not the 2K out of WSCAL "confessionalist?" Do not the Westminster Catechisms define what a violation of the 6th commandment looks like, to wit:

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.

How can the 2Ker claim voting to make or keep legal the murder of children is not a sin??? Is their talk of "Confessionalism" mere lip service? Since I don't believe that it is, here's an argument from the Catechism:

[1] If you violate the sixth commandment, then you have sinned.

[2] Anything that tends to the destruction of the life of any human is a violation of the 6th commandment.

[3] Voting to make or keep legal the murder of children by abortion tends to the destruction of human life.

[4] Voting to make or keep legal the murder of children by abortion is a violation of the 6th commandment.

[5] Therefore, voting to make or keep legal the murder of children by abortion is a sin.

Now the 2Ker needs to deny the validity of this argument or the truth of one of the premises. If they can do neither, the conclusion follows of necessity.

iib) One way to see if a position is logically valid is to use the same form of reasoning and simply switch out some terms. Suppose there is an island with 20 Christians on it and 20 non-Christians. 19 of the non-Christians are taken in by an argument for the criteria of personhood that has as a troublesome consequence that one of the non-Christians does not meet the criteria. So they decide to kill this guy, call him Bob. So, they put it to a vote. 19 non-Christians vote to kill, 19 Christians vote to not kill (holding to Christian teaching about man). One Christian, Ruben, is a 2K guy, he finds it a good compromise to vote to kill Bob. What should the local church say of Ruben? What does this say of Ruben? Is Ruben morally guilty? Was Ruben's vote sinful? Furthermore, in keeping with what Steve Zrimec said, suppose Ruben believes, indeed is obligated to believe, that Bob is a human. What say ye of Ruben?

If the above is rejected and no relevant disanalogy is pointed to (and if that's your approach, try to think ahead because it won't be too hard to switch up elements of the above story to get around the points raised showing it's disanalogous), then one must reject the argument that voting for the murder of children isn't sinful. If one denies he must, and one finds no logical flaw, then one must deny logic. If so, then that's another defeater for the position. If a position denies validity, then that is a good reason to deny that position.

iii) What does it even mean to claim that a Christian has an obligation to be moral but not logical? That is just odd. First, there are rational obligations to be logical. Second, one has a moral obligation to be logical, to think rationally, to be consistent. This is why the Bible can speak of people sinning in their reasonings.

iv) I wonder what role Natural Law plays in all of this. Natural Law has been the 2Kers only response to the Theonomists who wonder how 2K can escape relativism. Governments are not the highest law that rules the kingdom of common grace, natural law is. If natural law entails some position on a matter, then do not both governments and Christians have a moral obligation to honor and bring about and maintain that position? If not, just what the heck is Natural Law? Something I know not what? What is its use? Is it simply a boiler plate platitude used to escape the charge of relativism but not really something to be taken seriously?

A Biblical Case for Natural Law

John Frame reviews David VanDrunen's A Biblical Case for Natural Law.

Two-kingdom theory

“It seems to us two-kingdoms folks that Jesus, Peter, and Paul all had perfect opportunities to argue for this very thing, but instead took those opportunities to tell us to mind our own business and pay our taxes (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7; I Thess. 4:11-12; I Pet. 2:13-17)… But more important than the reasons why I like the doctrine of the two kingdoms or the fact that it is the historic Reformed position is the fact that it is taught implicitly and explicitly in Scripture. So if anyone out there wants to challenge the two-kingdoms position exegetically, the comment button is conveniently located just below this line.”

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2009/02/some-random-thoughts-on-two-kingdoms.html

1.It this the “historic Reformed position?” Seems to me that in its modern formulation it owes more to Meredith Kline than John Calvin or the Westminster Divines. That doesn’t automatically make it wrong, but it also doesn’t make it the historic Reformed position.

However, the question of historical theology is not my primary concern.

2.I assume the locus classicus of two-kingdom theory is Mt 22:15-22 (par. Mk 12:13-17; Lk 20:20-26).

3.We can’t assume that Jesus is even stating his own position in this passage. In context, Jesus is responding to a trick question. His enemies are trying to box him into a dilemma: any answer he gives will be the wrong answer. If he answers “yes,” then he will lose popular support. If he answers “no,” then his enemies will denounce him to the Roman authorities as a seditious leader.

Jesus’ response is to expose their hypocrisy, and thereby throw the dilemma back into their own lap. It’s quite possible, then, that his answer is purely tactical or ad hominem.

4.Even at the level of a trick question, the question is narrowly framed. It’s a question of what is permissible, and not necessarily what is obligatory. As such, it doesn’t lay a foundation for a general theory of church/state relations.

Even if his answer is not ad hominem, it says less about what we’re supposed to do, and more about what we’re allowed to do.

5.What was Jesus’ own position? One can think of several possible reasons which would be consistent with the answer he gave:

i) Jesus may have thought that Roman rule was legitimate insofar as Roman occupation represented divine judgment on the Jews for their infidelity to God.

ii) Jesus may have thought that, up-to-a-point, even a decadent regime is preferable to out-all anarchy. After all, it’s only because we live in a fallen world that we even need the state. And since the state exists in, and because of, a fallen world, the state is bound to share in the same corruption.

iii) Jesus may have thought the Jewish establishment was just as corrupt as the Roman establishment, so that Jewish self-rule was no improvement over Roman subjugation. After all, the Sanhedrin was going to try Jesus in a kangaroo court. Was Caiaphas any better than Pilate?

6.Even if you think Jesus is making a timeless pronouncement about church/state relations, his answer doesn’t actually spell out the respective duties of church and state. So you can’t derive much concrete guidance from his answer.

And I think that’s deliberate. There’s a studied ambiguity to his answer. He refuses to play into the hands of his enemies. Instead, he answers them in a way in which they can only clarify the answer at their own expense. If they’re forced to explain why they themselves use Roman coinage, then that will force them to come down on one side or the other of their own trick question. So Jesus answer is designed to silence his opponents on pain of self-incrimination. They tried to trap him. Now they’ve fallen into their own trap.

They dared him to answer a trick question. Having received an answer they didn’t expect, they don’t dare pursue the question any further. He called their bluff, but they can’t afford to play the next card. For them, the next card is a losing card.

7.Jesus doesn’t state that there are two different kingdoms with autonomous spheres of authority. An obvious problem with that bifurcation is that, if you have two different kingdoms, then you have two different kings. Yet Jesus also said his followers can’t serve two masters (Mt 6:24).

Even if Jews and Christians are subject to Caesar, Caesar is subject to God. So we still need to answer the question of how the civil magistrate is held accountable to God. His authority is a divinely delegated authority. As such, it’s possible for him to exceed his God-given mandate.

Therefore, I think the locus classicus of the two-kingdom theory is neutral on the debate between theonomy and two-kingdom theory.

Bureau of Weaker Siblings

The year is 2037. Progressives have had tremendous success in the public square. Owing to their strict logic and eminent consistency, they have succeeded in winning the hearts of many laymen, as well as the hearts of the nine old and young, male and female, not to mention hermaphroditic supreme court justices, over to their side. Peter Singer's arguments were considered persuasive too. Society has thrown off the old chains of "Christendom" in viewing man as special and above the animals. The 47th amendment made "Speciesism" a crime (don't ask what the other 19 were). The logic of "love" and "understanding" continued to march on. People can't help who they love, and love is beautiful, so men and boys regularly make the trip to Vegas. Parents? That you ask shows you're still trying to shackle culture with Christian ideals. (If not, then at least theistic-religious ideals--and we'll have none of that in our naked public square. In line with Brooke Allen, the ideal is to expel all 'religious' thought from the public square. It's a private thing now and we are strict separationists. So the story goes...) The role of the 'parent' in this society is much worse than how Dalrymple described the parents of England's "under class" back in the late 90's. However, there's still a church, and that's a good thing. There are Christians living in this society, just as there were Jews in Babylon. These Christians still debate. One group, representing the Marijuana Theological Journal, continued to protect themselves from the attacks of no one and justified this by saying that no actual attacks were good attacks. I happened upon a letter from this group, where the 2k theory was defended, and I post it for you:

****************************************

Bureau of Weaker Siblings

April 10th, 2037 by Sherryl G. Kidnee

Imagine the following scenario (not apparently one conceived by John Lennon): a hotel owner refuses to let out a room to couples whom he knows may engage in fornication, adultery, sodomy, zoophilia, or pedophilia. The owner decides upon this policy out of his own Christian convictions. But the owner conducts his business in a civil polity that grants civil rights to fornicators, adulterers, sodomites, zoophiles, and pedophiles. What is the owner to do?

This is a conundrum which supposedly trips up two-kingdom thinking because the idea of a distinction between civil or common and religious realms denies the possibility of the existence of anything like a Christian hotel. If no such religious hotels exist, then apparently the owner should, according to 2k logic, change his policy and make rooms available to those who violate God’s laws. But if he insists on his policy, informed by his conscience, then he should sell his hotel because he lives in a land that will prohibits “Christian” hotels. One other option is to suffer the penalty for his violation of civil rights and either pay a fine or go to jail.

This test case for two-kingdom thinking actually fails to recognize that the alternatives here are actually more than two, and that the either-or approach that afflicts so much anti-thetical analysis does not do justice to the variety of God’s creation and providence. First, the hotel owner could actually appeal to natural law as a common standard for local laws. He could argue that sexual encounters outside marriage are inappropriate because they ignore the telos of sex, namely, procreation and reproduction. If we had time, we could extrapolate this argument to argue that Christians ought not sell condoms--hindering procreation, 'n all. Outlaw felacio too. Second, if natural law is unavailable to this Christian hotel owner, he could appeal to the mercy of his local magistrate and petition for an exception to the laws of the county, city, or state. If he asked for such an allowance, he might actually find a kinder hearing than if he simply asserted to the town council, while wagging his finger, that the state’s laws were an affront to God’s moral will. However, it may take a while to get this kind hearing since it is said that the line to see magistrates stretches for miles. What, with all those goldfish complaining, via fish whisperers, dog whisperers, etc., that it is their Nemo given right to have big tanks just like the angelfish (on the docket tomorrow: Should we reclassify angelfish as something less religious? You know what Jefferson said in that letter...), the dogs and cats complaining, too; indeed, there's even rumor that a dolphin is 3 "persons" back from the front. So, you will wait patiently. Besides, what good will it do to simply assert, while wagging a finger, that God says man is special?

Third, to ensure that his hotel was thoroughly Christian, he could also deny rooms to liars, blasphemers, idolaters, thieves, and murderers, as well as anyone who has considered such acts and words in his or her heart. Of course, the owner might have to go out of business because no patron, not even a saint, could meet the owners’ righteous standards. However, some conservatives are at least right about some things; such as, solutionmannia often forgets that there's tradeoffs. Letting known thieves into your establishment, in the name of 2k consistency, might have unfortunate economic consequences, thus one may find himself not letting some sinners into his or her establishment while also not being a "hypocrite" in need of log removal. Fourth, so we don't violate "rights," we could make sure we clean the room used for the porno conference quickly to make room for the church service at 9:00--or, are Christians the only ones not allowed to rent hotel rooms? Fifth, the owner could show his zeal for God’s law by also refusing to cohabit with his spouse and children for violating any one of God’s laws in heart, word, or deed.

The last option might be the most ingenious of all. If the Christian hotel owner is a member of a Presbyterian Church, he might prevail upon his session to petition the local magistrate in a case “extraordinary,” as tolerated by the Confession of Faith, ch. 31. What the session could do would be to work with the local government to establish a Bureau of Weaker Siblings in which the church would provide members of a public committee whose charge would be to evaluate the religious scruples of this hotel owner, and similar cases, to determine if he qualifies as one of St. Paul’s weaker brothers. Owners who cannot provide services to sinners, or to those who perform certain, more heinous kinds of sin, clearly lack the strong conscience that allows other Christians to regard such services to sinners as a legitimate part of their calling before God and love of neighbor—such as providing a quite place for zoophiles and pedophiles. In fact, you can show your exemplary neighbor-loving capabilities by providing excellent room service: like bringing up room service for two, a plate of eggs and a trough of hay. If a person, like the hotel owner in this example, were approved by the bureau as a weaker sibling, then he could gain permission from the state to be exempted from the scope and sanctions of laws that violated his conscience. Certificates of Weakness would be valid ideally for sixty days, and renewable, after meeting monthly with the Bureau, up to ten times. You can even get a special license that allows you to draw the line at abortions in your hotel, if you're weak enough. If you're a strongman, just make sure you send some neighbor-loving pillows up to the room--I hear killing children is hell on the back.

**********************************

Many a sound and beneficial principle becomes a dangerous absurdity when it becomes a fetish. -- Thomas Sowell

It can only be hoped that those who want to "take culture back for Luther", transforming it into a legitimate culture ala 2k's theological principles--no small hint of irony here--will chill out on the culture warring--even if many of them write well in a cool, edgy, hip and relevant kind of way--will not forget that a little salt does some good, even if you like paprika better. In addition, hitting the breaks on the "let's show people how rebellious we can be" car actually will do "good" for the city were have been sent to live in, and you can still wear a leather jacket and aviator glasses if you want to.

Four Kingdoms?

It seems there are two two kingdom models one finds in the various media the theory is set forth in. One model claims that the Christian may, and should, take specially revealed principles into the public square, using them to inform him on issues of social policy. The other claims that this approach, while permissible in a free country, is not advisable or proper. They claim that you would not take your Bible under the sink with you to inform you on how to fix a leak. Likewise, in another equally common realm, why would you take specially revealed principles under that (much larger) sink to help you fix those leaks? These two two kingdom models make four kingdoms.

This latter view is more common on the internet and is the kind most transformers (though I have pointed out that this label breaks down as a demarcating locution and becomes simply a sophism) attack. So there is some talking past (if not over) each other in this debate. It appears the first model (the one pushed by the more reserved and sophisticated of all two kingdomers) breaks down into a difference of degree instead of kind with the more sophisticated transformers (for lack of a better word). The problem with the second model is that it is unlivable. In addition, due to the loudness of its protagonists, as well as the typical ghettoizing and wagon circling all such radical groups eventually undergo, the constant drum beating will fade into the background making them irrelevant dialogue partners.

I previously pointed out David vanDrunen's two kingdom model as an example of the more cautious models antithetical with the second model. Another example is that of Neil McBride (Reformed Christian and key player in various Democratic campaigns and administrations). I should point out that it is heartening to know that there are strongly confessional and theologically conservative Reformed Christians inside the Democrat Party (and the Republican party for that matter!). Nevertheless, and quite apart from biblical reasons, I think liberalism is irrational. But enough of that. What is interesting to note here are the comments two kingdom proponent Neil McBride made in October/November 2008 issue of Modern Reformation magazine. McBride was part of a group interviewed by Mike Horton. I would like to draw attention to his views on the Christian in the public square as contrasted with the more radical of the models I mentioned above.

McBride says:

As a Democrat and a Reformed Confessional Christian, I often tease my Christian friends who are neither Democrat or Reformed that I may be to the left of them politically, but that I am to the right of them theologically--and it drives them crazy. But as the late James Boice pointed out, if you're Arminian, you're stealing a little bit of the glory of God when it comes to those great issues.

I agree with Dan [Dan Bryant, another guest, and a two kingdoms advocate who is Republican and Reformed. Dan and Neil attend the same church in Washington D.C., by the way]. I would say at the outset that many times we hear, "You two kingdom folks, you Refomed folks, say that biblical principles should play no role in developing a coherent set of public policy." I don't understand that to be at all what the two kingdom doctrine says. I believe that our biblical faith can indeed inform how we think about public policy. It can and it should.

That kind of talk is radically different from what we so frequently hear espoused as "two kingdoms" on the internet. But, I guess every group has its radicals. If what I consider the radical wing of two kingdoms theology wishes to correct me, ensuring that they all agree with men like McBride and vanDrunen, then it appears that thousands of pounds of crow need to be eaten--and that may not be healthy. But, if they do wish to make this apology, perhaps they can make amends by engaging in an internet campaign where many of their comments to (what they call) transformationalists will be deleted from public view. After all, it sounds rather hypocritical to chide some person for claiming that biblical principles inform his critique of government and culture while claiming that you have the special status to invoke biblical principles to inform your critique of government and culture. No matter what side you come down on, hypocrisy isn't a virtue in the left or right handed sphere. Neither is special pleading. But, perhaps we'll be told that there are two kingdoms governing epistemic virtues. In one kingdom, logical fallacies and intellectual vices are allowed, but not in the other. Unfortunately, if this is the case, it's not always clear in which kingdom these epistemic virtues don't apply.

Christ & Culture Revisted Review: Reviewd

Jason Stellman complained that I picked on a "joke" post of his and not his more substantive material. I take it that he places his review of D.A. Carson's recent book Christ & Culture in the latter category.

Stellman’s review¹ of Carson’s book² begins with the obligatory summary of the book’s structure, a brief (very brief!) tour of part of the ground covered in the book, the usual, obligatory lauding of the author on some points (e.g., “I wholeheartedly agree with Carson here,” or “Carson is right to point out,” or “I applaud” etc.,), and the obligatory “critique.” There’s not too much to comment on the overview aspects of the review (though I could quibble with some things even here), so I’ll just look at Stellman’s “obligatory critique” of Carson.

Stellman hits on one of Carson’s comments about Stellman’s old WSCAL prof, Darryl Hart. Carson deems approaches to “Christ and culture” like those of Hart, “minimalist.” Stellman sums up Carson and then offers his critique. I’ll quote him at length to provide all the necessary context and to ensure proper representation of Stellman’s critique:

Carson argues that if all these authors were doing were offering a warning against utopianism, then all would be well. But such pessimism "fail[s] to see the temporally good things we can do to improve and even transform social structures" (217-18, emphasis original). Listing examples such as abolishing slavery, curing disease, and reducing sex traffic, Carson maintains that "in these and countless other ways cultural change is possible. More importantly, doing good to the city...is part of our responsibility as God's redeemed people in this time of tension between the 'already' and the 'not yet.'"

While I would concur that "it is unwise to speak of 'redeeming culture'" (217), I find Carson's antidote to minimalism too, well, maximalist. The assumption seems to be that the "we" who desire to accomplish such obviously welcome goals as ending slavery and curing disease must be "we Christians." What Carson overlooks is the fact that history is filled with examples of sinners who disliked cancer, as well as with saints who defended slavery. In other words, one does not need to affirm Chalcedonian Christology in order to work toward the curing of disease, nor have all who affirmed that Christology wanted slavery to end. This idea-that believers have a monopoly on morality, that cultural clean-up is a kingdom responsibility, and that Scripture furnishes the saints with a clear idea of what godly society would look like-seems to ignore both the fact that the Bible's authority is limited to those loci it actually addresses clearly and that all people share the imago Dei, as well a common basis for morality provided by the works of God's law written on our hearts. In a word, pagans are often more horizontally good and the pious horizontally bad than we usually care to admit.

It is my opinion that Stellman just falls back on the all-too-common two kingdom caricaturing of their opponents, hits us with some two kingdom buzzwords, attacks non-existent positions (or, if they’re existent, they’re held by ignorant-but-well-meaning Christians), and generally fumbles the book review football. Here’s how:

1. I’m unsure it’s proper to say Carson is offering an “antidote” to minimalism. As anyone who has read the book will be aware, Carson leaves a lot of room open for relationships between Christ and culture. As Carson repeatedly makes clear, some relationships may work in some kinds of cultures while those same ones will not work in other cultures. Carson would not recommend any one response to culture in any and all cultures.

2. Apropos (1), even Stellman recognizes that Carson isn’t settling on any solid “antidotes” or “approaches” to Christ and culture. Says Stellman, “Still, I wish that, when all was said and done, he had landed upon more terra firma rather than leaving the reader with his feet planted in midair.”

3. The “we” is the same “we” Hart mentions. The question is about how Christians should act in various cultural settings. I find nothing objectionable about this. It’s the same “we” sophisticated two kingdom advocate David VanDrunen talks about. So VanDrunen:

We know that a nation with increasing numbers of cocaine-addicts, abortions, thefts, child-abuse cases, illiterates, etc., etc., will not retain desirable levels of peace and prosperity for long. Therefore we do have an obligation to do things which will, if not eliminate such things, at least substantially reduce their rate of occurrence. The peace and prosperity of our society, not to mention our personal peace and prosperity, depend on it. And the political sphere certainly is one of the institutions of culture which will make its indelible stamp on the peace and prosperity of the society. Christians therefore should have an interest in the political process when their form of government allows it, as ours does. To turn our backs on politics would mean to turn our backs in part to the command of God to seek the peace and prosperity of our nation. We may debate amongst ourselves which political positions to promote and how much emphasis should be given to the political process, but the interest and involvement in politics which we see among the "religious right" is in itself a good thing. (source, emphasis mine)

4. Stellman then takes us on an epic adventure of non sequiturs.

a) Nowhere does Carson even remotely imply that it is “only we” who engage in some structure transforming activities.

b) In fact, he implies the contrary. As anyone who’s read the book knows, Carson engages in some lengthy and detailed analysis of just what “culture” means. Carson’s working definition of culture is, following Geertz. “an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions, expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about life and attitudes towards life” (Carson, 85). Carson claims, repeatedly, that there will be more or less agreement between cultures at various times and places, given various phenomena. So, “the locus of a particular culture is variable and may overlap with other cultures…” (ibid). At various places Carson “underscore[s] the fact that [various cultures] may embrace many shared cultural values” (Carson, 119). And again, “… we manage to form ‘co-belligerencies’ on some strategic issues” (Carson, 196).

c) Stellman claims that Carson “overlooks” the fact that some non-Christians have done good while some “Christians” have had better moments. But Carson says the opposite in many places. One example might be: “Of course, in the richness of God’s common grace, there are governors who genuinely have a servant’s heart, governors who are not unduly corrupted by power. Sadly, there are ecclesiastical leaders who take their cue as to what leadership is from the surrounding world, who sell their souls for pomp, flattery, and lust for ever-increasing manipulative control” (Carson, 168). And one of Carson’s main points, “the non-negotiables” of biblical theology, directly contradict this claim. Carson admits in many places that the biblical theological category of the fall entails that Christians manage to distort even the best things (e.g., p.74, also cf. pp. 45-49).

d) So, to claim that Carson even remotely implies that one needs to “affirm Chalcedonian Christology in order to” do “horizontal goods” is so far from a charitable reading of Carson that only the desire to get off one’s “talking points” can account for this massively distorted missive. Indeed, Stellmen speaks of the idea “that believers have a monopoly on morality,” yet doesn’t tell us who’s idea this is. Surely he’s not claiming that Carson believes this! But then who?

“Before entering the discussion about moral reality, I must make a couple things quite clear. First, I am not discussing the idea that one must believe in God in order to be a moral person. (Ganssle, Thinking About God, p.86).

"The question here is not: 'Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?' I am not claiming that we must" (Craig, God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, p.18).

“In fact, I claimed that there is a sense in which the atheist most certainly can be moral (the minimalist sense agreed to by both sides). In fact, in this sense, many atheists may be more moral than Christians.” (Paul Manata! See here)

These are just some quotes on hand at the moment. I have seen theists of the most “evangelical, “right wing” variety, claim that atheists can be just as moral, if not more so, than Christians (only in the sense of civic goodness). Now, it is true that I once heard an old grandma claim that all non-Christians were moral monsters. Is that who Stellman is attacking?

e) Stellman gives the impression that Carson is claiming that “Scripture furnishes the saints with a clear idea of what godly society would look like.” But Carson doesn’t give that impression, not at all. “Initially more impressive is the insistence by some writers that Romans 13 does not so much tell believers how to govern well as how to be governed. In the flow of Paul’s argument, that insight is fundamentally right" ( Carson, 161, emphasis mine).

f) Apropos (e), if Stellman wishes to scale back his claim and say that Carson gives the impression that Scripture tells us some things about what a godly society looks like, clear or unclear, then he would be correct. So Carson again, “Nevertheless, in making his argument, Paul tells us at least a little of what he thinks good government looks like” (ibid, emphasis mine). But if Stellman moves the goal post to this weaker claim, or says that’s what he originally intended, he doesn’t let the reader know that Carson defends this claim in a few places, most directly on pages 161-173.

g) Stellman then makes the ridiculous claim that Carson “seems to ignore both the fact that the Bible's authority is limited to those loci it actually addresses clearly and that all people share the imago Dei, as well a common basis for morality provided by the works of God's law written on our hearts.” I have a few points in response:

i) Of course a scholar of Carson’s stature doesn’t ignore the imago dei or the law written on the heart. So, again (!), Carson: “…all human beings have been made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26), … and this image is “the dignity of human beings” (Carson, p.57, 136, also see pp. 45-47, 49, 56-58, 87, 120, 136, 138, 193, 207). Of course Carson doesn’t discuss what “grounds” ethical norms, nor does he need to! For Christ & Culture isn’t a book on metaethics.

ii) It is also nothing but stacking the deck in your favor when you demand that people can only appeal to what the Bible “clearly” addresses. Is that “clearly addressed” in the Bible? And, often what is “clearly addressed” is in the eye of the beholder.

iii) The Bible’s authority pertains to what the confession says: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1.6). Is Stellman meaning to say that we should keep the insights of Scripture out of our ethical decision making processes? If so, that is a very radical position. Even staunch two kingdom advocate David VanDrunen wouldn’t say that. So VanDrunen,

Making Bioethics Decisions
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. (source)

One of VanDrunen’s relevant theological truths is that the Bible teaches some form of anthropological dualism. But is this clear? I certainly think so, but your Christian constitutionalist will not agree (so Corcoran, Merricks, etc). Moreover, all the best scientists agree that “we have no more need” to posit a soul. That’s an outdated picture of the world. And men like Stellman are well-known for their attacks on “fundies” who hold to an “out dated” young earth creationism. Yet they suddenly get all backwoods and toothless when it comes to a “soul.”

5. For these reasons, I find Stellman’s review underwhelming. I find it as symptomatic of more fundamental problems. For example, expending all your energies on ignorant-but-well-meaning Christians will have a negative effect when you decide to “play with the big boys,” like Carson. I find many internet two kingdom proponents want to move as quick as they can to use two kingdom buzz words and pejoratives whereby they can pontificate about all the evils resulting from abandoning two kingdom theology. The basic case for two kingdom theology, as I understand it, is fairly sound. But it seems as if proponents aren’t satisfied with this basic case and are seeking more “outrageous” attempts to prove its merits. If so, they have fallen into the trappings their opponents like Osteen have fallen into. Proving two kingdoms by sensationalistic and, frankly, dishonest tactics, is not what two kingdoms needs right now. I propose a more sober minded approach to the Christian public. A more scholarly approach. If not, then they have no one to complain to but themselves when the majority of Christians (rightly or wrongly) reject their teachings because it is delivered with, in my honest opinion, a bit of a haughty kind of presumptuous spirit.

¹ Jason J. Stellman, “Christ & Culture Revisited" by D. A. Carson, in "Beyond Nostalgia: The Risk of Orthodoxy" Sept./Oct. Vol. 17 No. 5 2008 Pages 50-51

² D.A. Carson, Christ & Culture Revisited, Eerdmans, 2008.

Better Dead Than Red

In interest of full disclosure, I should say that I have had some private email conversations with Hays where I have disagreed with some of his critiques of David VanDrunen, natural law, and two kingdom theory. So, this post doesn't come from someone opposed to the above views. In fact, I've been trying to force myself to become convinced of them. And I've warmed up to them quite a bit. But 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. Indeed, it's all become a little tiresome to read many of the online two kingdom advocates as it seems they're more skilled in rhetoric and maligning the opposition, than in arguing for the position in any relevant way. One has to try hard to stop the thought that people engage in maligning the opposition when they have no arguments from flying into their head. But analyzing why this is so, and I have some thoughts, is beyond the scope here. As an illustration, though, take this recent post from Jason Stellman:

*****

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.