Constantinian Confusion: A Kuyperian vs. a Theonomist

http://heidelblog.net/2013/06/surrounded-by-constantinians/

There's a faction within Reformed circles which promotes Two Kingdom Theology. Usually associated with Westminster Seminary's West coast campus (Westminster West) these folks have consistently opposed Theonomy and other theocratic elements within Reformed circles.

Their problem is that within Reformed circles it's all about adherence to the Confessions. Scott Clark, Michael Horton and others have tried to argue that they are in line with the Reformed Confessions, while their detractors insist otherwise and in fact insist they have betrayed the Reformed heritage.

It becomes more confusing when some of the confessions were modified in the American context. The old Westminster Confession from the 17^th century clearly teaches a Christian magistrate who has the power to call synods and councils. The Belgic Confession teaches likewise.

At the time of the Reformation, the standard understanding was certainly Constantinian. This doesn't necessarily demand a 'state' church like we find in England. It can simply mean the country is ordered in a Christian manner, and the state's job is to promote and defend the Church. Some go further and want the state to specifically promote certain churches and suppress others. The Wars of Religion followed and more or less continued until the end of the 17^th century.

With the creation of the United States, the new American Churches modified their confessions and removed those sections which would not work in the American context. Some continue to protest this, wanting those confessional sections restored and if given the chance would modify the US Constitution to reflect their own theological preferences.

For these Reformed folks who promote a Two Kingdom understanding, they believe the Church's primary task is to preach the Gospel and beyond that we are to be good citizens and help promote and develop culture.

While they don't look to the state to enforce a Constantinian order and they don't look for a political Christendom, they still very much believe in the concept of Christian culture.

And in fact their entire cultural critique and emphasis on positive culture is thoroughly rooted in the Western or Constantinian tradition. While they frown on the Christian ghetto mentality...forming Christian parallels to the culture at large....they still believe in specifically Christian approaches to questions like art, music, and society as a whole and believe proper Christianity will lead to cultural advance. In the end they too celebrate the Western tradition from Bach to Mendelssohn, from Newton to Ivy League universities as fruits of Christian activity.

It's de-politicized Dominionism. While we can be thankful they have removed the power/violence element from their message, in the end they're still on the wrong page.

It's enough to enrage Theonomists who critique them for their inconsistency, but from my standpoint they're still basically embracing the same vision...albeit in a softer form and by a different road.

In this article, Scott Clark even cites Abraham Kuyper as being an opponent of Constantinianism. Again the terms get a little fuzzy. These folks (Kuyper in particular) are all for the Christianization of culture. They believe in what I would call a grass roots Constantinianism. But they eschew the term by restricting it to politically legislated and enforced Christianity. So in that sense yes, they're not Theonomists...but they're still infected with the same poison, for none of these categories or even this way of thinking can be found in the New Testament.

So while they would reject political Christianity and the way it usually manifests itself in the Culture Wars, for the most part they're still politically conservative, patriotic and certainly pro-Western tradition minded people.

For example here's another link:

http://heidelblog.net/2013/06/prayer-for-sgt-bergdahl-june-30-2013/

Now while I pity anyone languishing in prison, the reality is this 'non-communicant member' (whatever that is...I just love Presbyterianism's contrived polity) invaded another country that never attacked the United States. The Taliban did not attack America and never had any intention to do so. They happened to sympathize with a few hundred al-Qaeda members who they gave shelter to, but this hardly justifies the conquest of a country and tens of thousands (or more) dead. This was about far more than the 2001 attacks on the United States.

While I certainly do not sympathize with the Taliban, why aren't American Christians concerned about the thousands of civilians killed? Why aren't they concerned about the often innocent prisoners America has tortured and killed?

Why? Because they're good patriots. This isn't Two Kingdom thinking... it's simply the same modified Constantinian model Martin Luther provided - which his followers never actually followed.

Not a few have accused the Westminster West crowd for this and other reasons of being in fact Crypto-Lutherans viz. secret Lutherans. Obviously they're not actually Lutheran, but they do exhibit certain tendencies and not just in this area of concern.

Again all I care about is what the Bible teaches, but in these circles the arguments revolve around the Confession and claims to the heritage.

I would have to say they're wrong, at least in terms of claiming the Reformed heritage. While the Reformers modified the Medieval Papal order...the Imperial Church...they certainly did not reject Constantinianism. In fact during the subsequent centuries the Wars of Religion took on a 'holy' quality as it was the warriors of the True Church and the nations which backed it v. the Papal armies and the nations which harboured Popery. It was all very much an ecclesiastical/political way of thinking.

Here's a Theonomist who was quite upset over what Clark wrote:

http://ironink.org/2013/06/r-scott-clark-the-constantinians-are-coming-the-constantinians-are-coming/

Of course here the Theonomists refer to people like me as R2K or Radical Two Kingdoms. They play a little word game.

When they want to attack people like me, we're 'Radical' Two Kingdom because they would insist (rightly) that what we believe is not the same as the Two Kingdom views of Martin Luther. Luther like Calvin divided the administration of Christendom into spheres...The state and the Church...but it was all still viewed as part of God's Kingdom - one Kingdom in two aspects. This is a key point...Lutheran Two Kingdom advocates and Reformed Two Kingdom advocates view the state as part of the Kingdom of God, just separate from the Church.

My view, more akin to the Waldensians and later Anabaptists believes that the State is not part of the Kingdom of God. It (like the entire universe) is under his Reign, but it is not part of the Holy Spirit generated Redemptive Realm.

God is Lord of all, but the Kingdom is the redemptive or salvation realm, the work of the Holy Spirit. God does not 'regenerate' the state or any tribe or nation.

So he's right that we're not the same as Luther's Two Kingdom view.

But then later when they want to pin the German church's acceptance of the Nazis on something other than the nominal Christianity bred by centuries of Constantinianism...they blame it on Two Kingdom theology.

They teach that Two Kingdom theology taught the Church to retreat and stay silent on political matters. And since the Church didn't speak out, the man in the pew just went along with the Third Reich.

Of course the Biblical Two Kingdoms view won't allow for Nationalism of any kind, rejects racism in principal and is always hostile or at the very least suspicious of the state. A Biblical view of the Kingdom (and the Two Kingdoms) will never be taken in by Medieval Christendom, the Nazis or the American Empire. All are plainly varieties of Babylon, Babel, or the Beast-State.

However the Two Kingdom view common in Germany was quite accustomed to equating Germany and German culture with the Kingdom of God...European culture in general, but German culture specifically was viewed as superior, the pinnacle of Christian civilization.

To this form of Constantinianism, national pride was a given. And the testimony of Niemoller, Barth and others is abundantly clear. The Church embraced Hitler because of patriotism and nationalist pride.

So the Theonomists try to have it both ways. We're not legitimate because we're not part of the Reformed or even Protestant tradition....

But even worse, our theology leads to the embrace of Nazism and will easily give in to evil.

Little do they realize it is actually their theology that can so easily embark down that dark road.  It is their theology which led to the slaughter of the Irish under Cromwell, the oppression of other races in the colonies and in South Africa. In fact it is this very theology which often led to and sanctioned European Imperialism.

The Theonomist here speaks of a secular Constantinianism...by which he means Sacralism. He argues that all cultures are Sacral; therefore we just have to make sure the Sacral culture is Christian. It's inescapable to him...to fight paganism we have to take over government.

Knowing nothing of the New Testament's teaching of the Kingdom of God and how the Church gains victory through martyrdom and witness, he believes the way to glorify God is through power.

He thinks that if we desire social Pluralism it means that we believe all other religions are legitimate. He can't fathom a dual-order in which the Church is in the world but not of it. Those words are meaningless to him. He can't understand that the world will always be comprised of Christians and non-Christians.

He fails to grasp the uniqueness of Christianity which brought about Kingdom divorced from all nations, tribes, and tongues, a Kingdom of peace which rejects the sword. The Sacral impulse which he seeks to baptize is actually the Babel Impulse, the old pagan notion of making a name for oneself and to sanction your power by invoking the gods. It's making the state into a religion.

Only be redefining the Biblical definition of Christian can he hope to create a Christian society, a society in which everyone (in some extra-Biblical sense) is Christian. A society in which non-Christianity is not tolerated...all Pluralism is eliminated.

A political order (which is violence enforced law) cannot create this. You cannot legislate Christians or Christian culture into existence. They erroneously argue by misappropriating verses dealing with the eternal state, that the Bible teaches a future Christianization of the world.

They think in monistic terms....all cultures have to be one religion or the other. They believe Pluralism is a myth. At this point they would say our culture has become thoroughly pagan. They have different narratives about how that will be fixed and how to fix it...but they believe at some future point they will win and take over.

The fact that bakery owners are catching heat because of the state of our culture doesn't mean that Pluralism doesn't exist in our culture. It simply means our culture is in a bad place.

But to be honest I would rather live under pagan persecution (even Enlightenment Democracy) then under a pseudo-Christian state that baptizes war and other evils... and ultimately the persecution of pagans. That's what happened under Theodosius and continued up to Franco's Spain and is likely to reappear in Africa. This isn't the Bride. This is the Whore riding on the Imperial Beast.

The Christian political state is a myth. Nowhere is the Kingdom of God or the Church defined in these terms. And so they will always fail. Instead of Zion, we will always end up with a pseudo-Zion, a pseudo- body of Christ...a substitute or anti-Christ.

I appreciate people like this. They're consistent. He follows through on the premise. He's not going to pretend that Democracy is somehow Christian. It isn't.

But I'm still thankful for it...although at this point I would say it is an illusion in our society.

I'm sorry to see GI Williamson has rejected wisdom in his old age. I benefitted from his writings early in my Christian walk and was thrilled to meet him many years ago.

But again, the Theonomist (Bret McAtee) and GI Williamson are right. They do have a rightful claim to the Reformed heritage.

That hardly means it is right or good and certainly not anything to be proud of. I thank God I was delivered from that road.

As I recently told a friend....I wake up every morning, look into the mirror and thank God I'm not a Presbyterian.

Finally let's look at a couple of his points.

#1- He's right. Constantinianism does not necessitate a state church. On this point the Reformed Two Kingdom advocates...like Scott Clark and Michael Horton are wrong.

#2- Notice he rejects Natural Law. He would say the Romans, the Russians or whomever are legislating the laws of idols if they're not specifically legislating the law of the Bible.

Sure. That's what God's Restraint or Common Grace is for. Even idolaters punish evildoers (Romans 13) and generally speaking reward the good. Even lost people generally know that murder is wrong.

That's the best we can hope for....a little right done for the wrong reasons. Does he expect something else from unregenerate people? Is he a Pelagian that believes fallen man is capable of doing good?

What he believes is that only Christian magistrates are legitimate. Follow that reasoning through...and perhaps you can see the potential danger in it? Not just for the Church but for society.

God's Law is covenantal, holy. It's a shame these folks treat it as it were something common that unbelievers can somehow obey...and that it somehow pleases God for them to do so.

Even stranger...that such enforcement somehow will help the lost 'want' to be a Christian. Romans 8 suggests quite the opposite.

Notice he cites Van Til and impossibility of neutrality. They use this principle to engage in speculative theology and generate so called Christian blueprints for taking over the realms of art, science, politics, etc...

Normally at this point he would cite one of the typical 'hack' historians these folks regularly promote. In this case he merely pulls out a quote that's convenient, but not quite in context. The author isn't making the point he wishes to make.

Of course their understanding of knowledge means that only Christians can correctly understand the world. So only Christians can actually write history and they've used this premise to generate and promote some pretty outrageous propaganda. 

And I'm sorry to report it's very popular in Christian homeschool circles.

I'm thankful for his articles. They consistently provide an insight into how the lost mind integrates with Christianity.

Scott Clark has a much better overall understanding of the Bible but fails at some critical points. I fear that a great deal of the confusion arises from the insanity born of denominationalism. Men abandon all reason in order to maintain adherence to tradition.

As I've mentioned with regard to the politicization of the Gospel, truth is compromised...winning is all that matters. This can affect the civil sphere but it often plays out in denominational politics as well. Men become vicious in an attempt to control institutions or make the argument that they are the true representatives of it.