Separation of Church and State

http://www.janetmefferdpremium.com/2013/06/03/janet-mefferd-radio-show-20130603-hr-2/

This is truly a terrible show, but it's a popular one. I can only stand so much of it but when I see T. David Gordon as a guest I have to listen. Despite some disagreements, he's a name in Reformed circles that I definitely respect and I've heard him lecture and preach on different occasions.

He's part of the Reformed Two-Kingdom camp or at the very least is usually identified with some of them. Most of the people who advocate this view within Reformed circles are still Kuyperian in their understanding of the Kingdom and culture...meaning they still think in terms of the state being (in some sense) part of the Kingdom of God. Listening to Gordon on this show he definitely is not making the Klinean distinction between Realm and Reign.

Sphere Sovereignty is to me somewhat misleading. By breaking culture and society into the spheres of Family, Church and State it argues that each will be kept from garnering tyrannical power. The Church should speak to the state, but the pastor doesn't sit down with the senator to draft legislation...and likewise the senator doesn't tell the Church how to run itself.

But this is misleading. When you assume Christendom as Kuyper et al. certainly do then every family and certainly every government official are part of the Church. The Church effectively ratifies (or condemns) the actions of individual families and legislators. When someone isn't in line, the Church can censure or excommunicate and effectively remove the 'sphere' authority of that particular family or legislator. In a Christendom-type situation this would render a public official ineligible for office.

In the end, the Church ends up running the show. While not as overtly Theocratic as what you might find with Theonomy, it's still a form of Constantinianism.

What was most entertaining (and frustrating) was to listen to the host completely misunderstand him. She wasn't making the connections at all. When he mentioned Puritan New England, she didn't get the principle and instead just said that today's America wouldn't match up. Totally missed the point.

And finally the opening segments of the show were exasperating but telling. The whole Dearborn episode was not only inaccurately reported, the theological posture was frankly repugnant. These Christians weren't being persecuted. They were being jerks and trying to stir up trouble. Given the geo-political situation and the legacy of the Christian Right in this country and around the world, for them to show up at that venue and try and agitate these people was just plain stupid and the very least provocative. I'm hardly endorsing the response of the crowd but these communities have dealt with a lot over the past decade or so. I think for their perspective they simply wanted to enjoy their festival without people harassing them. I'm not anti-street evangelist by any means but their actions were more a political move than a genuine concern for the gospel and the society in which they live. That was not the time or the place.

The lawsuits, the calling on the state to protect them and even 'grant' them free speech is just bewildering. All other issues aside, you don't call on the state to protect your 'right' to preach the gospel. You do it regardless of any state. But these folks brought no gospel. They brought offense, but it was not because of the cross. They brought the coercive violence of the state with their lawsuits and other actions. Shame on them.

And with regard to the Iranian pastor. Again, by no means would I defend the regime in Tehran...but I will say two things.

1. There's a long legacy of American's employing Peace Corps volunteers, missionaries and others to effectively work as spies in foreign countries. That charge isn't as baseless as the host seems to think. Is this pastor guilty? I have no idea. Because of the American Empire's association with Christianity, and America's past actions within Iran...then it's not terribly surprising that Christians would suffer.

The host was apparently also ignorant of the fact that there are large numbers of Assyrians...Syriac Christians in the Northwest of the country near Lake Urmia.

2. Christian Zionist? Yes, she is a Christian Zionist but apparently doesn't know enough about her only theology to put it together. Yes, Dispensational theology has domestic and geopolitical implications. If it is erroneous (which it certainly is)...then these folks not only have misunderstood the Word of God, they also have blood on their hands. Given that the theology has political elements it is actually somewhat understandable that other nations would be somewhat upset by its propagation. That is a gospel that many a Caesar would need to worry about. Unlike the Kingdom of Christ the theology itself contains a profound political threat.

She also seemed unaware that not only are there many Christians who don't share this position; her position is in fact novel in terms of the overall scope of Church History. While it is the majority position of Evangelicals in the contemporary United States, a century ago it was hardly known.