I use this example not to 'attack' anyone, but to make a
point. There's something to be learned here.
This podcast on Biblical law and society demonstrates the way
assumptions can govern discussions. I think of many people I know listening to
this and would think it to be a good programme. 'These are good folks,' they
would say, 'working out problems and striving toward a good goal'.
They're not Theonomists but at the same time they still
assume the basic Dominionist and Constantinian frameworks that produced
Theonomy. They would deny being Constantinian because they limit that term to a
formalizing (de jure) of Christianity vis-à-vis the state. Nevertheless when
they wish to impose Biblical law on society and have it as the governing
principle then you have a de facto Constantinianism... and they might be fine
with that.
What's the problem then? There are too many to be named here
but for starters we can ask does the New Testament which is our primary canon
and our guide to interpreting the rest of Scripture call for this? And if
doesn't, does such an endeavour actually represent erroneous thinking? Could it
even be harmful to the Church in creating confusion regarding the Body of Christ
and its identity and purpose in This Age?
Contrary to the assumptions in this podcast it must be insisted
the New Testament does not call for this project but repudiates it and the
impulse to engage in this kind of speculative and political theology represents
a serious defection from the New Testament doctrine of the Kingdom.
What was perhaps most striking to me is that the concept of
covenant was wholly ignored and yet that is a critical category to be
considered in such a discussion. Old Testament Law was covenantal and a typological
part of God's redemptive programme. It was not for the nations. The nations
were not condemned by the prophets for lack of Sabbath keeping or failing to
follow the dietary laws. Nor were they condemned for failing to follow the
judicial code or implementing its penalties. The judicial laws which many
Christians think to utilize as a pattern for nations today were a covenantal-typological
picture of Christ's judgment, or being cut-off from the covenant community. To
be outside Israel was to dwell in the outer darkness.
That was the status of the nations and is so today. Just as
in the time of the Old Testament all people/all Gentiles have to leave, 'come
out' from the nations to join God's Holy Covenantal Israel. Today by baptism we
are set apart as disciples, marked by Christ and no longer citizens of this age
or under its master. There was no way to sanctify Babylon or bring it into
covenant and that is just as true today.
The Gentile nations are judged by another moral law, a
generalized morality that is not codified. It is in fact the same moral law
that transcends the Mosaic covenant and thus is in effect today. The Mosaic
code assumes it, interacts with it, adds redemptive typology, but operates
within covenantal frameworks. Now fulfilled and its context removed, the Law of
Moses is not applicable to Egypt, Babylon, Edom, England or America.
What about the general equity, the general principles? Are
they not timeless? Are they not guidelines for the formation of civil society?
These types of questions expose an assumption that while
almost universally accepted must be questioned.
Should Christians be in government and trying to run society?
Should Christians thereby wield the legitimate violence of society (the sword),
and coerce unbelievers to behave in a moral way? Is this compatible with the
'Good News' of the gospel of grace and forgiveness?
The Westminster California (West) faction claims to adhere to
the Westminster Confession and indeed they do reflect the modified confession
that came into being in the late 18th century... the American
revision forged after the 1776 Revolution and the creation of the secular
American state. The original 1646 Westminster Confession calls for the
magistrate to call ecclesiastical synods and to enforce God's law. This would
no longer work in the American context and so the Presbyterians of the day
modified the confession. Not all have been happy with that amendment and its
rejection of America as a 'covenanted' nation. American Presbyterians did not
follow the same error as their Scottish cousins.
But even the modified confession perpetuates this notion of
general equity with regard to the Mosaic Law. Though many Westminster-West
professors and fellow-travelers are proponents of the Two Kingdom ideal, once
it is blended with Dominionist doctrine and assumptions the debate becomes one
of nuance and a question of formal vs. informal institutions. They believe in a
Christian influence on society and Christians wielding political and cultural
influence. Contrary to the Theonomists they don't believe this should be
formalized. They don't believe in national confession .Yet, from the standpoint
of Waldensian or Anabaptist Two Kingdom Theology there's little difference between
what Reformed or even Lutheran Two Kingdom people promote and what a full blown
Theonomist argues for. There are differences but both factions are still on the
other side of the line (as it were) when it comes to defining the Kingdom and
the Christian's place in the world.
While the Confession's revision of the 1780's and the
Westminster West positions are to be appreciated as a step in the right
direction they are still fatally flawed and in particular with regard to law.
The Confession retains the erroneous three-fold division of the Mosaic Law into
Moral, Civil and Ceremonial aspects. The Scriptures clearly treat the law as a
unit which has been fulfilled and abrogated and nowhere is the three-fold
division taught. It is a child of Aristotelian Scholasticism not Biblical
Exegesis.
The Westminster Confession abrogates the so-called Ceremonial
division, allows the Civil to continue with regard to general equity and since
it identifies/equates the Moral Law with the Decalogue it argues that it is a universal
and perpetual expression of the moral law.
Westminster West would decry any identification with Theonomy
because Theonomy in particular modified the three-fold division into a two-fold
arrangement, and meshed the Moral-Civil codes. The Theonomists would say the
Ceremonial laws have passed away but all other laws are moral and thus
perpetual. To put it differently, for a Theonomist, an argument for the
perpetuity of the moral law also argues the perpetuation of the civil codes.
Since many Reformed people reject this two-fold reinterpretation they think
they are miles apart from the Theonomic position.
This is not the real issue. It is a nuanced argument over a
minor point within the tradition. In principle many who formally reject
Theonomy's two-fold scheme all but embrace the same outcome and the Dominionist
foundations upon which it was built. On a practical level they are much closer
than they realize.
The Theonomists were simply trying to find a more absolute
doctrinal ground upon which to stand that would necessitate the exhaustive
application of Mosaic Law for modern society. Mere 'equity' was perceived as
being too fluid and broad and too dependent on man-made interpretations and
constructed paradigms to build a civil society that could clearly and
consistently claim itself to be 'Biblical'.
All of these forces working together and the application of
them play out in a conversation like what we hear on this podcast. Ultimately
we must conclude Scripture has been misread on a massive scale and the whole of
the discussion is effectively 'out of bounds'.
It's purely speculative theology and has little if nothing to
do with Scriptural exegesis or a sound application of Apostolic (New Testament)
hermeneutics.
Nowhere in Scripture are we told to ask these questions, nowhere
are we told to utilize the state to enforce Christian morality. The state is
about vengeance and violence, it is bestial (idolatrous) in its impulses but
providentially necessary for the remainder of this age. While required, the
state is not something we look to for aid in justice or vengeance, nor can we
utilize it in our covenant mission. The state operates on different principles
and for different self-serving purposes. It will always be corrupt and in a condition
of instability, waxing toward blasphemous visions of itself or deteriorating
and collapsing to be replaced by yet another manifestation.
As the Church we are called to bear witness and tell the
truth about the world which includes the state, but we don't try to co-opt it
or take up its cause. The impulse to do so once again represents a misunderstanding
of the spiritual, heavenly and eschatological nature of the Kingdom. The state
will burn with the other works of men at the end of this age. Labouring to
build the state is minding earthly things, entangling the church in the affairs
of this life and laying up treasures on earth. It is to baptize violence,
vengeance and power.
These are issues this project has addressed on numerous
occasions so why revisit it here?
There's a dangerous nuance here that needs to be noted.
This podcast discussion puts on display the danger of Confessionalism
which closes the door of debate on these issues and operates on assumption. This
whole episode begged the question. The whole discussion was in fact invalid
unhelpful and even harmful.
How is it harmful?
As mentioned at the beginning of the piece many Christians
will listen to such a programme and being unaware of the assumptions and issues
and not knowing what questions to ask will blindly listen and follow, and
consequently be shaped and formed by these categories.
One must question the nature of these types of podcasts.
There are many of them and largely they seem to function as echo chambers.
Certainly they wish to teach their audiences and yet often the programmes are
not presented in this way. It's somewhat duplicitous. They present themselves
as investigatory when in fact they have a deliberate agenda in mind and often tease
it out through what must be labeled as feigned exploration.
Denominations and institutions require propaganda and though
they decry the proliferation of misinformation in our internet age, the
gatekeepers and institutional masters are not exempt from promoting their own
agendas. This is accomplished at the expense of full-orbed discussion,
clarification of categories, honest presentation of alternatives and to some
degree integrity itself.
