Living in the World: A Misdiagnosis

https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2020/living-in-the-world/

The reader of this piece will certainly discover a lot of interesting history to consider but the article-lecture is flawed in its premise, its analysis, and thus in its worth.

The phenomenon of church fusion with the culture and the subjugation to state dictate (in other words, the Church being barely distinguishable from the world) is not merely or even initially the result of liberalism or the Enlightenment. Actually it's part of the Magisterial Reformation heritage which not only bowed to the state – in many cases well into the nineteenth century, but in seeking to re-cast 'Christian Culture' or Christendom as 'Protestant' Christendom, it opened the floodgates for nominal forms of Christianity and for ethics rooted more in the mainstream of society.

It is the Magisterial Reformation and its legacy that (despite its claims to the contrary) failed 'to articulate a proper and legitimate doctrine of the authority of Scripture'. The sixteenth century Reformation driven by ad fontes humanism did indeed turn anew to the Scriptures and rightly rejected the claims of Roman Catholicism. But at the same time seeds were sown for its own downfall. From the introduction of textual criticism in the Lutheran camp to the re-casting and re-embrace of Scholasticism within the Reformed camp, the cry of Sola Scriptura would be diluted and undermined by Confessionalism's hermeneutical unfaithfulness and Sacralism's defective inferences, deductions and consequentialist ethics.  

Wed to the prosperity and stability of society, the edge was removed from the Church's message and the authority it was meant to wield. These were in many cases ceded to the state. This antedates the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism by roughly two hundred years. The Enlightenment was but a new and destructive phase of an already existing dynamic.

The ground had already been prepared. Acculturation had already taken place so that when the Enlightenment gained traction in the academy and in political thought there was little epistemological strength to resist. Despite the supposed battle cry of the Reformers regarding Scripture Alone, the post-Reformation settlements were not based on Scripture but on compromise – with the state and with philosophy. The seeds were sown and thus when revolution arose or when rationalism and empiricism were pushed to the breaking point – it was inevitable that men would look elsewhere. The Bible (let alone the New Testament) was not governing Confessional Protestantism in the nineteenth century or in any century before it. The Magisterial Reformation engendered an epistemological crisis that was never resolved. Its own myth-narratives about Sola Scriptura are only able to retain traction within its own Confessional circles. Everyone else realised (and realises) that these movements did not stay true to their claims. From the philosophers to the nineteenth century Restorationists, a wide array of people and movements knew that Confessional claims were an exercise in propaganda and self-deception.

While the lecture by George Curry is interesting on one level, its diagnosis is wrong and thus its cure is necessarily wrong. There is a misreading of the heritage taking place. The tradition is nuanced to be sure but in every case based on epistemic compromise and extra-biblical syncretism. Such unbiblical thinking is by definition humanistic and given its inherent contradictions and inconsistencies it will lead inevitably to the very liberalism it is critical of – a breakdown of tradition and central authority that instead will rely upon subjectivity or rival epistemologies – which were certainly becoming quite manifest in the nineteenth century. It is literally a case of physician heal thyself.

The Church was already acculturated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and so when the culture changed due to outside influences, we shouldn't be surprised that the already compromised Church changed with it. We certainly see this at work today.

In terms of ethics, the Church effectively winked at sin – in many cases supporting corruption in government or providing excuses for policies and practices that were in violation of the Scriptures – but perhaps were an end that justified the means of the ecclesiastical parties wishing to secure and maintain power.

The fact that the Church and society in general is farther 'gone' in the twenty-first century is immaterial, a question of degree – not of quality. The corrupted compromised Church of today and the society it has helped to produce are the same creature, still on the same trajectory and producing the same legacy.

The lecture and the analysis it provides offers little to nothing in terms of insight or wisdom with regard to how Christians should live in the world especially in the twenty-first century – and it's a shame, for at this juncture discernment is certainly needed.

Looking ahead we can say that if God in fact grants revival or reformation, and Providence brings about a large-scale return to the Scripture – it will not result in a rekindling of Reformation polity or a Puritan order.  The testimony of the Reformation and Post-Reformation is not one of Biblically fidelity but digression. The Scriptures quoted at the beginning are among many that are the movement's condemnation, a testimony to its unfaithfulness.

And thus Biblically speaking, this entire line of inquiry is a dead end. Neither Bucer, Rutherford, nor Bavinck formulated theology on these points which were in concert with Biblical Doctrine. The nature of the debate is academic, even trivial – a question of nuances within a larger scope of tradition.  Some were far more removed from lines of legitimate Biblical inquiry and exegesis than others. The entire history of this debate is permeated by a Judaizing sacralist impulse and driven by equally flawed hermeneutics.

Curry interestingly avoids the conclusion of his theological forebears and the necessary conclusion anyone must take away from his lecture. In the twenty-first century Christendom has fallen on hard times and since it is (by this flawed reasoning) the Christian's calling to construct such a Christendom and the Reformation heritage is one of utilising the sword and coin to attain such goals – the imperative is to use the same at this present hour or to begin preparations toward that end. That is the end result of this sort of thinking. The Church must take up the sword and/or form alliance with magisterial powers that will do so on the Church's behalf.

Curry would have us learn from history but sadly he himself has learned little from it, and even less from the Scriptures which condemn his project, heritage, and hermeneutic in toto. The lecture begins with Scripture but by its end, it is nowhere to be found. The discussion is driven by philosophy. The Bible is but a launch pad for a wide-ranging holistic discussion that is philosophically driven and philosophically solved. The Scriptures (when used at all) are divorced from their context and are but disjointed and ill-used blocks utilised to create a would-be temple that in the end is but another Tower of Babel. And even if it's crowned by a cheap cross of painted gold – it's still Babel and by no means sanctified.