[reformational politics redux]

As election night draws to a close, I’ve got politics of a less practical, more philosophical/theological sort on the brain. I thought I’d repost this from last year: the conclusion of a research paper I wrote last year, “Toward an Evangelical Politics: Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and Beyond.”

A Five-Point Proposal, Being a Starting Point for a Reformational/Evangelical Politics:

Theonomy: An Evangelical politics must embrace theonomy in its understanding of law. Abraham Kuyper calls for a subjective theonomy in the Lectures: “God’s Word must rule, but in the sphere of the state only through the conscience of the persons invested with authority.” (“Politics” 104) However, in our post-Christian culture there is very little of God’s Word in anyone’s conscience, let alone the politicians’. The “hard theonomy” of the Christian Reconstructionists, wherein the Old Testament law is adopted as the law of the land with its prescribed punishments, except where specifically superceded by the New Testament, seems to stray too far in the other direction. It smacks of theocracy. (Rogers) Francis Schaeffer’s “soft theonomy” has the constitutional law of the land resting consciously on Scripture as an unchanging standard of justice and right. This position maintains the Evangelical tension between the absolute authority of Scripture and the separation of church and state. It is also in line with the teaching of John Calvin himself. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin calls the idea of rule by the totality of the Mosaic Law “perilous and seditious,” but he affirms that the law of the land must rest on the “moral law,” which he boils down to the principles of charity and equity. The eternal standard of the moral law prevents destructive sociological law:
“But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.” (Institutes 910)
Under this conception, justice, ethics, morality, and religious conviction are inseparable. Evangelicals have the right and duty to continue to push for legislation on ‘moral’ issues like abortion and gay rights as the highest priority, because they undermine the very foundation of state authority, which rests in just law.

Uncompromised principles: An Evangelical politics must be principled, not pragmatic. This is a direct result of embracing a theonomic concept of law. A denial of Scriptural authority is concomitant to denying legislative goals that are directly based on God’s moral law. According to J. Budziszewski, the confession of biblical authority is the theological distinctive of Evangelicals. (“Evangelicals” 20) So a move like Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani effectively forfeits one’s status as an Evangelical.

Limited Sovereignty: An Evangelical politics must limit the sovereignty of the state by proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God and recognizing sovereignty within individual spheres. Proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God ensures that Evangelicals know the basic presupposition on which their politics is founded and creates a bottom line past which subjection to the state is no longer good or right. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 126-127) It seems from the Genesis account that Scripture recognizes at least four spheres, with separate sovereignties implied by the separate institutions of society (Gen. 1:26-28), family (Gen. 2:23-24), church (Gen. 4:26), and state (Gen. 9:5-6). Applying this principle would require the government to retract its authoritative position in areas like education, as in the Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind Act. Schaeffer writes, “[I]f the United States is to move back toward the original Reformation basis, this would mean severely limiting the scope of Federal State authority.” (Manifesto 114) In fact, it would mean a very nearly libertarian conception of federal authority. Evangelicals should seek constitutional amendments specifically delineating societal spheres and denying the state sovereignty therein. Evangelicals must also determine how the sphere sovereignty doctrine would apply on an international level. It precludes ceding state sovereignty to international organizations like the U.N. and prohibits an interventionist foreign policy, both as violations of the sovereignty of individual nations.

Identification with Christian heritage: An Evangelical politics must make explicit the historically demonstrable connection between Reformation Christianity and liberty. Both Kuyper and Schaeffer go to great lengths to show the direct correlation between the degree of ‘reformation’ and the degree of freedom in Northern Europe and the United States. Kuyper locates the democratizing effects of Calvinism in its Presbyterian polity (“Religion” 63) and doctrine of unconditional election. (“Art” 166) Evangelicals should point unbelievers to the oppressive public squares of France and Turkey as ample proof that secular humanism does not lead to freedom, but tyranny. Even those who do not share the Christian worldview should welcome, rather than abhor, a Christian state because a Christian state alone provides a stable guarantee of freedom. An Evangelical politics must not compel belief or establish a state church, but it must of necessity preserve freedom of expression in the public square to maintain evangelistic efforts. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 136-137).

Plan for action: An Evangelical politics must provide a comprehensive strategy for achieving its goals on all fronts. Recognizing that Evangelicals are in a battle of opposing total worldviews, the fight must be taken to every sphere of life. Ethical personal living, raising strong families, theologically-informed art and science, petition, litigation, civil disobedience, running for political office, proposing legislation, production in every academic field—all of these must be practiced if Evangelicals take Kuyper and Schaeffer’s worldview theory seriously. Unfortunately, this is where neither Kuyper, nor Schaeffer, nor this paper can take us any further. Delineating strict action in these spheres would rise above a foundation and begin to define a total Evangelical politics, even a comprehensive Christian philosophy—a monumental work that waits for another scholar and another day.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” John 16:13

Sources:

Budziszewski, J. “Evangelicals in the Public Square,” in Evangelicals in the Public Square, Budziszewski, et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2002. <http://www.ccel.org/download.html?
url=/ccel/calvin/institutes.pdf>
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943.

Rogers, Jay. “Van Tillian Presuppositional Theonomic Ethics.” The Forerunner. Accessed December 5, 2007. <http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0518_vantil.html>

Schaeffer, Francis. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester: Crossway. 1981.

[notes toward a theory of art]

Metaphysics Chart:
(in other words, a chart representing what is)

Creation // God
||
The World // Man
||
Nature // Culture

[wolf // dog]

[forest // park]

[landscape // landscaping, landscape painting]

Where “// ” represents an antithesis,  “||” represents a subdivision, and what is in brackets “[]” is a concrete example. In sentence form:
Whatever is not God is Creation; whatever in Creation is not Man is The World; whatever in The World is not Culture is Nature. God is distinguished from Creation by His aseity and its contingency; Man is distinguished from The World by the imago Dei; Culture is distinguished from Nature by Man’s creative action upon the stuff of Nature.

I believe this consideration of what exists undermines “Art” as an ontological category. To divide artifacts of Culture into “Art” and “Non-art” is a spurious distinction. The artist and the engineer are both culture-makers, and airplanes may have beauty just as sculptures may have function. The Aesthetic is rather a hermeneutical-ethical aspect, a set of lenses through which we perceive an object to determine a specific meaning and value. Every piece of culture, from a rubbish bin to the Mona Lisa, has an aesthetic meaning and value, but some objects have more aesthetic value than others. Aesthetic meaning and value are based on the criteria of harmony (relation of parts to whole and form to content) and surprise (or nuance). For these criteria I am indebted to Herman Dooyeweerd’s Theory of Modal Aspects in his New Critique of Theoretical Thought, and I am generally indebted to Henry Van Til for his Calvinistic Concept of Culture.

[total war]

So often I confute the Spirit/flesh conflict that Paul talks about with a Greek idea of spirit versus body. That was the error of the Gnostics in the first century church! (Think about this: If Spirit versus flesh means spirit versus body, then Paul is talking nonsense when he speaks of “spiritual bodies” in 1 Cor. 15.) I make sanctification into a process of my mind’s high reason mastering my body’s low passion… which is a deadly simplification. The reality is that the corruption of sin extends much deeper than just bodily desires. My reason, will, and affections are, apart from Christ, just as corrupt as my bodily senses. There are sanctified, “spiritual” bodily desires, like that of a husband for his wife, and there are fleshly desires, like lust for a woman not your wife. There are spiritual affections, like the “joy inexpressible and full of glory” that Peter talks about (see Jonathan Edwards for more on that), and there are fleshly ones like the anxiety against which Paul warns in Philippians 4. And there is godly reasoning that recognizes the fear of the Lord as the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7), and there are “arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5).

And all of these reside in me. “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Rom. 7:24-25)

Jesus paid the penalty for all my sins–sins of reason, emotion, and cupidity. And he broke the power of sin, even though it still abides in me in this life, so that my outer man, the fleshly man, is wasting away, and my inner man, quickened by the Holy Spirit, is being renewed day by day. So I can be confident to go after my sin in total war, on every front fighting in the power of the Spirit.

So with reference to this truth, I’m going to post a couple of things from my Art, Emotion, and Morality class on the blog–because Christian scholarship is spiritual warfare.

[the five points of politics]

I recently wrote a research paper for a class in religion and politics entitled “Toward an Evangelical Politics: Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, and Beyond.” The worldview theory of Kuyper and Schaeffer really helped me toward defining my own political philosophy. What follows is the final section of my paper, the personal conclusions I drew. And as a good Calvinist, I offer it in five points, with an acronym you might recognize…

Theonomy: An Evangelical politics must embrace theonomy in its understanding of law. Abraham Kuyper calls for a subjective theonomy in the Lectures: “God’s Word must rule, but in the sphere of the state only through the conscience of the persons invested with authority.” (“Politics” 104) However, in our post-Christian culture there is very little of God’s Word in anyone’s conscience, let alone the politicians’. The “hard theonomy” of the Christian Reconstructionists, wherein the Old Testament law is adopted as the law of the land with its prescribed punishments, except where specifically superceded by the New Testament, seems to stray too far in the other direction. It smacks of theocracy. (Rogers) Francis Schaeffer’s “soft theonomy” has the constitutional law of the land resting consciously on Scripture as an unchanging standard of justice and right. This position maintains the Evangelical tension between the absolute authority of Scripture and the separation of church and state. It is also in line with the teaching of John Calvin himself. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin calls the idea of rule by the totality of the Mosaic Law “perilous and seditious,” but he affirms that the law of the land must rest on the “moral law,” which he boils down to the principles of charity and equity. The eternal standard of the moral law prevents destructive sociological law:
“But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.” (Institutes 910)
Under this conception, justice, ethics, morality, and religious conviction are inseparable. Evangelicals have the right and duty to continue to push for legislation on ‘moral’ issues like abortion and gay rights as the highest priority, because they undermine the very foundation of state authority, which rests in just law.

Uncompromised principles: An Evangelical politics must be principled, not pragmatic. This is a direct result of embracing a theonomic concept of law. A denial of Scriptural authority is concomitant to denying legislative goals that are directly based on God’s moral law. According to J. Budziszewski, the confession of biblical authority is the theological distinctive of Evangelicals. (“Evangelicals” 20) So a move like Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani effectively forfeits one’s status as an Evangelical.

Limited Sovereignty: An Evangelical politics must limit the sovereignty of the state by proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God and recognizing sovereignty within individual spheres. Proclaiming the ultimate sovereignty of God ensures that Evangelicals know the basic presupposition on which their politics is founded and creates a bottom line past which subjection to the state is no longer good or right. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 126-127) It seems from the Genesis account that Scripture recognizes at least four spheres, with separate sovereignties implied by the separate institutions of society (Gen. 1:26-28), family (Gen. 2:23-24), church (Gen. 4:26), and state (Gen. 9:5-6). Applying this principle would require the government to retract its authoritative position in areas like education, as in the Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind Act. Schaeffer writes, “[I]f the United States is to move back toward the original Reformation basis, this would mean severely limiting the scope of Federal State authority.” (Manifesto 114) In fact, it would mean a very nearly libertarian conception of federal authority. Evangelicals should seek constitutional amendments specifically delineating societal spheres and denying the state sovereignty therein. Evangelicals must also determine how the sphere sovereignty doctrine would apply on an international level. It precludes ceding state sovereignty to international organizations like the U.N. and prohibits an interventionist foreign policy, both as violations of the sovereignty of individual nations.

Identification with Christian heritage: An Evangelical politics must make explicit the historically demonstrable connection between Reformation Christianity and liberty. Both Kuyper and Schaeffer go to great lengths to show the direct correlation between the degree of ‘reformation’ and the degree of freedom in Northern Europe and the United States. Kuyper locates the democratizing effects of Calvinism in its Presbyterian polity (“Religion” 63) and doctrine of unconditional election. (“Art” 166) Evangelicals should point unbelievers to the oppressive public squares of France and Turkey as ample proof that secular humanism does not lead to freedom, but tyranny. Even those who do not share the Christian worldview should welcome, rather than abhor, a Christian state because a Christian state alone provides a stable guarantee of freedom. An Evangelical politics must not compel belief or establish a state church, but it must of necessity preserve freedom of expression in the public square to maintain evangelistic efforts. (Schaeffer, Manifesto 136-137).

Plan for action: An Evangelical politics must provide a comprehensive strategy for achieving its goals on all fronts. Recognizing that Evangelicals are in a battle of opposing total worldviews, the fight must be taken to every sphere of life. Ethical personal living, raising strong families, theologically-informed art and science, petition, litigation, civil disobedience, running for political office, proposing legislation, production in every academic field—all of these must be practiced if Evangelicals take Kuyper and Schaeffer’s worldview theory seriously. Unfortunately, this is where neither Kuyper, nor Schaeffer, nor this paper can take us any further. Delineating strict action in these spheres would rise above a foundation and begin to define a total Evangelical politics, even a comprehensive Christian philosophy—a monumental work that waits for another scholar and another day.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” John 16:13
Sources:

Budziszewski, J. “Evangelicals in the Public Square,” in Evangelicals in the Public Square, Budziszewski, et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, tr. Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 2002. <http://www.ccel.org/download.html?
url=/ccel/calvin/institutes.pdf>
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943.

Rogers, Jay. “Van Tillian Presuppositional Theonomic Ethics.” The Forerunner. Accessed December 5, 2007. <http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0518_vantil.html>

Schaeffer, Francis. A Christian Manifesto. Westchester: Crossway. 1981.