[five reasons to thank God for john calvin]

Today is the five-hundredth birthday of Reformation pastor and theologian John Calvin. I can think of at least five reasons to thank God for his life and ministry:

5. In the political sphere, Calvin argued for limited government.

I, for my part, am far from denying that the form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David. Institutes, IV.20.viii

4. By writing the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin systematized the teaching of the Reformation. He left us a great example of writing theology that is relentlessly Biblical, not speculative.

3. Calvin’s commentaries on Scripture continue to provide a wealth of insight to students of God’s Word.

2. Calvin’s Geneva gave refuge to English-speaking Protestants during the reign of “bloody Mary.” With the help of Calvin, his successor Theodore Beza, and the Scottish reformer John Knox, these scholars produced the Geneva Bible, the most important translation of the Bible in English before the King James. The Geneva Bible also included many annotations, making it the first “study Bible” of sorts. Bruce Metzger writes,

For about three-quarters of a century the Geneva version was the household Bible of a large section of English-speaking Protestantism. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I alone, seventy editions of it were published. About 150 editions, either of the whole Bible or of the New Testament alone, were printed between 1560 and 1644…In England the Geneva Bible was the version used by Shakespeare, by John Bunyan, by the men of Cromwell’s army, and was brought to America by the Pilgrims and other early settlers, many of whom would have nothing to do with the more “modern” King James version of 1611…In short, it was chiefly owing to the dissemination of copies of the Geneva version of 1560 that a sturdy and articulate Protestantism was created in Britain, a Protestantism which made a permanent impact upon Anglo-American culture.

1. Calvin points us incessantly, in his life and work, to the glory of God. John Piper writes,

“to set before [man], as the prime motive of his existence, zeal to illustrate the glory of God”. I think this would be a fitting banner over all of John Calvin’s life and work – zeal to illustrate the glory of God. The essential meaning of John Calvin’s life and preaching is that he recovered and embodied a passion for the absolute reality and majesty of God.

[musing on government]

John Mark Reynolds has written this pleasant, thoughtful, and wise little musing on government. Enjoy it.

[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.

[the yct carnival and the limits of civility]

My school, Texas A&M, has been in the news lately for a demonstration held by the Young Conservatives of Texas. Our student newspaper, The Battalion, covers the event in this article, and CNN Online even hosted a video. As you can see, the event has caused quite a stir.

The first time, the “Anti-Obama Carnival” invited students to “throw away their nest egg” of retirement savings at a poster of Obama’s face. YCT indicated this was intended as a satirical attack on Obama’s “socialistic, liberal [economic] policies.” (CNN video) The policies, however, were not clearly displayed, and the carnival had the distinct appearance of an ad hominem attack. Lots of people were furious.

YCT responded to some constructive criticism, and a few days later re-worked the carnival. Students now threw their eggs “at a board with Obama’s policies listed on it, and underneath the policies were photos of Obama and other prominent figures of the Democratic Party.” (Battalion article) Despite this re-tooling, the crowd response was just as negative. Based on the Batt article and my own observations, the negative responses seem to fall into two main types:

The first response says, “Well, if all these guys can do is throw eggs at Obama, they must not have much of a counterargument to his economic policies.” This fundamentally misunderstands the obvious purpose of the carnival. It was a stunt, a marketing ploy, an attempt to engage people in conversation, not the conversation itself. Having spoken with YCT chairman Tony Listi at length about political matters before (we’re both University Scholars), I know that he can give a cogent apologia for a freer market than Obama proposes off the top of his head. You may not agree with their arguments, but they have them. These guys are not ignorant.

The second response cries “Foul!” and claims hate, pleads civility and champions respect. Check out the picture in the Batt article. I am all for a civil public discourse, but civility has its limits. It can quickly become opinion suppression if we’re not careful. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean the freedom to only say nice things. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater and abrasive political satire are emphatically not correlative.

Certainly, this means that means that people had the right to virulently protest the Anti-Obama Carnival, too. But even then the only protests mounted were against the style of the carnival, not its substance. Plenty of people were there pleading for a softer rhetoric, but no-one was there vindicating Obama’s fiscal policies. YCT was there saying, “This doesn’t work,” and they were the only ones even attempting to engage the issues and arguments.

This was not the case, however, with YCT’s first iteration of the carnival. Without the policies being the immediate subject of the attack, and Obama himself only by virtue of espousing such policies, the egg-throwing was distasteful. And this, I believe, lost them their audience and doomed the carnival’s second (and clever and cutting and legitimate) iteration.

But the greater issue revealed here is this: Obama has become something of a sacred cow, and that should worry you. Just imagine how different the reaction would be if this was the Young Liberals of Texas chunking eggs at a President Bush poster. Whenever satire is automatically off the table against someone, you should be concerned. If it is politically incorrect to criticize Obama, simply because he is Obama, civility may become a fast track to tyranny.

[barstool economics]

Check out this parable:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20′, declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right’, exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

HT: Doug Wilson, by way of Justin Taylor

[vote as though not voting]

Make much of Jesus by voting as if not voting. Piper here.

[chuck baldwin... sigh]

Hmmm. I’m thinking about voting for Chuck Baldwin in the presidential election. I don’t agree with him on everything (like tarriff policy), and I don’t think he has a chance of winning. But I feel like the Constitution Party may be the only way I can aim my vote in good conscience. What say you?

[obama, mccain, and evangelical voters]

Check out this great discussion between John Mark Reynolds and a friend over at The Scriptorium. The first letter, by Reynolds’ friend, is the most thoughtful Evangelical case for Obama I’ve read. But Reynolds’ refutation I believe is even more cogent, thoughtful, and realistic. Plus, the spirit of the conversation makes it a real blessing to read.

Part 1

Part 2

[what is education?]

Mohler here.

[feminism, patriarchy, and society]

Check out this fascinating post from Dr. Mohler concerning a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s an excerpt:

The effects within the society are psychological as well as demographic, political, and financial. As Longman understands, declining birthrates can also affect what he calls “national temperament.” He attributes the fact that the American voting population has become more conservative in recent years to anxiety over falling birthrates. Beyond this, we must now add the fact that millions of voters, who would have been raised by more liberal parents, were simply never born.

(Emphasis mine.)

[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.

[i'm a ron paul fan]

Lately I’ve gravitated toward Dr. Ron Paul in the presidential race. This post from Hank at Lawn Gospel really encouraged me…