Yes, politics again. This is part two of a very brief, whet-your-appetite-for-further-study series on how to begin answering political questions from the biblical, Reformed perspective. Here, we introduce our approach to defining government and addressing a Christian’s political responsibilities.
Nov 1, 2006
Toward a Reformed Political Ethic - Part Two
Running time: (not available)
Topics:
politics state (the)
More Sinners & Saints episodes »
Subscribe to the Sinners & Saints podcast with RSS or iTunes.
Subscribe to this post with RSS.
5 comments so far
Aug 10, 2007Pat #
Good podcast! I definitely agree with you guys. I have one thing I’d add to what you already said. While government’s main role is to protect life, liberty and property, I think it’s legitimate for government to also provide for certain public services that it can do better than private industry. A good example would be the road systems. Also, on a more local level, libraries, parks and schools. While I don’t think government is *required* to provide these things, I think it’s not going against God for it to provide some of these basic services.
Basically, what I’m saying is that the Bible doesn’t require us to be hardcore libertarian/anarcho-capitalists.
In fact, I think one can hold to some very “liberal” political ideas and still be a very good evangelical christian (like a high minimum wage, for instance). That doesn’t mean that’s necessarily a good idea or not, but it’s not contrary to scripture or christian theology.
I think it’s really sad that christians would object to what you are saying in this podcast. But I have seen it myself. In particular I’ve seen Michael Horton, Kim Riddlebarger and Lee Irons be viciously attacked for saying the same thing. What’s ridiculous is that a lot of the attackers assume they must be closet liberals, when in reality a lot of these people are very politically conservative. They just don’t believe the Bible requires us to adopt those views.
Anyway, keep up the good work! I’ve been really enjoying your podcast.
Oct 2, 2007Alan Roebuck #
Dear “Sinners and Saints” Gang:
I’m on board with what I take to be your main point (or one of your main points): that the way to “cultural renewal” is through persuasion, rather than political action aimed at influencing the leviathan of government to swing his sword the way we want him to.
But when you discuss same-sex marriage, I cannot fully agree with you. You appear to be saying that Christians (and others) ought not petition the government to outlaw same-sex marriage.
But Homosexuals already have the de facto right to same-sex marriage, and this right is either supported or not openly opposed by the vast majority of Americans. Therefore, the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage is actually for the purpose of officially legitimizing homosexuality, not for securing a right homosexuals already possess. And if same-sex “marriage” is instituted by statute, then those of us who oppose the legitimization of homosexuality will no longer have the right to do so openly.
You said that one proper response of Christians to same-sex marriage would be to tell our children that even though it is legal and even celebrated, homosexuality is still sinful in God’s eyes. Yes, that is what we need to say about quite a few activities that occur nowadays, but this is an inadequate response. Following the ratification of same-sex marriage, the state will declare it illegal to teach our children the truth about homosexuality. This is necessitated by the logic of same-sex marriage: since its entire purpose is to legitimize homosexuality, dissent (sooner or later) will not be tolerated.
Therefore, in a properly-ordered society, the government ought to use its power to oppose the evil of declaring homosexuality to be legitimate. There is a legitimate debate over what the scope of government action ought to be, but the principle seems clear: An attack on something as fundamental to human life as marriage and procreation must be opposed by more than just individuals attempting to persuade other individuals.
Yes, it is a dreadful spectacle when the government intervenes so fundamentally in the lives of its citizens. But such is the nature of war. We traditionalists did not instigate this cultural war; we had it thrust upon us. And when you are attacked, you need to defend yourself.
The leftists are experts at manipulating the machinery of government so that it uses its sword on their behalf; we have to defend our position with whatever weapon is necessary to achieve the proper result. If the only way to halt the official legitimization of a sin of such fundamental importance to our society is to use the government, then that is what we should do.
Long term, of course, a banning of same-sex marriage will not stand without a parallel effort to persuade people to acknowledge what used to be acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of the members of western civilization: that homosexuality is a serious transgression (using non-religious language). Persuasion is necessary. But it isn’t sufficient.
Oct 17, 2007Rev. Adam Kaloostian #
The position we took in the podcast weighs broader consequences of advocating such laws against the possible eventuality raised in the recent comment (losing the legal right to tell ourselves, our children, and our neighbors the truth), and decides one way of dealing with the problem may be worse than the other.
However, this is exactly the kind of debate that should be welcome among those with the common concern. Thoroughgoing discussions of the best and right application of God’s natural law principles in the political arena are necessary, though probably not here. . .but of course we did do some of that in the show!
We “went there” to challenge the idea that taking such a position categorically equates with sinful, political passivism. Whether or not or how those who agree that homosexuality is sinful and destructive advocate legal restraint/opposition of same-sex “marriage” is a question of political strategy, not (necessarily) of principle; and certainly not of theological conviction and principle.
Oct 29, 2007Steve Hunt #
This was a very excellent discussion Pastors. I would agree with 99 percent of what you have concluded, and as a self-professing so-called theonomist, I’ve been forced to redefine how I perceive that term in light of political discussions and actions thanks to your pointed discussions here. I will just outline in brief what I feel has been overlooked.
The main point I feel you’ve established here:
THE NATURAL LAW PRINCIPLE: (Romans, mandates to Adam, about Caine, to Noah, etcetera.)
The civil magistrate is to protect Life, Liberty (person), and Property.
The civil magistrate is given the sword to promote righteousness and right wrongs, or punish evil.
(And then I feel you’ve correctly rebuked the popular definition of “theonomy” which I won’t go into again.)
THEREFORE:
Wouldn’t this “natural law’, from a Christian’s perspective, really be, God’s law for the civil magistrate?
AND:
Wouldn’t this make a Christian holding this position by definition, a “theonomist” in the realm of politics, in that he is trying to respect and apply this mandated law of God to politics?
AND:
Why would Pastor Adam subtly refer to you as a Christian holding this position, as one who is “advancing principles that YOU like”? I thought we were talking about principles that God likes, and more, that God has MANDATED for the civil magistrates.
AND:
Why would Pastor John have to put all of this into proper perspective with some friendly “pastoral advice” stating that we should not “over prioritize” this facet of life? Can we really over prioritize a mandate from our Lord?
Is it possible to over prioritize “thou shalt not commit adultery”? Should I as a Christian husband have this kind of attitude about this command and thus, about my relationship with my wife, and with my respect for what the Lord has said? After all, preaching the Gospel is much more of a priority than whether or not I commit adultery, right? I mean, why should I put such an emphasis on this one little thing?
Of course I am being sarcastic, but doesn’t this make my point?
Especially, even as I have heard pastor Adam state repeatedly, given the enormous significance the political realm has in the lives of both individuals and the Church? Not to mention the family. And not to mention, Life, Liberty, and Property which just so happen to encompass all of the above which just so happen to be the total essence of anything at all that is important to both the Church and to God, let alone the unbelieving world.
Nov 21, 2007Rev. Adam Kaloostian #
Responding to the previous post . . .
“Wouldn’t this “natural law’, from a Christian’s perspective, really be, God’s law for the civil magistrate?” – We think what you are asking is whether or not we believe that God requires the civil magistracy to conform itself to the kind of government we propagated in these shows. The answer is yes.
“[Then] Wouldn’t this make a Christian holding this position by definition, a “theonomist” in the realm of politics, in that he is trying to respect and apply this mandated law of God to politics?” — Only if you want to redefine the popular use of the term “theonomist.” We have no care to change the way the term is popularly used, we just reject it altogether, and we do not want to be associated with its ideas. Theonomy does not respect and properly apply God’s law to politics.
“Why would Pastor Adam subtly refer to you as a Christian holding this position, as one who is “advancing principles that YOU like”? (I thought we were talking about principles that God likes, and more, that God has MANDATED for the civil magistrates)” — You misinterpreted the subtle tone in the quote you referenced. It reflects the fact that many of our fellow citizens do not and will not affirm these ideas (though they should); you can almost hear them saying, “but these are just the principles that YOU like”). This should make us all the more careful to appear credible to them, as much as it depends on us, by having our lives in order.
“Why would Pastor John have to put all of this into proper perspective with some friendly “pastoral advice” stating that we should not “over prioritize” this facet of life? Can we really over prioritize a mandate from our Lord?” – Yes we can “over-prioritize” this mandate from our Lord, in at least this sense: We can have the unreasonable expectation that the totally depraved ‘society at large’ will find these ideas good and plausible, which leads some of us to despair and subsequent neglect of obedience to God’s laws of personal piety that we do have control over (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:10-11, 1 Timothy 2:2). Our possible influence in bringing about society/government’s obedience to this mandate is far more limited than our influence in bringing about our own obedience to “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
We can overestimate the ultimate “significance the political realm has in the lives of both individuals and the Church.” Yes, under oppressive governing, the family, the church, and the individual get kicked in the teeth, and this is very bad (this is what you hear Pastor Adam talking about). But we must see with the eyes of faith. In this redemptive-historical age, we are called providentially many times to win by losing. And we may do so joyfully, knowing the glorification is coming, as the apostles did, singing Psalms even while locked in stocks.