Unlike the Theonomists who have chosen to ignore a
significant portion of Post-Reformation history, most Protestants and Europeans
in general emerged from the 17th century with a profound realisation
that Confessionalism was not going to work as a basis for Ecclesiastical
Establishment. England (in part) fought a war over this and in the end decided
for Establishment and Social
Pluralism. The Nonconformists were not granted full status and rights until the
19th century and after but they were at least tolerated. Just because that term has been abused does not mean it
should be dispensed with. It is a noble and even Biblical concept (1 Cor
5.9-12).
Once again at this point it must be emphasised that Social Pluralism must not be confused
with Theological Pluralism. The
former concept believes in a society that tolerates dissent and difference of
opinion and is willing to deal with the conflict and confusion that will necessarily
engender. Theological Pluralism is a heresy in which the exclusive claims of
Christianity are rejected and other religions are granted not just social
equality (which is proper) but absolute equality and validity. This view
largely embraced by Mainline denominations completely undermines the
foundations of the Gospel and leads to apostasy.
Ball and the Theonomists have no time or interest in such
arguments or categories. They whole-heartedly reject Social Pluralism and there
are some micro-factions among them that are still arguing the 17th
century and separating over minor points of difference in this regard. A few
tiny and overtly heretical factions have extended the attack on Social
Pluralism from the realm of ideas to even that of race and tribe. But I
digress.
The British arrangement was one thing and it was less than
perfect even on a practical level. But Central Europe was something else
entirely. Non-unified states and impossibly complex political structures made
such relatively cut-and-dry arrangements impossible. They tried for a time to
make the state religion tied to the local ruler (Cuius regio, eius
religio or whose realm, his religion) but this
didn't work. After the Thirty Years War (1618-48) many of the official
arrangements were maintained, but increasingly and within a relatively short
time forms of free thought were tolerated as thinkers and theorists sought to
construct new polities and systems by which society could be organised and
certainty achieved. Sadly, Protestant Sacralism, the outcome of the Magisterial
Reformation all but destroyed the credibility of Sola Scriptura and rendered
(if not reckoned) it as practically untenable. A covenantal concept, it was
never meant to be applied (Sacral fashion) to society as a whole. Lamentably
its social defeat and irrelevance played out in the thought and theology of the
Church. Those who sought zealously to glorify God in promoting Scripture, by
grossly misusing it... all but decimated its testimony. Their heirs, men like
Ball have perpetuated this legacy.
Many
believed that part of the Protestant task was to break with the Medieval order.
Liberalism or more properly Classical Liberalism was born and with it many of
the ideas taken for granted today. Are capitalism, democracy and civil rights
rooted in Scripture? No, they're not, even though many have tried (sometimes painfully)
to extract them from the text. But for those advocating this position, these
views along with Social Pluralism are necessary outcomes, indeed
improvements on the previous manifestation of Christendom. They are legitimate
because they are philosophically derived (good and necessary) outworkings and
consequences of Christian philosophy and theology.
Like
Ball I reject this narrative but for different reasons. I would argue the
Biblicist position. Ball is arguing from the standpoint of a different form of
philosophical systematics and from a different narrative. He thinks Social
Pluralism is a bad thing, White thinks it a good thing.
I too
think it a good thing but probably for reasons very different than White. I
don't view it as an ideal but as something practical and desirable for that
reason alone. Pluralism allows the Church to flourish. The Church is always a
relatively small number and due to its antithesis vis-à-vis the world and its
pilgrim status it will always live out the reality of being aliens and
second-class citizens. Thus under this reality pluralism is the best we can
hope for, even if it is also tolerant of wickedness. This accords with Paul's
teaching in 1 Corinthians 5, Romans 12-13 and elsewhere.
White
might argue from what he believes is a Christian position that Pluralism is a
good thing in and of itself and that the principle is a proper
outworking and application of Christian theology. Under such thinking, usually
combined with the Christian-America narrative most Evangelicals embrace,
someone like White could put forward the notion that Pluralism is sacred and
the process itself is sacrosanct.
Again I
don't agree. Ball would have Christians take over the government and
effectively legislate Christianity... in other words impose it through
violence, using the police and the courts to punish and break those who resist.
Since he
is running for governor, White also believes in Christians using the coercive
violence of state power but he would probably rather see Christian influence in
the form of social consensus, a concept that resonates with the values
and ideals of democracy. I'm guessing he would rather see homosexuality wane
not through legislation enforced by men with badges and guns but through its
decline and unpopularity. White and many other Evangelicals believe in a
Christian State but not one that is institutionalised like a Theonomist but one
born of democratic consensus, soft power, cultural influence and perhaps even
through forms of revivalism.
The
differences between Ball and White are real and yet they're not as far apart as
Ball would have it. From my standpoint as an outsider they're far closer than
they realise. They're just flip-sides of the same coin, both representing
different philosophical traditions and meta-narratives within the Western
Protestant tradition.
Both are
wrong, both have failed to understand the New Testament and its teachings
regarding the Kingdom of God.
And yet
Ball's views and opinions will resonate with many. This is frustrating because
I think he has failed to understand the origins of his own thought, the driving
impulses, intellectual impetus and pedigree of Evangelicalism, the motivating
forces within the PCA and certainly what the different Two Kingdom camps
represent.
The
article is in that respect a gross misrepresentation and I think it's important
readers understand this and why. Ball has legitimate criticisms of White and
yet I think Ball can also be criticised. Both can lay claim to legitimate
strains of the Conservative Protestant tradition. Of course many theological
liberals would simply say, why stop at the 19th century? Their
syncretistic thought goes further and not only proved willing to adopt and
embrace further social development but their commitment to epistemological
revision and science led them to reject the Bible or rather to re-cast it as a
different type of book... perhaps supernatural but ahistorical, or for others
little more than a chapter in human development and ethics. For them the Bible
is but a part of a larger Western philosophical and religious canon.
Of
course much that passes for science (including a great deal of geology,
astrophysics, archaeology and textual criticism) is something less than actual
science which inherently possesses real limitations and restrictions. Certainly
the Mainline Church's embrace of Scientism represents nothing less than
a complete apostasy. And yet, many early Protestant thinkers (and not a few
today) have confused Science with Christian epistemology and theology. They
believe Science is at one with the Bible and the drive to investigate and
experiment resulted from Christian impulse and epistemology. Again I disagree
but will admit they have a point. Like the culture at large, they started a
boulder rolling that quickly got away from them. Others rode the boulder and
are still riding it even as it has plunged off a cliff.
Leaving
the liberals aside, White can lay claim to a legitimate heritage and
development of Conservative (Traditional) Protestant theology. That is not
necessarily the same as Confessional. Additionally, not everyone embraces the
criticisms of Van Til and even fewer accept the cultural analysis and
evaluation of someone like Rushdoony. White could just as easily point to
someone like Ball and charge him with being an innovator or even heterodox.
White could argue Ball's rejection of Classical Liberalism is little more than
a return to Medievalism... a betrayal of the tradition.
Ball
also ignores the revisions to the Westminster Confession in the wake of the
American Revolution. I'm sure he would condemn them but certainly many of the
revered names in American Presbyterianism accepted these changes and believed
they were Biblical.
I have
no stake in the Presbyterian narrative. I'm not a Presbyterian and I believe
the Westminster Confession (as fine as it is) contains many errors and is in
fact foundationally flawed in its purpose and method.
But for
those who accept the Confession, its assumptions, its method and its history
are forced to ask – who gets to claim that they represent the 'real'
Confessional Presbyterian tradition?
For me
the answer is all too simple. They're both wrong. The question is wrong. The right
questions and answers are found in the Scripture.
It's
troubling though. Some are talking about bringing up White on charges of Church
discipline. Assuming for a moment the validity of their political embrace, they
would outlaw any affiliation with the DNC. Why? The reasons are many but in
this case they can use the abortion trump card. White has stood reasonably firm
on the issue of homosexuality but when it comes to abortion he seems willing to
acquiesce. His enemies will use this point to attack him both politically and
ecclesiastically.
How can
White say that the law is settled and that as governor he's not going to try
and undermine it? Isn't that just acquiescence and defeat? It could be, but I
think another view is more likely. If Classical Liberalism is viewed as part of
the Protestant heritage and if the democratic process and the Constitution are
viewed as legitimate, then a great deal of reverence and respect is granted to
these institutions and processes. I don't agree with this view at all
but it has its own logic.
American
Constitutional jurisprudence is viewed as sacrosanct and there are some who are
very disturbed by the way in which it is undermined by activists and those who
utilise loopholes to defeat the spirit of the law. They view such tactics as
compromising the integrity of the legal system and reveal not just contempt for
the process, for the ideals of democracy but even for the law itself.
The
so-called Pro-Life movement has been unable to overturn Roe v. Wade and
in fact in terms of stare decisis they don't have much of a case. The
original decision was 7-2 and its challenges have also failed. But what they
have done is through various guises sought to undermine the law. They've
attacked it from multiple angles and frankly through subterfuge and some rather
disingenuous tactics they have rendered the law practically difficult to
support and have undermined it to the point of its near collapse. Pretending to
care about things like the right of privilege to practice at a local hospital,
building codes, equipment requirements, the diminishing of the black race and
the like, they have forced many abortion clinics to shut down.
This is
part of the larger story with regard to the horrible situation of the clinic in
Philadelphia. Officials looked the other way because it was increasingly
becoming impossible for a woman to get an abortion. And in looking the other
way they let a rather sick and twisted man exacerbate an already immoral and
murderous reality.
Abortion
is murder but the Pro-Life movement is not Pro-Life, it's pro-power. There are
some in the movement who very sincerely care about the lives of the unborn. But
I've never believed that's what the movement is all about. They bend over
backwards to get impoverished Black women to keep their babies and then as soon
as the child is born they trash on them and treat them like the scum of the
earth and do all they can to deprive them of hope and opportunity. They profess
to be Pro-Life and yet support and profit from a system that exploits the poor
at home and abroad, steals resources and whole nations and has waged an endless
campaign of political violence, repression and bombing since the end of World
War II. The American system is Murder Inc. on a grand and international scale
and until the Pro-Life Christian Right comes to grips with that, they have
little moral ground upon which to stand.
I don't
know where White is coming from and I don't mean to defend him but I also grow
weary of disingenuous, misguided and ill-informed attacks on those who dare to
hint the Christian Right might be off base. Realistically as governor there's
little he can do about the law regarding abortion. Some restrictions can be
legislated but in the end it is a federal issue. GOP politicians running for
almost insignificant offices always tout their anti-abortion credentials.... as
if they had anything to do with it. It's a constitutional question and it will
be ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court. A congressman or even a governor
is not going to change that.
Now
White could join the campaign of undermining the law but as I said he might
look askance at such efforts as ultimately being more harmful to the country
and to the integrity of the law itself. In the meantime he (I'm guessing) wants
to earn credibility in his pragmatism, reasonableness and smart governance that
will lift up the poor and create social conditions in which abortion fades away
due to lack of demand. I'm guessing White is taking the long view and wants to
see a restored social consensus. A strong and moral government (so some
believe) is established on universal principles, in other words ideas and
processes that apply at all times, in all places and to all people. I don't
accept this but understand those who claim to believe it. They would build a
government that they believe stands for these principles. Governing through ostentatious
coercion, sleight-of-hand tricks and political jabs will in the end undermine
the system itself.
As far
as discipline goes, again I reject the whole mindset of political Christianity.
But if White is guilty for allying with abortionists, what about those
supporting Trump? What about all the professed Christians in the GOP who
support him? What about the pastors who have praised and endorsed Trump from
the pulpit and in their teachings? They have allied with a thief, adulterer and
whoremongering rapist. Trump is wantonly avaricious, railing, bellicose and
baneful, an overt criminal and patently anti-Christian man and yet since it's
in the cause of the GOP... apparently all is well.
I think
Franklin Graham should have been brought up on Church Discipline for supporting
Trump, promoting heresy and participating in the blasphemous and obscene
inauguration and yet no one suggested that. And yet people are going to get
worked up about PCA elder Andrew White running for governor on the Democratic
ticket?
In the
end White and Ball both represent misguided and erroneous understandings of the
New Testament doctrine of the Kingdom. Neither of them are Biblical in their
outlook and yet from the standpoint of Magisterial Protestant Sacralism both
can make an argument. There are lessons to learn for all in this clash of
Sacralisms, this tragedy of ironies and errors.
See also: