Helm's writings have always been worthwhile, even when I
disagree with him. Provocative and thoughtful, his is a website worth a regular
visit. In this case it was not so much a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.
Instead I read with interest as he delved into the long disputed interpretation
of Augustine's City of God.
What is Augustine's eschatology? Anti-Chiliastic to be sure,
what is his expectation for the Church in this age? How does the Church relate
to the culture and the state? These are questions people still debate even in
the 21st century.
Helm seems to suggest that Augustine holds to what I would anachronistically
identify (in the American context) as the Westminster West (California) view,
which itself is not unrelated to Kuyper's conception of Sphere Sovereignty.
This view of Christ and Culture is not looking for formal Christianisation per
se but instead a culture strongly influenced by and even shaped by
Christianity.
By way of contrast, the Theonomist looks to covenantalise the
land. They look for the formal legislation of dominion theology.
The true Kuyperian is also a dominionist, one who believes
the Kingdom is brought about or at the very least assisted by cultural
endeavours. Man's works are sanctified or so they claim. Yet, they maintain
there is still some degree of antithesis vis-à-vis the state and the world.
Helm believes Augustine is teaching that the state benefits
the Church through the conditions it creates and yet at the same time the
Church benefits the state in its citizenship. This is not entirely at odds even
with an Anabaptist view but of course Augustine goes further and suggests an
active role for Christians in the state, something Anabaptists would heartily
reject.
There are two additional points that need to be considered...
First, The City of God is difficult and disputed.
Amillennialists claim it as their own as do Postmillennialists. This is further
compounded by the fact that in one sense Amillennialists are Postmillennial (in
terms of the Kingdom-Parousia chronology) and yet the two groups define the
Kingdom in different ways and have different expectations in terms of the
Church's 'success' in affecting the course of this age.
Additionally modern Amillennialism is split between those
that hold to Dominion and believe that Common Grace is not just God's means of
restraint but that it creates conditions wherein the world and its culture can
help the Church. They believe that it can essentially assist the Church (unwittingly
to be sure) build the Kingdom (or City) of God. In other words, one faction of
Amillennialists effectively functions as
Postmillennial due to their Dominionism. They just lower the degree of
expected success and are less interested in formally 'Christianising' the
culture.
The other group of Amillennialists, a minority to be sure,
believes Common Grace (if they accept the term) is simply restraint from
absolute evil and abandon. That said, the Church is not to look for any kind of
cultural success in this age nor can culture in any sense be Christian. This
group while non-Chiliastic is actually
(in spirit) closer to the day-to-day ethos of Premillennialism. Its critics
label it as pessimistic. Perhaps that's true with regard to the course of This
Age but like the Premillennialist, this camp looks for victory only in the
Second Coming.
What is the correct reading of Augustine? Not everyone will
agree with Helm's reading of him here. I appreciate the distinction between the
Empirical Church and the Elect, what is often termed Visible and Invisible. But
Helm suggests Augustine's City is the Church Militant, the Elect members of the True Church on earth... not the Visible Church
which is necessarily composed of believers... both true and false. That will
prove controversial. I can think of both Protestants and Roman Catholics who
would disagree with such a reading.
These are deep waters and one's own theological understanding
will likely colour one's interpretation of the North African doctor.
Secondly, Augustine is notoriously inconsistent and his
opinions changed over time. While here he seems to be against
'Christianisation' and even what might be called a full-orbed Sacralism, he
nevertheless is the famous originator of the 'compel them to come in'
argument... one of the great tragedies of Church history. The North African
theologian infamously used the Luke 14 parable as an argument, even a mandate
for the magistrate to use violence (compulsion) to force people into the
Catholic Church.
Augustine was shall we say rather frustrated with the
Donatists who were quite numerous in 5th century North Africa.
His misuse and abuse of the Gospels fomented, bolstered and (to
the minds of many) ratified centuries of persecution and violence in the name
of the Church. Yea, True Christians were persecuted by those that thought they
did God service.
I think what is perhaps most interesting is Helm's argument
that Augustine largely dispenses with a 'meaning of history' narrative. Now to
be fair, Augustine would (rightly) say that history points to the return of
Christ. But in terms of the ups and downs, the rises and falls of men and their
kingdoms... a meaning, a coherent metanarrative (as we might say today) is
absent from Scripture. Historical judgment must be to a large degree...
suspended.
I give a hearty 'amen' to that.
Of course such an understanding immediately dashes the
narratives utilised by the many empires which have haunted Western history as
well as the narrative-driven agenda of the American Christian Right.
One's view of Ecclesiastes comes into play here and probably
to the surprise of no one I find myself having a rather different take on the
book than most Evangelicals. To my mind the message of Ecclesiastes is highly
problematic to the Dominion-builder who seeks to manifest the Holy Kingdom here
on Earth. The history of 'good guys' and 'bad guys', heroes and villains
largely disappears.
If I might digress momentarily I have long contended that
history in time is a story of Beast-heads warring against one another and collaboratively
against Zion, the Holy Remnant Pilgrim People. On a spiritual level, yes, there
is a titanic struggle taking place and yet as we know... the victory has
already been won... but not fully implemented yet. The time is short. The
battle rages on as the enemy and his forces fight on in desperation but they
know it's over. The victory has already been proclaimed... not just by Christ
the Son of God but by the Incarnate Christ, the resurrected Son of Adam. The
new and actual Sons of God have a sure victory and they will stand in judgment
of the gods, the unfaithful angelic rulers of This Age.
The struggles of this age must be contended with, interacted
with and spoken of. But they are not 'our' wars. The heroes of these conflicts
are not 'our' heroes. That which is esteemed in the eyes of the world is
abomination in the sight of God. Winston Churchill, George Washington, Grant
and Lee are not Christian heroes, if heroes at all. Figures such as Richard the
Lionheart, Charlemagne and Constantine are (when examined in light of Scripture)
more servants of the enemy that citizens of Mt. Zion.
Augustine's City of God is to many a philosophy of history,
the triumph of God's City. And yet is that triumph in history as we know it, or
at its end? Is Augustine a Postmillennialist? The apologists for that camp
would certainly say so.
Helm seems to differ.
I side with Helm, but that does not mean I endorse Augustine.
He's a giant in Church History, profound but flawed... and greatly
misunderstood. But always worthy of consideration. Rome calls him a doctor and
saint but largely rejects what he taught. Protestants venerate him and yet in
truth only accept a portion of what he taught. Was he a Protestant? No. He was
a Catholic and yet not entirely Roman Catholic. While the Anabaptists make him
into the great villain of Church history, the Waldensians and figures like Petr
Chelcicky demonstrated more wisdom and respected his teaching and yet with
qualification. Those folks were far too Biblically minded to accept any
teacher. Augustine was one of the great teachers of the Church age and yet even
his teachings were examined in light of Scripture.
The City of God continues to fascinate even in these days of
Christendom's collapse. How many even in our own day equate the decline of the so-called
Christian West with the fall of the Kingdom of God? That error continues to
prevail even as many misguided Christians were shaken by the sack of 'Christian'
Rome some sixteen centuries ago. Augustine provides some remedy and yet his
response was not as Biblical as it might have been.