18 February 2018

A Clash of Protestant Intellectual Traditions and Metanarratives (Part 2 of 2)

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: