And though Magisterial Protestantism and modern
Evangelicalism find a great deal of commonality with the historical
Constantinianism of Rome, there are slight differences. Rome is actually more nuanced.
It essentially equates reign and realm but under the auspices of its broad and
extensive tradition it is also able to embrace parallelisms in its
understanding of how the Gospel and Kingdom are manifested in This Age.
Rome's schema surrounding Eden and the Fall is fatally
flawed, a product of philosophical tinkering as opposed to exegesis. Conveniently
it allows for the intellect to remain intact and for free will to function
uninhibited. The model which essentially posits a very low view of sin is
critical to Thomism's appeal to Natural Law and the Roman project to construct
natural theology. This model while possessing significant differences when
compared to modern worldview teaching is at a closer look a case of nuanced as
opposed to substantial difference. Both approaches seek to find a way via
philosophical-theology to wed Christian categories of thought with philosophy,
science and cultural inquiry at large. The approaches and models may differ but
the overall current is more or less the same.
Additionally Rome's clergy-laity distinction is an
extra-Biblical development. As mentioned elsewhere the historical development
of the episcopacy is (while unfortunate) somewhat understandable. It's not too
difficult to see why it happened and why it was accepted and became the basis
for a re-working of New Testament ecclesiology and polity. It is ancient to be
sure and even practical in one sense but at the same time patently unbiblical.
The Reformation certainly recognised the unbiblical nature of
the polity and under the auspices of Vocation and the removal of certain rites
and rituals both Lutheran, Calvinists and even to some degree Anglicans sought
to eradicate the clerical distinction or at least its most radical forms. And
yet despite this the Reformation has actually perpetuated it. Confessional
ecclesiology testifies to this as did the rise of Protestant Scholasticism,
academia, the degree and seminary system as well as the inherent hierarchy
rooted in the various denominations. Under state-church systems it's virtually
necessitated because the clergy are essentially employees and agents of the
state and as such must function within a bureaucracy. But even in the 'free'
Church atmosphere of modern times the denominational-academic system has more
or less perpetuated the clergy-laity distinction.
The key difference is that under Confessional Protestantism
the Kingdom concept is expanded even beyond Rome's already near
all-encompassing socio-cultural-political conceptualisation of the Kingdom. The
Reformation turned all tasks into Kingdom tasks. It sacralised the secular and
turned the baker, soldier, banker and farmer into Kingdom building vocations.
Their daily occupational tasks became acts of worship and expressions of the
Gospel.
Rome at the very least allowed for more nuance in that common
everyday tasks while valid, did not represent the 'high calling' of a holy
life. One could be a baker, banker, soldier and farmer and go to heaven but for
those who really wanted to serve God in earnest, there were higher callings
they could pursue. Not all of these callings were formally 'clerical' and some
I think have forgotten this. Monks for example were not necessarily ordained
members of the clergy. They had taken a type of holy orders but they were not
of the same calibre as the priest or bishop. This is not to defend monasticism
but only to point out yet another example in which the Roman system is able to
accommodate nuance in a way Protestantism is not.
The truth is the New Testament does present the office of
presbyter-bishop (for they are one and the same) as a higher calling. This is
not to say the man holding the office is endowed with some kind of intrinsic or
indelible character that affords him certain powers that others do not possess.
It does not suggest that the man will somehow have a more 'direct line' to
heaven. On the contrary his accountability is in fact higher but I daresay so
are the rewards. It is a special and solemn calling that is quite different
from that of the baker, farmer, soldier or banker... assuming all those are
legitimate vocations for Christians to begin with. I would argue that the
latter two are not. Rome grants them validity but will admit (at times) they
are not the 'best' paths for a Catholic to take. Magisterial Protestantism more
or less argues that in terms of Christ's Kingdom the baker, farmer, soldier and
banker are of equal importance to the Kingdom as the 'pastor' and are in the
end just as important to Christ's work on earth as is the man preaching and
proclaiming God's Word.
Again the New Testament view rejects both Rome and the
Protestant conception of the elder-bishop. There's no hierarchy to be found or
anything that smacks of caste but rather the office is viewed as a blessing, a
gift and of course a great burden. There is greater potential judgment and
accountability for the 'steward of the mysteries', the man of God. Of course
this is something largely meaningless in the context of modern Sola Fide frameworks which are largely
unable to reckon with works being judged, real accountability, the threat of
apostasy and the potential of reward for obedience, even though these concepts
are easily demonstrated in the New Testament.
The Confessional and Evangelical (Protestant) view which
argues that everything from a politician to a banker to a computer programmer
are not only legitimate occupations but equally important kingdom vocations
introduces some real dangers to the Church. This erroneous view of the Kingdom
necessarily must gloss over or even seek to vindicate the host of passions,
motivations and dubious ethics concerned with questions of power, greed (often disguised
as efficiency and stewardship) and other sinful and worldly concerns which
generally speaking fall under consequentialist ethics. The end justifies the
means becomes the guiding principle as misguided Christians seek (contrary to
the imperatives of Christ and the Apostles) to restore and regenerate the vile
and unseemly institutions of this present evil age and the Babel-driven desires
of the world.
This view which is at the heart of The Gospel Coalition's
mission relegates the evangelistic gospel to a secondary position as a means to
end... the greater end being the advancement of the Kingdom of God. But for the
Dominionist, the Kingdom is more or less contiguous and approximate to the
culture and thus The Gospel Coalition along with many of Rome's traditionalist
projects are about one thing... not the Gospel and Kingdom of Jesus Christ but
the restoration, repristination and reconstruction of a specific understanding
of Western Civilisation. The motives are seemingly noble (and quite attractive
to many) but in actuality wrongheaded, misleading and even dangerous. Western
Civilisation (not even their romantic and mythological conceptions of it) was
never the Kingdom of God and was never Christian, nor could it ever be.
For once again it must be stated plainly and proclaimed
loudly that to refer to a nation, culture or civilisation as 'Christian' is to
redefine the Biblical terms and categories. It is to use 'Christian' is a sense
and way that it is never used in the Scriptures. It is to apply categories of
Spiritual regeneration, adoption, justification, sanctification, covenant
relationship to a collective other than
the Church or (out of necessity) redefines
the Church equating it with a larger and different collective defined by
culture and political boundaries.
By definition this is
another gospel. The Gospel Coalition is a coalition formed to advance a gospel
of culture and Western Civilisation. Unfortunately the gospel it represents and
coalesces around is not the Gospel of the New Testament.
Many other occupations are indeed legitimate... there's
nothing wrong with being a farmer or an artisan. You can serve God with all
your life.
But to handle the Word of God, to lead the Church, to
proclaim the Gospel and administer the sacraments is in every way a higher
calling.