It must be granted the appeal to different understandings of law and its implications for Kingdom thinking by Evans is rather astute and is worthy of more reflection – but that's a question of historical theology and while interesting, is of a secondary importance. In terms of the question of Law vis-à-vis the New Testament, the Lutheran Law/Gospel paradigm is certainly artificial and forced, an outworking of the school's absolutising of Sola Fide – to the detriment of other aspects of soteriology, in particular sanctification. The Reformed understanding is more nuanced and remains a point of contention – different camps understanding it in different ways. There certainly is a case to be made (and one badly needed!)for a Law-Gospel distinction in terms of Redemptive History, but this is not the same as the Lutheran attempt to relegate all New Testament imperatives to a contrived category of law.
Regardless, the three-fold division of the law as expressed
in the Westminster tradition is also artificial and driven by philosophical
inference not exegesis. It too must be rejected as unscriptural and the
implications of this are far reaching. Nowhere does the Scripture warrant such
a parsing of the Mosaic Covenant which stands or falls as a unit. One of the
fundamental problems surrounding the discussion is the term nomos/law as it
means different things in different contexts. Westminster exacerbates its
already Judaizing tendencies as it presses questions the New Testament doesn't
ask and therefore is forced to extrapolate conclusions and paradigms the
apostolic writings do not support – in order to maintain the integrity of its
paradigm.
Southern Presbyterianism certainly (and cynically) emphasized
the 'Spirituality of the Church' as a cover for chattel slavery but Evans
misses a more crucial historical point in the history and theology surrounding
this issue – that of the Confessional revision of 1789, which changed and in
many respects eliminated the role of a Constantinian-inspired magistrate. Such
a paradigm was not possible under the newly created American federalist order
which forbade an Established Church and breaking with fourteen-hundred years of
Constantinian history, introduced the seeds of Separation of Church and State.
Under such an order, either the Confessional Presbyterians would be forced to
take an antagonistic dissenting posture (as maintained by groups like the
RPCNA) or they would need to change the position – and change they did.
It should also be noted that while the mammon-inspired Rebellion
of 1776 was sinful, the end result, the revolutionary break with
Constantinianism could be viewed as a net positive. But at the same time, the Enlightenment
values of Classical Liberalism as expressed by the Founders are incompatible
with New Testament Christianity and ethics, and introduced a new danger, a new
opportunity for syncretised thought and epistemological corruption. This is in
fact what occurred and we're still dealing with the fallout even to the present
hour as many American Christians have come to erroneously equate the Revolution
and its values with that of Christianity – even though historically the
Revolution marked a sharp break with the Constantinian tradition. History is
indeed stranger than fiction.
Like the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, the
1789 revision to the Westminster Confession introduced fundamental changes to
the nature of the document – introducing and creating dynamics and even
contradictions that have not yet been reconciled. For the record, US
Constitutional law hasn't done much better.
Changing the doctrine and role of the magistrate has generated
reverberations across the entire spectrum of confessional theology – affecting questions
of law, covenant, Kingdom, ethics, and the like. The Westminster California
variety of Two Kingdoms has picked up on this and used it to gain traction,
also building on Kuyper's doctrinal innovations with regard to sphere
sovereignty and pillarisation which (like its close cousin Catholic Social
Teaching) were generated by the crisis of post-revolutionary cultural and
political life. Catholicism is wrestling with similar dynamics as it tries to
find a balance between both its social teaching and Integralism – and still
extant arguments for a return to Throne and Altar paradigms.
Westminster California has created a synthesis of Lutheran
Kingdom views, the Westminster-American revision, and Kuyperian thought along
with significant influence from the likes of thinkers like Kline and Van Til.
Contrary to the arguments of Evans and others, it is well
within the spectrum of Reformed doctrine and yet in historical-theological
terms would qualify (to some degree) as a form of revision – at least when
compared with the larger British Reformed tradition which existed up to the
period of the eighteenth century revolutions. The traditionalist Reformed view
has been thoroughly sacralist and transformational, a point the Escondido
theologians are not always quick or keen to admit. And so Evans is partly right
on this point, though not as conclusively as he might wish as he oversimplifies
both the theology and historical lineage/precedent for the Escondido Two
Kingdoms view.
In terms of Biblical argument, the Reformed view must be
rejected but especially the historical-traditional view advanced by Evans and
expressed in the Westminster Confession. It does not accord with the teaching
of Christ or the apostles on multiple points and therefore is incompatible with
New Testament Christianity. The consensus he speaks of is found among
theologians of this flawed school and the silencing he speaks of is a straw man
at best. Christians condemn the sins of society whether it be feminism or
sodomy, communism or capitalism – or even democracy, nationalism, and the
Enlightenment values and assumptions of the US Constitution and its foundations
in Classical Liberalism. But our condemnations are in keeping with New
Testament and Early Church examples – they are not politically motivated nor do
they translate into political action, political resistance, or revolution. The
New Testament Church rejects the regime of the sword and coin and therefore
will always be a marginalised, disenfranchised sect living as a pilgrim-martyr
people. We do not demand rights – we obey Christ and deal with the consequences
of doing so.
For the most part the state (even when Bestial) will leave us
alone if we are truly engaged in the good and charitable works to which we are
called. This is Paul's argument in Romans 13. And yet, there are other times
(as expressed in Revelation) that the heavy hand of the state will cross the
line into coercive idolatry and persecution. We can flee (as Christ exhorts in
Matthew 24) or take up the cross and suffer to the glory of His name. We are
nowhere enjoined to fight, take up arms, or form political alliances with those
who engage in such activities – even if directed against the perceived enemies
of the Church. Once such lines are crossed, the ability to properly discern
such questions is reduced if not obscured. The Reformed tradition represents a
serious departure from Scripture on these critical points.
As far as the question of Earth-Heaven eschatological continuity,
we will assume that Evans doesn't embrace the heretical radical continuity
views expressed by some in Reformed and Neo-Calvinist circles who seem to
conceive of heaven as simply a cleaned up or enhanced version of the fallen
world. One thinks of someone like Tim Keller speaking of investment bankers in
heaven – categories utterly foreign to New Testament conceptions of the Kingdom
– and frankly ridiculous and worthy of pity.
The radical discontinuity we speak of is expressed best by
the likes of Peter when he speaks of this world and all its works being burned
up – and then exhorts the Church to live by an ethic that takes this into
account. Living by such an ethos and imperative places very little stock in
political 'victories' or the quest for power, status, and respect – the old
sword and coin traps introduced within the Church post-Constantine.
We reject and deplore modern attempts to manipulate this
passage – especially those who do so by means of the Critical Text. It must
also be stated (for what it's worth) that those that embrace the Critical Text
have departed from the Westminster tradition and its 'pure in all ages'
understanding of providential preservation. It is but one point among many that
demonstrates how subjective, arbitrary, and even cynical are the readings and
enforcements of the Confessional heritage – once again a question mired in the
mammon-driven bureaucracies of denominations and institutions.
The transformation of the individual is always represented by
a tension. Christians exist in both an eschatological and temporal state. The
duality present is a result of the Fall and we groan, awaiting the
reconciliation and the ultimate resolution of this unhappy state of affairs.
This will not be resolved through socio-political efforts of the Church (and
whatever hollow victories it seems to bring) or by any polity in this age.
Death has been defeated but must be ultimately defeated and that victory and
resolution only comes with the return of Christ as Judge and the consummation
of the His Holy Kingdom. The New Testament knows nothing of Earthly victory or
transformation in this age and there is no basis to believe that
culture-building (as it were) will be part of the life to come.
The appeal to Romans 8 is a case of non-sequitir. The Romans
passage does not elaborate on the nature of the glory, the manifestation of the
sons of God, or the deliverance from bondage. 2 Peter does, explaining the real
meaning of this age passing away. Two Kingdom advocates have not missed what
the Scriptures teach on these points – it is the One Kingdom
Sacralist-Dominionist views that simply will not accept what the Scriptures
teach – doctrines that show the foolishness and futility of their 'godliness is
gain' project that obsesses in Balaam-fashion with 'minding earthly things'.
We must reject and even resent the implication of cowardice
being implied by Evans regarding those who reject his Judaizing paradigm. Once
again it's not a question of the potential of abuse – it's a question of a
completely different set of ethics and imperatives rooted in a view of the
Kingdom that is at fundamental odds with New Testament teaching. During the
Middle Ages, the underground members of the First Reformation spoke of apostasy
and the fall of the Church and indeed their overall analysis remains entirely
relevant for today. The Reformed tradition is part of this great error and
defection from New Testament teaching and must be rejected.
Sadly, for many in the Reformed camp, the teachings of
Scripture are of secondary importance. As already hinted at, many are motivated
by concerns of Confessional fidelity as this is critical to denominational
trajectories, narratives, and the control of institutions and bureaucracies.
Their greatest concern involves those 'within' their camp that argue for some
other position. For many the Confession functions as a deuterocanonical
authority. The idea that the entire tradition (and the assumptions that
underlie the Confessional project and method) may in fact be wrong on these
critical points is almost beyond their ken – something they struggle to even
entertain. I came to understand this over twenty-five years ago when I attended
a Reformed seminary. I realized then I had no place with them and in particular
the Presbyterian factions of the tradition. I ended up leaving, struggling
along on the fringes of the Westminster California paradigm for a few years, and
then finally came to understand its shortcomings and ultimately turned my back
on the whole tradition. And for Evans as he states in his conclusion it is the
tradition that is paramount, his central concern it would seem. The tradition
is more complicated than he cares to admit and in the end is revealed to be a
distraction, a false path seeking false goals that ultimately risks the
abandonment of New Testament Kingdom theology and ethics.