https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10922121435868
This podcast typifies the kind of confusion that seems to
reign at the moment in Reformed and Dominionist circles. There is a Theonomic
overlay to the conversation and yet the roundtable discussion is in the end
rendered as something of the absurd – all but pointless. The assumptions of
Theonomy are effectively invoked and yet the overriding ethos of the
participants is that of Libertarianism. The fact that these two approaches are
not only incompatible but antithetical seems to escape them. The topic in
question is whether or not the government has the right or should be able to
impose a regime of licenses and permits. In every case their impulses are
effectively libertarian in their rejection of all such mechanisms – a point we
will return to below. But there are other preliminary issues that must be
considered first.
The Mosaic order was a Theocracy in the true sense. There was
no concept of rights, social contract, or democratic concern. God ruled the
people through his agents such as Moses and then later the kings, and in
another capacity through the prophets, and priests. It's a completely different
type of order and the New Testament reveals that in all aspects it pointed to
Christ and was fulfilled in Him – the Risen King, Eternal Priest, and Final
Prophet.
And while pointing to the Second Adam it was in typological
terms a recapitulation of the First Adam – in the milk and honey paradise of
Eden. And like the First Adam – Old Covenant Israel failed and its ordinances
(which include the so-called 'civil laws') were disannulled by the New Covenant
for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof – and because as mere shadows
they were impotent and only ultimately and truly fulfilled in Christ. The Old
Order could not save, and apart from Christ, it was a ministration of death.
This paradigm has nothing to do with modern republican or democratic states,
the rule of law notwithstanding. Rule of law may exist in both structures but
the polities and their jurisprudence are founded on completely different
concepts – Constitutional law within a Common Law framework has nothing in
common with Theocracy. And here the reference is not to rule by clerics as in
the case of contemporary Iran – but rather the actual rule by God – His very
presence being in the Temple. There is no comparison and those that attempt to
do so can only denigrate the holy and exclusive nature of Old Covenant Israel.
Desiring to honour God they in fact demean Old Covenant revelation and the
Divine Glory it typified.
The podcasters are concerned with the politics of the world
and questions of liberty vs. oppression. These are not concerns in the New
Testament wherein we're told to turn the other cheek, live as pilgrims, seek
the Kingdom that is above, and turn our backs on mammon.
The entire discussion rests on a flawed premise – that of
Dominionism and the assumption that Christians should exercise power in
society. The desire to apply the Bible to this situation is based off good
impulses but unfortunately reveals a lack in understanding when it comes to the
nature of the New Covenant and its cross-focused calling, as well as the nature
of covenant relations – and the fact that the Law given in the context of
covenant cannot be applied to America any more than it could be to the
Philistines, Egypt, or Rome.
Repeatedly throughout the discussion is an appeal to the
effects of the Fall and depravity and how appeals to the state and the exercise
of state power fail to take this into account. Fallen men when given power will
abuse it and thus an empowered state is dangerous and a vehicle for sinful
tyranny. There is some truth to this but Paul deals with it in Romans 13. Far
from outlining a positive view of the state and the delineation and limitation
of its powers he simply states its purpose in terms of Providence – judgment
and the restraint of evil, very much akin to Beast powers like Babylon and Assyria
under the old order. In the new order the Israel of God (the Church) has no
political order, no land grant and so all that's left is living as pilgrims in
the midst of the world's powers. Paul was not concerned about the abusive
tyranny of a ruler like Nero – as his rule was the very context of Paul's
letter to the Romans. Even government under the likes of Nero is better than an
absence of government – and thus the New Testament is no friend to the
presuppositions and hopes of Enlightenment or would-be Theonomic Libertarianism.
Ironically it is the Libertarian view which represents a
serious and perhaps fatal downplaying of sin and its effects and this comes out
repeatedly in their faith in so-called 'free' markets and their assumptions
that man can function in a society that will not fall prey by default to
corruption and the abuse of power. History repeatedly demonstrates that in the
absence of a state the vacuum will quickly be filled by proxies and ad hoc
states such as the regimes of warlords, mafia, or corporations – and it is the latter
that hovers in the background of any discussion of modern capitalist society, a
point these commentators seem to all but miss. Libertarianism is flawed at many
points but at the most basic level it exhibits an impoverished understanding of
the Edenic Fall and its effects and just how wicked and depraved man is unless
he is restrained.
The libertarian ethos works only in a frontier type situation
– low population, accompanied by virtually endless land and resources. And even
then, they tend to exhibit a highly romanticised view of what that world was
actually like, not to mention its temporary nature. And given how these groups
tend to lament drops in population, it demonstrates how little do they
understand that more people and greater population density will require even more
rules and regulation. I do not get the impression that these people can even
conceive of the sociological complexities involved in modern metropolitan
settings.
And once again – it can't be said enough, the premise of the
discussion and its concerns are without standing vis-à-vis the New Testament.
The group continually falls into the language of 'we' – the pronoun error that
functionally denies the pilgrim-stranger identity of the Church and confuses it
(in Constantinian fashion) with the larger society and culture. This affects
Christian ethics and thinking and its noteworthy how over and over again the
concerns of mammon drive their thinking and cloud their judgments.
There is also a lack of understanding regarding the nature of
this society, its systems, and how financial interests and institutions
interact. For example there's a discussion about the Underwriter's Laboratory
and the notion of financial interests (as opposed to the state) seeking minimum
standards which then (as per the Libertarian scheme) should not be enforced but
should remain voluntary and the choice of the consumer – let the market decide,
right? What they fail to understand (in a most glaring fashion) is that the
banking and insurance industries directly write the laws as it's in their
interest to set standards. These Libertarians seem to think the state imposes
the regulations – in most cases its industry and finance that control the ship
of state and their lobbyists push the legislation. In many cases it is written
by industry lawyers and passed on to the figurehead in congress that presents
the bill to become law. This is far from being democratic and while
Libertarians will decry this as a violation of free markets – the truth is that
when profits are paramount, the end result is the monopolistic elimination of
free markets and competition. It's about controlling the markets and
manipulating them. This is at the heart of what the advertising industry is all
about. To discover that these corporations act in a similar manner in terms of
their interactions with the state is hardly a surprise. This is what Capitalism
does in its absolutised form – it erects a corporate-state polity and
manipulates and eventually dominates the market. The market isn't the end but
the means to profit and power.
In other cases it's not government tyranny driving the
regulation but industry and in our money-driven and dominated system,
well-funded interests. When it comes to something like the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) the legislation was brought about through the efforts of
lobbyists, activists, and the persistent threat of lawsuits. It is admittedly a
terrible and often counter-productive body of law that has helped to
effectively kill many small towns in older parts of the United States. In other
cases the electrical codes and the like are driven not by some tyrannical
impulse on the part of the state but by the industries involved and in
particular the financial and insurance sectors. They control the situation as
they're worried about liability, collateral, and profits. I'm afraid the
roundtable discussion completely misses the mark and has failed to understand
what's driving these forces in society. Later in the podcast the scope of their
error becomes more manifest.
As already stated, they think Capitalism restricts government
power but like so many of that school they fail to reckon with the inevitability
of monopoly and its shadow-state power, and how the large corporations on top
of the system actually want laws and regulations. They want the boundaries
drawn that grant them the parameters in which to work and compete. Libertarians
can decry monopoly and view it as a violation of capitalism rather than its
inevitability – and yet why should anyone play by their rules? Should they
forego profits on the basis of market principle? Why not then other principles
as well? Perhaps the greatest irony of all is this – stopping monopoly and the
abuse of corporate power is possible, but it requires state regulation and as
such Libertarian and Neo-Liberal concerns and arguments are self-defeating.
And yes, once again it must be stated – the discussion has nothing
to do with New Testament concerns or values. Their thinking is governed by the
likes of Hayek and von Mises – not Paul or Christ. They express great faith in
markets and their power – a faith that is unfounded for those who actually
believe in Total Depravity. American Christians have tended to conflate
Providence with Adam Smith's Invisible Hand but they're not the same thing.
Smith viewed it as a kind of law of nature not the active providential governance
of God – picking winners and losers as it were. Such thinking is more akin to
reading tea leaves and in others cases could be reckoned as tempting God. What
it really is in its most naked form is a kind of Social Darwinism that has been
dressed up in the garb of the mammon-driven Church.
I am puzzled though – if they have faith in markets, then why
don't they have faith in Providence and the apostolic declaration that the
powers that be are ordained by God? But they don't, and hence they tear their
hair out in a frenzy of political activism and excoriate believers who don't do
likewise.
I find the discussion regarding Nigeria to be comical. The
commentators do not understand why people in a semi-chaotic place like Nigeria
would actually want more laws. They're not living the libertarian dream or so
it would seem. The question isn't just a failure of enforcement. That can be a
problem, but it can also indicate defective laws that are unenforceable as they
stand or contain massive loopholes that are being exploited. Laws have to be
interpreted in a context – something they don't understand as was evidenced
with regard to some of the discussions surrounding building permits and the
like.
They invoke the American Founders but have apparently missed
that one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence is the
inability of the colonies to draft the laws they needed – in other words they
wanted more laws. Now I'm not an advocate for democracy and I have no faith in
the founding documents of the United States but for these would-be patriots,
they also fail to take into account a very simple fact – what if the population
wants certain things like medicine and the like to be regulated? They may
reject this impulse and the political assumptions behind it. That's fine – so
do I, but then why do they speak of American society and culture in terms of
'we' as opposed to 'us' (the Church) and 'them' (the world)?
Which is it? Choose you this day whom you will serve – and
identify with.
These people are also Calvinists but seem to miss the fact
that these outlooks existed in nascent form even back in the seventeenth
century and yet they were completely rejected by their Reformed forebears such as
the Puritans – who regarded such views as dangerous libertinism.
The discussion also ventured down many unhelpful sidetracks,
in many cases things were stated as fact were simply wrong. The baby formula
crisis was not due to regulation as much as it was sheer greed and the desire
for profit. Many of their comments
regarding Covid and its effects were not only irresponsible but ludicrous. The
true complexity of the world and its social and economic systems seems to consistently
elude them.
Their analysis of Old Testament kingship missed the mark as
they failed to understand it in Christological terms as well as the nature of
failed and incomplete Old Testament types as opposed to the Holy and
eschatological Kingdom of Christ. To strip the discussion of this typology
(which Paul identifies in 2 Corinthians 1.20 among other places) and apply it mutatis mutandis to a modern situation
like America is not just misguided, it represents bad theology and certainly
bad exegetical assumptions.