or
The Distorted Thinking Which Dominates Reformed Political
Thinking Today
https://americanreformer.org/2023/07/reformed-political-theology-today/
The article errs in its opening salvo. Psalm 2 must be
interpreted in light of the New Testament. The tension Kennedy looks for is not
there. The New Testament reveals Psalm 2 to be eschatological.
As a consequence of this error, there is an admittedly
substantial heritage which Kennedy merely perpetuates. Begging the fundamental
question, he offers nothing by way of remedy.
The rule of Christ must be differentiated from that of reign.
Rule is providential – Christ upholds all things by the word of his power. But
his reign is in reference to the Holy Kingdom, the eschatological realm
experienced and accessed by means of the Holy Spirit and covenant. The failure
to grasp this has generated myriad errors which have plagued Church history
since the days of Constantine – who like Saul of Kish represents a kind of
apostasy in terms of the faith, a type of antichrist figure.
As suggested, the stakes are high and the consequences quite
serious.
The Two Kingdoms discussion has often been muddled and we
find more of the same here. Luther's concept was not really one of Two Kingdoms
in opposition (Zion vs. Babylon) but One Kingdom in two aspects (Holy Zion and
Zion), in many respects echoing Augustine's views as expressed in the fifth
century. One must recall the centuries-long battle within the context of Constantinianism,
between the Papacy and Empire, between the Roman Catholic Church and the state.
The Magisterial Reformation marked the final victory for the state and Luther's
views are as much about curtailing the power of an authoritarian ecclesiastical
structure as they are about anything to do with Scripture.
New Testament Christians opposed both sides of the
medieval-Constantinian contest. The anti-Papal or Imperial parties usually ran
regimes less inclined to persecute but they were not any more Christian (as per
the New Testament) than was the Papacy which (until contemporary secularism
forged a kind of new ecumenical movement) was viewed as antichrist.
Calvin's statements regarding freedom and freedom of
conscience strike many as absurd – and rightly so. His Geneva was an
authoritarian and near totalitarian polity that was extremely intolerant and
had little respect for the freedom of anyone who might disagree. By way of
rather tortured logic, the Genevan Reformer is able to convince himself that he
stands for freedom of conscience which amounts to freedom to obey his views and
that of the Genevan magistrates.
Once again the context is very much in keeping with the
Magisterial Protestant revolt against Rome – in some respects a widening of the
old Guelph-Ghibelline conflict that dominated Italian politics for centuries.
Calvin's justification for revolt and the seeds of the heresy known as the
Lesser Magistrate doctrine are certainly present and yet wrongly celebrated.
Kennedy again begs the question when he speaks of the state
submitting to the true kingship of the Son.
Just what does this look like? Where can we read about this
in the New Testament? If we can't, then we have another problem in that the
Scriptures are not sufficient. To simply turn back to the Old Testament is not
only to Judaize but it effectively relies on some kind of de-covenantalizing
scheme in which the Christocentric typology of the Old Testament order must be
secularized and applied mutatis mutandis to extra-covenantal states in the
contrived polity known as Christendom. Needless to say, this is accomplished by
means of an ad hoc method – and one rather arbitrary and self-serving at that.
The institutional Church (whatever is meant by that) is not
part of the temporal order. This is yet another case of the aforementioned
secularizing process which the Magisterial Reformation unleashed.
There is no hint or suggestion to be found in the New
Testament that speaks of the state having a duty to protect the Church along
with purity of worship and doctrine. In fact I would argue the New Testament
militates against this and its doctrine of the state makes this flawed
assumption an impossibility. Calvin was wrong. Now it may be that Kennedy's
read of Calvin is wrong, but we'll grant him the point at least in the broad
strokes.
Calvin's read of Romans 13 is in error and fails to properly
take in the context. Paul was not beginning a new thought or section with what
is called chapter 13. Rather it's wed to and a continuation of what we call
chapter 12. The previous chapter's 'closing' contradicts the Magisterial
Reformation's read of the magistrate and instead reveals that the ministerial
aspect granted to (what was at the time Nero's Roman Empire) is providential
not covenantal – it is being contrasted with the ethical imperatives given to
believers. As such, its role is akin to Babylon and Assyria, the other Bestial
powers in the old order that were also referred to (in providential terms) as
ministers or servants. Romans 13 cannot be taken in isolation or as teaching a
series of doctrines separate from the larger discussion and the already
established imperatives.
The Church's place in the Last Days is not to be found within
the spectrum of Constantinianism and its cultural Christianity, but rather it
is akin to the pilgrim status found among the exiles living in Babylon. Outside
the boundaries of the holy covenanted land, Old Covenant members were not
concerned with what how the Philistines worshipped, what the Baal worshippers
did with their children, or the latest machinations within Babylonian politics.
This misread continues to have profound repercussions and the
damage done by it (and the assumptions of the Magisterial Reformation) cannot
be overstated. It generated an impetus in history that allowed for a kind of
cultural and political dominance that extended a few centuries (within the
Protestant political sphere) but at the same time it was the noose by which
these same groups hung themselves – bringing us to the secular and increasingly
statist order of today. The irony is thick to say the least. They would deny
this narrative to be sure, but it's plain enough and one that even the secular
academy is able to recognize.
No one has ever suggested the temporal political order is
free from moral obligation. This straw-man argument is often presented in the
form of a false dilemma. The question is not whether they're obligated or off
the hook. The problem is the temporal order is not Christian and cannot be. And
the New Testament presents the Church as a persecuted pilgrim people that while
on the one hand is numbered like the stars seen by Abraham, but on the other
hand is a number best described by the term 'few'. The New Testament nowhere
envisions a Church atop the political order, ruling the nations. The only 'church'
that accomplishes that position of power and ascendancy is not the Bride of
Christ but the apostate Whore that forms allegiance with the Beast powers. As
Meredith Kline stated some years ago, this very ideal the Dominionists chase
after is what the New Testament is warning us against. The only result of
Calvin's vision is a cross-adorned Tower of Babel – which is indeed the historical
legacy of Constantinianism and its re-casting during the time of the
Magisterial Reformation. It was a case of the dog returning to its vomit once
more.
Abraham Kuyper's context is missing from the Kennedy piece.
He was (at least in part) a liberal in the Classical sense but also a
reactionary that heartily rejected the presuppositions of the French Revolution
– something other Classical Liberals such as Jefferson and Washington (to no
small degree) embraced.
The problem of Kuyper's day was the realities of pluralism
and the fragmentation brought on by political instability – which in turn was
fed by the new industrial economy and civilisation emerging during the
nineteenth century. He sought to find a modus
vivendi with the new post-Christendom reality that was already advanced in
post-Napoleonic Europe. Christians were not easily going to re-erect
Christendom in Europe. That ship had sailed and so Kuyper fostered a model in
which Christians could live in a pluralist order and yet still pursue the
Dominionist goals so near the heart of the Dutch Reformed tradition. Through
his particular (and perhaps pernicious) reading or distortion of Common Grace,
the unbelievers become participants in the building of the Holy Kingdom. Devoid
of any Scriptural argument, the Spirit-wrought and accessed Kingdom of Heaven
is manifest on Earth through (what is tantamount to) civilisation advance. The
contributions of the pagans are part of this by means of Common Grace. This
point becomes confusing because the concept of Common Grace is valid though
defined differently by different thinkers. Where in the New Testament do we
find any notion that the world helps the Church build the Kingdom? In fact, the
very concept of Kingdom is covenantal and thus inseparable from the Church –
only those regenerated by the Spirit can even hope to see and experience it.
Only when the Kingdom concept is confused with the larger world, culture, and
civilisation can Kuyper's erroneous views even possess a modicum of
plausibility.
Lionised by today's Reformed community, the man should be
denounced as a heretic and one of the great villainous architects of the modern
Church. Once again, what is his historical legacy? In places like the
Netherlands it led to acculturation and large-scale compromise, a kind of
baptising of the world. In South Africa it led to bigotry and disdain for what
was deemed a lesser and impure culture. This sacral tribalism was also a
baptising of the world though in a different form and one that offended even
the sensibilities of natural law. It took some time but eventually Classical
Liberalism ironed out some of its internal contradictions and the world order
turned on the Dutch Calvinist Afrikaners.
Everyone quotes Kuyper's famous dictum about Christ
proclaiming everything 'mine' – but fail to note how he thought this was to
become a reality in the present age, or at least pursued as such. The means for
this was revealed as a kind of compromise and selling out and that legacy lives
on well enough in the politicking of his North American heirs – not merely the
Reformed community, but the Evangelical community as well which has imbibed a
watered-down version of his errors by means of false teachers like Francis
Schaeffer, Charles Colson, and others. Kuyper's dark theological shadow
continues to loom large.
It was because of the likes of Kuyper, that Charles Colson
could argue that 'all fields' are open to Christians to pursue excellence and
the Kingdom. Though few have grasped this – this is effectively a sophisticated
or thinking man's expression of what we today call the Prosperity Gospel. The
Evangelical variety is offensive due to its tacky ostentation and low-brow pop
culture-driven predilections while the Confessional and even Catholic varieties
are more urbane, culturally refined, and ideal-driven. Rather than dreaming of
gilded homes and cars, the sophisticated Prosperity Gospeller seeks societal
standing, influence, titles, and office – and sumptuous (if more tame and
reserved) versions of the house and car.
Even Kennedy (it would seem) has his doubts about Kuyper's intellectual acumen. For my part, the question was forever resolved when I read his Stone Lectures back in the 1990's. At the time they were much vaunted as we neared the centennial mark of his 1898 visit to Princeton. I found them to be a rather naive venture, utterly lacking in both Biblical and historical wisdom – a case of error piled upon error, and presumption upon presumption. The vision was sweeping but fatally flawed at almost every point.