More theonomy

The wheels grind slowly here. Mostly they grind fairly small.... my record for a delayed response to an e-mail was 2 1/2 years, but I got there.

But I do owe David M who posted a comment on an earlier post an apology, because it's sat in my inbox far too long. Here we go:

The question that I'm left with is: what's the Biblical basis for your view of the role of government? (By which I'm not trying to imply that I don't think there is one!)

Romans 13 has to be a key passage. One key principle is surely this one: "For there is no authority but from God" (v1). That means that government is a "positive" institution: the authority is a positive grant from God.

It follows from that that the question then becomes, "what authority has God granted to governments?" Because any other "authority" then seek to wield cannot be legitimate. When Peter said, "We must obey God rather than men", he showed that this authority grant was not unlimited.

Then the question has to become "what authority has God said in the Bible as being granted to governments?" Because it is inconceivable that God has given such important authority without telling us what it is, and the Bible is where God reveals his mind. How can he be a "servant of God" (v4) unless God gives him some instructions for his service?

Verses 3 and 4 also make clear the positive and negative side of the government's work. Positively, to reward what is good; negatively, to punish wrongdoing (and thereby cause fear in others to prevent them from doing it).

Of course, "good" and "evil" must also be defined by Scripture. The government should not arbitrarily decide, for example, that earning an un-approved of amount of money is an evil to be punitively taxed, or that sexual perversions are a good that needs lots of funding to promote and protect.

Also, it does not mean that all good and all evil are within the realm of government. Nobody should be imprisoned for original sin or unbelief, and the government should not break down your front door to make sure it rewards all the acts of kindness between brothers and sisters in the home or reduces taxes for believers. I believe in the idea of "sphere sovereignty" - God has instituted different authorities, family, church and state, and these are not a neat hierarchy with state at the top, but overlapping spheres.

The Old Covenant law can guide us, if we make due allowance for its unique nature as the Covenant between God and his theocratic nation. This is what the Reformers meant by the "general equity" of the law - it has useful and abiding principles. It is wrong to retain the theocratic clothing, but the principles remain.

One important thing is that there is no hint that the government's authority depends on the mode by which it gained power. If someone seizes the role in a sinful way, yet they still in fact hold the role (and will be accountable for what they do in it) - and holding the role is the bit that makes them have the authority, not the manner of gaining it. This is implicit in Romans 13:1, given the Roman government of the time - which gave Paul privileges we can see in Acts (e.g. Acts 25:11).

There's so much more to say. I think I should leave it to any commenters to decide where we want to go next. But essentially we are saying that the government's mandate is moral. Their laws are to be related meaningfully to the summary of the Mosaic Law, "love your neighbour as yourself" - though in our present context (evaluated Biblically), not that of Moses. They are not to be arbitrary impositions for other ends. This is the Biblical grant to governments.

In practice this looks/sounds something like: adultery is a terrible/wicked/immoral thing, but it isn't the job of the government to issue laws against it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is roughly where you land too.

In the past I would have agreed on this particular example, but now I don't. I do not think that the present UK government should have such a law, because ultimately (the big picture of Scripture shows us), law can only really be fulfilled on the foundation of free grace - the grace of the gospel. Without the gospel foundation, we cannot workably have proper law. (That sounds like pragmatism, but I think it is Biblical pragmatism based on the big picture of Scripture). But, in a society where the gospel had worked its leaven-like ways, I do think that adultery should be a crime, as indeed it was in the UK. Why? Because marriage is a public covenant, not a private one. Married households are intended to be the units of a godly society - they are not secret, hidden entities. Acts that directly attack that basis should be crimes.

But if we chose a different example, I could well agree. Being deliberately nasty to people is wrong, but should not be a crime if it falls short of violence, harassment or an incitement to violence. Not keeping your promises is wrong, but should not be a crime if it falls short of a contract or if no significant loss is sustained. Of course, there is work to do in deciding where the boundary lies, but you get the point.

The basic idea of theonomy, as I understand it, is that the civil/judicial parts of the Mosaic Law (according to the tripartite division a la Aquinas and Calvin) teach us what God expects from a government - which would extend its role beyond your view. (This is probably a naive/simplistic explanation, but hopefully not inaccurate.)

I suppose this depends on in what manner they "teach us" - what filters and lenses there are to be applied between the Mosaic context and ours. I think what I wrote above would be accepted under the label "theonomy", given that I said that all law should be justified meaningfully from Scripture. But the label seems to be used quite widely, and I am not very competent to answer a lot of questions because I need to do more of my own study...

Law and politics

A reader writes! And having nothing else to say right now to keep the blog going, I'll answer this instead...

Hi David, I don't think I've ever commented here before, but I appreciate the things you write.

Thank you!

On the subject of politics and freedom:

How do you think Christians should feel about/respond to a potential ban on burkas (as has recently happened in Belgium, and I think is one of UKIP's policies, although I don't know if any of the major parties have mentioned it). On the one hand, governments telling people what they can and cannot wear doesn't seem like a good thing, and we might well wonder what the next thing to get banned would be. On the other, to oppose a ban would (it seems) be to defend an idolatrous practice.

I suppose that in the context of the present state of Western civilisation in regard of how it measures up to a godly society, spending too much energy on this issue is making sure that we don't let any of the Titanic's deckchairs fall over. In the context of a society which explicitly refuses to name Jesus Christ as Lord, what the state does with bits of clothing is making sure the patient's toenails are clipped when he's bleeding to death. But, a Christian politician looking to please God and serve man still has to have an answer because the issue's out there. I don't think that the government tolerating X is the same as defending or approving X. In lots of things the government simply has to say, "this is not by legitimate area of concern". Now, if people only ever wore burkhas because they were off on a suicide mission in a crowded station and they believed that Allah had told all suicide bombers to wear burkhas, then the government might have a legitimate interest in banning them. But banning them simply because they represent false religion is not in keeping with the government's limited role, which does not include restricting false religion. I think the state is intended to submit to and confess Jesus Christ as Lord, because he is Lord of the state; but this does not mean a negative role to restrict the activities of those who don't agree.

I think that continental powers are discussing banning the burkha because it is to their eyes a symbol of the oppression of women in Islam rather than because it represents false religion. I find it had to get worked up with enthusiasm for this policy; why not pass laws against the oppression of women in Islam, rather than just against the symbol? But in fact I think that the Bible doesn't make either of those two things the God-given work of the state. Families have authority from God to employ their own symbols (only if it is obscene does it become a matter for the state) and the oppression of women in Islam can only ultimately be undone by a change of heart through the advance of the gospel, not an external attack on the symbol. Though symbols point to significant realities, yet we don't want people to think that the kingdom of God is a matter of clothes and appearance rather than righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

So basically I think that Christians should assert that people are free under God to choose whatever they wish to wear without interference from the state, and that we wish to approach Muslims with the gospel, not with restrictive and intrusive laws on their appearance.

Similarly, how do you feel about those protesting about the planned Mega-Mosque in/near Dudley?

Again, it seems inconsistent. If you allow large numbers of Muslims into an area, then forbidding them to live as Muslims is churlish. Choose one or the other; you can't welcome people who self-identify as Muslims without allowing them to be Muslims. If they are allowed in the country they should be allowed to worship according to their consciences, because God has placed worship as a matter under the authority of the individual, not the state. Islam is a legalistic, external and crudely territorial religion and for Christians to protest against mosques is for us to confuse Muslims about how knowing Jesus Christ is a distinctively different experience. The best protest against mosques is gospel preaching. To be sure, a mega-mosque may drastically change the character of an area and there are such things as planning laws and zoning laws which should be applied and can be done without the state over-extending its God-given role. They should obey the same planning laws as everyone else; I don't know anything about if or how that applies in this particular case. Perhaps a protest against a mega-mosque is a proxy-protest against mass immigration, but I think a Christian needs to be careful that he does not compromise his gospel witness by becoming seen by the unsaved person as an enemy protester instead of a friendly evangelist.

(Since you mentioned Doug Wilson, I'd like to ask your views on theonomy, but perhaps that's a little much for a blog comment!)

If you elaborate on the question a bit to help me I can try in a future post!

God bless,
David

Voting for Christian values

One insight that Douglas Wilson describes well is this: We want a free nation: good. But free nations need free men. And there are no free men without Jesus Christ. None; none at all.

Hence I view the various likely outcomes of the upcoming UK general election as being like finding out which one of your limbs is going to be hacked off first, and whether it's going to be done with a blunt instrument or a newly oiled chainsaw.

One party leader, a self-professed atheist, wrote in a church newsletter that his party's policies were based upon Christian values. Ha ha.

Christian value number one is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Lord of all. Lord of our innermost thoughts; but also Lord of politics, Lord of taxation, Lord of government borrowing, Lord of social and family policy. Lord of all: or not really Lord at all.

When we start to evaluate by this Biblical standard, the fact is that Christian action as salt and light in the present UK political scene is basically about trying to stop the overwhelming stench from the rotting corpse finishing the country off sooner rather than later. That action is of value and has a good and proper place. I thank God for those doing it. But the regeneration of the UK will not come from gaining political agreement to a lobotomised set of Christian values. (That's not a veiled criticism of anyone in particular's work, by the way). It'll come when we eventually see, by the power and mercy of God, the original Christian value taking root once again. That's what made the UK truly great amongst nations; that's what makes any nation truly great. In the past, we bowed to the Lordship of Christ - and not in a hypocritical manner that was afraid to actually state his name and identity.

The universe belongs to Jesus Christ, being made by and for him: the pathetic and miserable game of trying to make the world work without recognising or acknowledging him won't work because it can't work. It's impossible, because Jesus actually is Lord. If we want to see the fruit of Christian living in the UK, then the huge task today is to trust in God and go to the painful, sacrificial work needed to plant the roots once again. Jesus Christ works through Christians. The most fundamental question for us who are Christians is whether the Lordship of Christ is a daily reality in our "ordinary" lives, or whether it's something that we like a politician just pay lip-service too when it seems like the right thing to do. How is it with you?

I suppose some passing atheist might think that this post is a call to set up a theocracy. If you do, you misunderstood everything I said.

When youths are your leaders

" And there are gathered unto him vain men, the children of Belial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tender-hearted, and could not withstand them." - 2 Chronicles 13:7

Question: How old do you think "young and tender-hearted" Rehoboam was?

Answer: " for Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign" - 2 Chronicles 12:13.

According the word of God, Isaiah 3:4, being led by the young is a judgement of God upon a nation. " And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." This ought to be obvious; younger people have less experience of life and of the world and of making mistakes. They can of course much better understand the points of view and experiences of people at different stages of life. Therefore when leadership is characterised by youth, something is wrong.

The last UK prime minister to win an election, Tony Blair, became an MP aged 29 and became prime minister aged 43. 43 is also the age of the two leaders of the two main opposition parties fighting the present election. Nick Clegg entered parliament aged 38, and David Cameron did at age 34. The present prime minister, Gordon Brown, entered parliament at age 32 and became shadow chancellor at age 38, then the real thing at 43. The present shadow chancellor is 38, having entered parliament a month after leaving his twenties. If David Cameron becomes the next prime minister, he will (all being well with his wife's pregnancy) be the third in a row to have shared 10 Downing Street with a baby.

In other words, these aren't one-offs; it's a trend. And the general opinion of the public is not that we are just blessed with an outstanding batch of prodigies; the public stock of politicians and their leadership is at a long-term low.

The Bible requires that church leaders prove themselves in their families, and particularly with their children; "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3:5). This does not necessarily mean that a church elder has to have grown up children; the fruits of parenting policy can be seen well before this. But the basic assumption is that nobody is entrusted with responsibility in a larger area of life who has not proven themselves in a smaller. The UK has 58 million citizens; it cannot be and is not (as can be seen by reading their biographies) true that its political leaders learnt and achieved more in the 10 or so years of adult life before entering parliament than many other people did in the, say, 35 years before reaching age 55 at which perhaps suitable political leaders would become clear. Remember: at 41, according to the Word of God, Rehoboam was a youth.

Of course, there are prodigies; Spurgeon was a pastor in his teens, and Calvin wrote the Institutes in his twenties. And of course age does not automatically bring wisdom or blessing - we'd surely choose all of the above politicians in preference to Robert Mugabe, for example. But the point is that such as Spurgeon and Calvin are prodigies. When youth leadership is the norm, you are not witnessing the unfolding of God's blessing, but his curse. And the fact that nobody comments on this phenomena or finds it remarkable (or even thinks it's good, which presumably we must do, as these people didn't become leaders without winning chains of popularity contests) shows how far the curse has gone. That is the situation that the UK presently finds itself in.