Book Review of David VanDrunen’s “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture”

Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture

Copyright © 2010 by David VanDrunen

Published by Crossway Books

PRELIMS: This book was provided by Crossway for my personal review.

First off, Dr. VanDrunen is a credible author on the points in which he engages. He is a studied scholar in the realm of divinity and law. Such background is necessary for the topic in which he engages. Secondly, this book is much needed in the “Evangelical” world today as the church struggles and flounders through the murky issues of Christian engagement of culture, politics, etc. Lastly, VanDrunen approaches this work from the rich heritage of the “Two-Kingdom” theory you will find in Augustine, Luther, Calvin (although open to debate), and many contemporary Reformed thinkers.

THE GOOD:

VanDrunen establishes a historical understanding of the issues of how God rules in the world generally and in the Church specifically. He is well aware of Niebuhr’s work on “Christ and Culture” and establishes the framework of the debate judiciously. Before making an inductive thesis in support of the “Two-Kingdom” perspective, he engages critically in modern distortions of the Christians obligation to the world: N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church. His criticisms are insightful and helpful. Read the book for the nitty gritty.

I commend VanDrunen’s covenantal redemptive-historical framework throughout the book. He deals specifically with the covenant with Adam and how it consisted of his tending the garden (priestly duties), as well as governing the land (kingly duties). If Adam and his righteous progeny had succeeded, eternal bliss and rest would have followed, meaning that the “Creation Mandate” had a goal in view. Adam and Eve weren’t to perpetually bear children and work the land forever and ever as the last climatic act in their God-given charge. The priestly duties would have brought about consummated holiness in destroying the serpent and partaking of the tree of life, while the kingly duties would have brought earth under perfect subjection and thus a perfect consummate rest from labor. VanDrunen dedicates an entire chapter in elaborating upon these themes because the rest of the book makes no sense apart from this framework.  VanDruned then dedicates an entire chapter to exactly how Jesus has and will fulfill these charges given to Adam. VanDrunen states the following:

Before the second Adam no one accomplished the task of the first Adam, and after the second Adam no one needs to accomplish it. The last Adam has completed it once and for all. Christians will attain the original destiny of life in the world-to-come, but we do so not by picking up the task where Adam left off but by resting entirely on the work of Jesus Christ, the last Adam who accomplished the task perfectly.

 How did Christ accomplish Adam’s original task perfectly? Jesus did not personally fill the earth with his descendants or exercise dominion over all creatures in his human nature during his earthly ministry. But as considered in chapter 2, Adam was to have his entire obedience in the entire world determined through a particular test in a particular location. So it was for the last Adam. Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was confronted by the devil who tried to entice Christ to obey him, and King Jesus resisted the devil and conquered him (Matt. 4:1–11; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was called to priestly service, and Christ the Great High Priest purified God’s holy dwelling and opened the way for human beings back into his presence (Heb. 9:11–28; 10:19–22). Like the first Adam, the Lord Jesus was to enter God’s royal rest in the world-to- come upon finishing his work perfectly, and this is precisely what Christ did, entering into heaven itself, taking his seat at God’s right hand, ministering in the heavenly tabernacle, and securing our place in the world-to-come (Heb. 1:3; 4:14–16; 7:23–28).

This is absolutely essential for issues of Christianity and culture! If Christ is the last Adam, then we are not new Adams. To under- stand our own cultural work as picking up and finishing Adam’s original task is, however unwittingly, to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s work. Christ perfectly atoned for all our sins, and hence we have no sins left to atone personally. Likewise, Christ perfectly sustained a time of testing similar to Adam’s: he achieved the new creation through his flawless obedience in this world. He has left nothing yet to be accomplished. God indeed calls Christians to suf fer and to pursue cultural tasks obediently through our lives. But to think that our sufferings contribute to atoning for sin or that our cultural obedience contributes to building the new creation is to compromise the all-sufficient work of Christ.

VanDrunen even pulls out the exclamation mark in reference to how important understanding the work of Christ is for determining our own obligations as a Christian.  We are now heavenly citizens who taste the world to come, but do not in any way bring it about. He states:

The Dictatorship of Moral Relativism

My favorite author and painter, Michael O’Brien, writes of his trip to Poland:

In a meeting with a very highly placed journalist and ministry official, I was told by her that freedom of the press in Poland has shrunk drastically in a very short time, since all secular media is now heavily influenced by vested interests and a resurgent secret police, many of whom are old Communists/new Eurocrats. Only Radio Maria and smaller Catholic journals continue to report the objective truth in the country, and thus the mainstream press continues a constant barrage of propaganda against both the Church and Catholic media. This was a shocking statement, but it was repeated by responsible observers of the situation many times during my travels. The dictatorship of moral relativism (as Pope Benedict calls it) has many faces, but its most deceptive mask is that of the “enlightened” liberalism. Beneath such liberalism there is an agenda that is very much allied with the culture of death, with power and with private wealth. In North America and most other Western nations the same dynamic is a work in various guises.

I like how he points out the links between enlightened liberalism, private wealth, power and the culture of death.

Humanistic Conservatism

Doug Wilson, reflecting on Glenn Beck’s novel The Overton Window and Beck’s view of humanity:

Our problem is humanism, and we cannot effectively counter radical leftist humanism with apparently milder right wing forms of it. The humanist believes that mankind is basically good and, going back to Socrates, the explanation for evil is ignorance. If man is basically good, where does all this evil come from? It has to come from ignorance, and the solution to ignorance is education. The solution to the political pathologies we see in Washington today is to get involved and “get informed.” But the biblical answer is repentance, and repentance all the way down. Our solution is not to get angry at what “they” are doing to us, but rather to be grieved at what we have done to ourselves. One of the basic things we have done in this regard is flatter ourselves — and Beck’s approach here is part of the problem.

Wilson’s not anti-Beck; in fact, he liked the book.  At least in the sense that so much (liberal and conservative) activism is about the egregious harm committed by some outside force against the innocent common people, Wilson echoes James Hunter’s critique of our political culture.

Church and Kingdom

Kevin DeYoung has noted before that people talk a lot about the Kingdom of God, but don’t always have a fully biblical view of this issue.  Last week, he posted some thoughts on this issue, cautioning people who want to bring the kingdom to earth.  DeYoung argues instead that the kingdom is closely identified with the Church:

If the kingdom of God is heaven breaking into earth, Eden being replanted, the New Jerusalem nailing in stakes, then we should expect to see the kingdom almost exclusively in the church. Of course, the church, living in the world, ought to embody the principles of the kingdom. Likewise, we will be pleased when the world around us reflects many of the values of the kingdom–forgiveness, compassion, mercy, and justice. But we will not expect the world, in this life, to become the kingdom.

Here’s the problem: when people talk broadly about bringing heaven down to earth on the culture writ large, they can’t help but be selective about the nature of the kingdom. So some Christians will argue for dismantling of nuclear weapons because in the kingdom swords are beaten into plowshares. True, but in the kingdom everyone also sits under their own vine and fig tree. The vision of the kingdom/garden/city is one of extravagant opulence and prosperity. So should we try to be as rich as possible as a sign of the kingdom’s in-breaking? Well, no because the kingdom is not the full reality yet. As a result we must temper the notion of kingdom-living prosperity with the reality that some people don’t have enough to live. In the same way, we must temper the notion of kingdom-living pacifism with the reality that there are lots of bad guys in the world who don’t want us to live.

In other words, when we think of the kingdom as what we are trying to build in this world we will be severely disappointed, potentially dangerous. But when we see the church as the presence of the kingdom in this world then the theological pieces start falling into place. The oversight in some recent conceptions of building the kingdom is that the kingdom is only thought of in terms of social services. But where Christ reigns, wickedness is expelled too. If you want to build the kingdom in your town, if you want heaven to come down to earth in your city, then you must not allow unrepentant sinners to live there. For Scripture is clear that they share no part in the kingdom.

Stanley Fish on Liberalism

Fish discusses the liberal Western order (not political liberalism) and observes:

If you persuade liberalism that its dismissive marginalizing of religious discourse is a violation of its own chief principle, all you will gain is the right to sit down at liberalism’s table where before you were denied an invitation; but it will still be liberalism’s table that you are sitting at, and the etiquette of the conversation will still be hers. That is, someone will now turn and ask, “Well, what does religion have to say about this question?” And when, as often will be the case, religion’s answer is doctrinaire (what else could it be?), the moderator (a title deeply revealing) will nod politely and turn to someone who is presumed to be more reasonable. To put the matter baldly, a person of religious conviction should not want to enter the marketplace of ideas but to shut it down, at least insofar as it presumes to determine matters that he believes have been determined by God and faith. The religious person should not seek an accommodation with liberalism; he should seek to rout it from the field, to extirpate it, root and branch.

How is it that he sees things so clearly and yet Christians are so blind?! He writes later:

That is what Marsden should want: not the inclusion of religious discourse in a debate no one is allowed to win, but the triumph of religious discourse and the silencing of its atheistic opponents. To invoke the criterion of intellectual validity and seek shelter under its umbrella is to surrender in advance to the enemy, to that liberal rationality whose inability even to recognize the claims of faith has been responsible for religion’s marginalization in the first place. Marsden wants to argue against that marginalization, but his suggestion for removing it is in fact a way of reinforcing it. He calls it “procedural rationality.” The procedure is to scrutinize religious viewpoints and distinguish between those that “honor some basic rules of evidence and argument” and those that “are presented so dogmatically and aggressively as not to be accommodated within the procedural rules of pluralistic academia.”

Thoughts on Theonomy, Just Laws, and Living in Two Kingdoms and More from Amos 2:1-3

Amos 2:1-3

¹ Thus says the Lord: “For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom. ² So I will send a fire upon Moab, and it shall devour the strongholds of Kerioth, and Moab shall die amid uproar, amid shouting and the sound of the trumpet; ³ I will cut off the ruler from its midst, and will kill all its princes with him,” says the Lord.

Interestingly, this oracle of judgment doesn’t concern Israel. Moab’s sin against Edom, which God had already pronounced judgment against earlier, is quite telling. While Israel is usually central to the reason why God judges the surrounding nations, here is one example where God’s judgment comes because of how one pagan nation treats another pagan nation. This highlight the sovereignty of God. Essentially Moab was desecrating graves and using the decomposing corpses to possibly make a whitewashing formula. One commentator quotes:

2:1 Moab’s representative crime neither harmed Israel nor concerned them in any way. Desecration of an Edomite king’s remains was Moab’s sin. Border fortifications between Moab and Edom suggest the probability that the two nations engaged in armed conflict from time to time. Warfare may have been the setting for the Moabite atrocity against the king of Edom.53 Either Edom’s king was burned to death, or his corpse was burned, or his skeletal remains were exhumed and burned to lime. The last suggestion best fits the wording, since the specific reference is to “the bones of Edom’s king.”
Burning the bones to lime suggests total destruction.54 The Targum interpreted the term rendered “as if to lime” to mean that the Moabites used the ashes of the king’s bones in a substance to whitewash houses. The treatment of a human being as mere material was reason enough for Amos’s indictment. Moab’s atrocious act disturbed the Edomite king’s resting place and in Moabite and Edomite thought prevented peace in the afterlife and perhaps even immortality.55 As J. Niehaus explains: “Crimes against humanity bring God’s punishment. This observation is a powerful motivation for God’s people to oppose the mistreatment and neglect of their fellow human beings.”56
Smith, B. K., & Page, F. S. (2001). Vol. 19B: Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (57–58). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

By what standard is God judging one pagan nation’s treatment of another? By His own standard. His law applies to pagan nations, even if they were not the particular recipients’ of such. This is one proof text for Theonomists, those who believe that all nations will be judged by God’s law and must conform to the standards of God’s Law. There are nuanced versions of it, and we are all theonomists in one sense and not in another. Sorting through these distinctions is no easy task.

Keith Olbermann and Dan Savage’s Response to Brit Hume, My Appeal to Olbermann and Savage to Embrace the Gospel

Dan Savage is openly gay and a pronounced atheist. Having said that, I do appreciate his qualified criticism of Hume. I don’t agree with everything he said, but I did find insightful his suggestion that Hume’s comments were an offense to Christianity. Savage mentioned Hume’s omission of Jesus as being the Son of God along with other major tenets, and sees Hume as simply offering the Jesus who takes care of adultery, etc. Savage asked where the “moderate, progressive” Christians were who would denounce Hume’s comments. Interestingly, it is the conservative Christian crowd on the blogosphere that was uncomfortable with Hume’s comments coming off as a Joel Osteen version of the Jesus who offers, “Your best life now”. I already posted on my thoughts of criticism for the lack of objective emphasis in Gospel proclamations that often accompany “evangelizing” today (link). I would actually proclaim a loud “Amen”  to Savage’s criticisms if Hume understood the Gospel strictly in a pragmatic paradigm. The fact is, as Olbermann and Savage pointed out, that “Christians” are plagued by marital unfaithfulness, etc. What Jesus did on the cross offers forgiveness, not as a cop out, but as great news.

The Gospel saves imperfect Christians as much as it saves sinners. Christians are perpetually in need of grace, which is why Paul denounced the Galatian heresy of starting in grace, but then proceeding in works for our salvation. The cross also purchases our sanctification, which means that the Christian WILL fight against all sin in their lives, but will never attain perfection in this life. The Christian does receive the Holy Spirit and is called upon to put to death the deeds of the flesh, adultery included, but some will stumble. Though God is grieved, His name brought under ill repute, because of the sins of His people, the good news remains good because it is never predicated upon our performance. The genuine Christian will not view this grace as a motivator or as a covering for sin, but rather as a motivator towards a life that glorifies God in all things. The genuine Christian will plead for grace so that they might NOT sin, so that they might not defame the name of Christ with outrageous sin.

While I appreciate some of the criticisms of Olbermann and Savage, they are trying to define the whole by a few rotten examples. At the same time, Christians invite this sort of criticism when they loudly declare that the major tenet of the Christian faith is, “Your Best Life Now”. When the Christian faith is emphasized for its subjective derivatives, then it will stand or fall based on how rich, how happy, how successful its adherents are. If Christians can reclaim the objective emphasis of the Gospel as being our counted righteous in Christ because of our “Worst life now”, in spite of who we are, then we would do well. Of course, we ought not ever be cavalier about sin, nor excuse our sinful behavior. We, of all people, must have a hatred for sin.

We walk in the footsteps of Abraham, the man of faith, and yet the coward.

We walk in the footsteps of David, who had a heart for God, and yet committed adultery.

We would do well to rejoice with David, who proclaimed the blessedness of not having God count our sin against us (Ps. 32:2) AND we would do well to mourn and grieve with David the sinner who was physically crushed and chastised for His sin (Ps. 51).

Luther taught that we are “Iustus et peccator simul” (Simultaneously a Saint and Sinner). The true Christian, the regenerate man, is at once a saint and a sinner. Therefore, our rejoicing is also mingled with remorse. We rejoice that we are forgiven sinners, but we mourn because we are still sinners. I would dare “proselytize”  this good news to Keith Olbermann and Dan Savage because they both know that they are sinners. While they are amused at the sins of professing Christians and are offended that an imperfect Brit Hume would dare suggest that Tiger Woods turn to Christ, and would even criticize their perception that Hume is offering a Jesus who will give Tiger a pass, these are no excuses for their own refusal to turn to Christ. Jesus Christ doesn’t guarantee moral superiority (though Christians should progress in sanctification), but offers forgiveness. Forgiveness for prior sin, present sin, and all future sin.

Mr. Olbermann, the good news is that you needn’t  be morally superior than everyone to feel forgiven. The good news isn’t that you might be morally superior in unbelief over those who do believe. That, you might be in many regards, but we are all sinners. The Gospel is what God does in us, no doubt, but it rests in what Jesus did 2000 years ago on a cross. It is historical, it is earthy, it is deeply practical, and it happens outside of us, apart from us first, before we enter into it.

Brit Hume Stands by His Words

Here is the latest clip from Hume, explaining his rationale behind suggesting that Tiger Woods’ should turn to Christ. I have a ton of thoughts that I wish to offer, but will simply redact myself in stating that Hume acknowledges that he was trying to be less offensive by initially referring to the “Christian faith” rather that the name “Jesus Christ”, and that it still invites the same reaction of hostility. Hume said that “all hell breaks loose” when one invokes the name of Christ. Knowing that Hume knows this and yet proceeded with such words suggests to me that Hume is willing to suffer reproach for his comments.

I also want to mention that it is far more freeing to me as a listener to hear political commentators, etc, publicly acknowledge their convictions. Even if I disagree with such convictions, I think there is much more credibility to commentary that is acknowledged within a system of some sorts.

There is a double-standard in the media that has long needed to be exposed for what it is. I have watched “news” where people have offered their convictions in opposition to driving SUV’s because it is contributing to global warming, opposition to wearing leather or eating meat because it causes the death of an animal, promotion of animal rights, etc. Why is it that  when someone is critical of a religious conviction, they get grilled for it, but it is seemingly okay to attack people for eating animals. Rather than shutting both down, I want the megaphone to get louder and broader about matters of faith and action. I want PETA to explain why they decry Obama killing a fly, but are seemingly okay with puncturing an infant’s brain in the womb of the mother. And if there is a Buddhist who thinks that their faith offers redemption, I want them to explain it. If there is a hedonistic atheist who thinks that morals are relative and that Tiger is better off single and sleeping around with how many ever consenting women he wishes and that we should shut up about it, let them speak up and make their appeals.

Religion should not be off limits in the free market of ideas. Let it abound, let the masses listen, let the masses discuss, let them decide. And if they hate Brit Hume, then let them. I am not decrying so much the fact that people hate Hume mentioning Jesus, I expect that. What I hate is this awkward deference of religion as being personal and something that should remain private in the public sphere. We can disagree, get outraged, protest, whatever…but let us disagree with what people say while also reserving their right to say it. I guess if your opinion even extends to saying that “Hume shouldn’t have said…”, then there will not be agreement on the parameters of dialogue in the public sphere, however do acknowledge the inconsistency of decrying my eating of animals and yet ruling foul my comments about your philosophical/religious convictions.

We are seemingly moving closer to a society that would punish Hume for “hate speech” and pro-lifers for decrying the murdering of babies, but seemingly hold in high esteem the free speech of atheists who decry the Christian faith as the source of all evils and how things would be better if Christianity ceased to exist.  Keith Olberman can scrutinize Christian “nut jobs”, but Brit Hume cseemingly can’t scrutinize Buddhism and suggest Christianity as a better alternative for redemption?

Augustinian Platonism

My lovely wife picked up a cheap book for me yesterday at the library sale : The Age of Reform 1250-1550. [50 cents!]

The author, Steven Ozment, outlines Augustine’s modification of Platonism in a chart which I have reproduced here.

Ozment writes:

Augustine replaced the Platonic doctrine of reconciliation with his own distinctive doctrine of “divine illumination,” one of his most influential teachings. This doctrine placed the eternal forms of the Platonists within the mind of the triune Christian God, thereby making them truly divine ideas. Hence, when one plumbed the depths of one’s own mind in search of truth, one found there, not an innate ability to recollect eternity, as the Platonists had taught, but Christ, the eternal wisdom of God, the second person of the Trinity, whose very name was Truth. Through the illumination of Christ, indwelling truth, the mind received divine light by which it could know truly. Whether pagan or Christian, people understood and functioned within the world around them, thanks to this special grace of God. Without such divine illumination, all they would know was a chaos of phantasms. According to Augustine, just as God frees the will so that people can truly do good things, so he enlightens their minds so that they can surely know.

Calvin and Cheney

My friend Rick from Endued sent me an article from Christianity Today that addressed the unitary executive theory advanced by Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration, and tried to put it in the perspective of Calvin’s political theory.  Here’s how the author, David Neff, defined the unitary theory:

But one young staffer in the Nixon administration, future Vice President Dick Cheney, became a champion of expansive executive power. Serving in Congress and in subsequent administrations, Cheney helped promote the theory of the “Unitary Executive,” the idea that, in [author Charlie] Savage’s words, the White House should exercise complete control over everything in the executive branch, which could be conceived of as a unitary being with the President as its brain. Attorney General Ed Meese, then-Representative Dick Cheney, and others pushed that notion in order to reclaim the de facto presidential powers that were squandered by Nixon’s overreach.

But after 9/11, the push to consolidate presidential power over national security issues took on new momentum. Sometimes Cheney’s rhetoric has gone to extremes. For example, he told Fox News’s Chris Wallace that because the President always has at his side a military aide carrying the nuclear “football,” and because the President therefore has the ability to launch a nuclear attack at any time without checking with Congress, he is free of any responsibility to check with Congress in exercising his national security duties.

Neff argues that Calvin saw the law, not a government, as supreme.  In fact, he believed that tyrants sacrificed their legitimacy.  It’s no surprise, I suppose, that Calvinists often resisted governments in France, Austria, England, and Scotland.

The first thing that struck me as I read the article is how much more I need to know about Calvin’s time in Geneva, in which he attempted to set up a godly government during the Reformation period.  I’ve heard it alternately characterized as a proto-Taliban state and as a “woman’s paradise” for the strict laws against men who beat their wives.  Neff writes that Calvin saw a balance between responsibility and liberty:

Calvin used the Reformation idea of church and state as separate and distinct spheres to foster liberty. For every duty God imposes, whether spiritual or temporal, there is a corresponding freedom that is required. If we are commanded to give our families material support, for example, economic freedom and the right to private property are essential. If we are to rest on the Sabbath, we must have the liberty to stop working and not be perpetually at the beck of employers. Each duty implies a corresponding liberty, and it is the duty of rulers to protect those liberties.

Because these duties come from God, religious liberty is a fundamental aspect of political liberty. Witte continues: “Political liberty and political authority ‘are constituted together,’ said Calvin. … When political officials respect the duties and limits of their office, believers enjoy ample political liberty to give ‘public manifestation of their faith.’?”

But what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that “dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.” They are no longer “God’s ministers” if they “practice blasphemous tyranny.”

In this part of the article, I wondered if there was some Americanization of Calvin.  It’s my impression that there wasn’t “religious liberty” in Geneva.  You wouldn’t necessarily expect to find religious liberty there, as the scorned and persecuted Anabaptists were the only ones really talking about it much in Calvin’s day (to my knowledge).  The church in Geneva, in my understanding, was to govern the moral aspects of people’s lives while the state maintained order.  One of the most famous cases in Geneva’s history was the buring of Michael Servetus at the stake for denying the Trinity.  There’s a tendency to think of the Reformers as the pioneers of our liberties when they seemed to be in a very different situation and time period from our  founders.

But as for Neff’s main point, I agree that law must above its enforcers.  He does well in painting a brief historical picture of the development of a powerful executive so that people know that it didn’t start with Nixon or Bush.  Part of the problem is that it’s unlikely that a president would give back power.  Some of the powers that the Bush Administration claimed are being claimed by the Obama administration, and certainly the recession has provided the justfication for further economic power for the president.

One of the troubling things about this is how results-oriented the political process has become.  Many people seem to be all right with expanded executive, legislative, and/or judicial power as long as policies that they like are enacted.  There don’t seem to be strong voices calling for the principles and limits found in the Constitution to be followed.  Sometimes I think our Constitution is almost worn-out from years of being asked to do things it was never meant to do.  In a free society, we have to be willing to tolerate things that we don’t like.

The marriage of Christianity and republican political theory in America

Noll’s fifth chapter analyzes the American combination of Christianity and republican political ideas, which was a rare combination in the 18th and 19th centuries.  You can see my notes on his previous chapter, where he explained more about this, here.

Noll argues that the most powerful influence in combining Christian beliefs and republican political principles was the period of conflict with France in the 1740s-1760s, the two wars known in America as King George’s War (1744-1748) and the French and Indian War (1754-1763).  French political and religious (i.e. Catholic) tyranny were contrasted with English liberty.  After the wars with France, religious Americans calling for religious freedom (as opposed to established churches) and the end of slavery used the republican language of rights and liberty.

Noll argues that during the time of resistance and open rebellion against British taxes and laws republican and Christian language were intermingled, so that Christianity was a “disinfectant” that sanitized the republican ideas that were so often connected with heretical ideas.  He gives the great example of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which presented biblical examples in support of a republican form of government and against monarchy.  Paine had probably personally rejected Christianity at the time, but presented a very persuasive case that Christianity and republican ideas went hand in hand.  Noll calls this “Christian republicanism.”

Noll gives a plausible account of how “Christian republicanism” emerged.  He states early on in the book that he intends to do a history of theology that pays attention to high culture rather than a social history that looks at popular culture, while recognizing the necessity of histories that do the latter.  So the question remaining is how this worked at a popular level.  He contends that Americans in general tended to accept the synthesis hammered out in the theology that he explores, and I’m inclined to agree with him.

Noll closes with a great account from the always quotable de Tocqueville:

The character of the country that de Tocqueville visited in the 1830s seemed compounded of what he called “two perfectly distinct elements that elsewhere have often made war with each other, but which, in America, … they have succeeded in incorporating somehow into another and combining marvelously.  I mean to speak of the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom.” (92)

The Roots of American Theology

I’ve finally gotten a chance to begin, for at least the second time, Mark Noll’s America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.  He’s set out an interesting task for himself: answering the question of how theological ideas in America became so thoroughly integrated with American cultural ideas.  Specifically, he is exploring how evangelical religious beliefs, “republican” political ideas (arguing for a representative government without a king), and commonsense moral ideas (the idea that all people, not just Christians, possessed a strong sense of and ability to discover true morality) became so connected in American culture.  Noll draws an interesting contrast in his first chapter to illustrate this mixing of religious and political ideas in American thought:

Why did [Abraham] Lincoln, though never a church member, use the Bible more frequently in [his Second Inaugural Address] and also address questions of theological significance more directly than his near-peers as heads of state in other Protestant lands who were dedicated members of Christian churches like William Gladstone in Britain or Abraham Kuyper in the Netherlands? (6)

In Chapter 2, Noll argues that none of this fusion was evident in the writings of the theologians of the first half of the 1700s.  American church groups like the Congregationalists (Puritans), Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Quakers were very traditional, affirming the historic doctrines of their various traditions even more than some of their European counterparts (beginning to be influenced by rationalism) were.  Puritans and Presbyterians articulated the doctrines of Calvinism, arguing that man could do nothing to save himself and that human nature was damaged by the fall and therefore did not have a strong moral sense.  Therefore, only God could convert sinners and impart a true sense of morality to those he chose to regenerate.  Even Jonathan Edwards, conversant with the Enlightenment ideas of the day, concentrated on defending the traditional Puritan doctrines while stating them in contemporary terms.

As he notes at the end of Chapter 2, even the very disruptive Great Awakening showed “the continuing power of a religion with scant room for the intensely this-worldly preoccupations of republicanism or the optimistic universalism of moral-sense philosophy” (29).  The main figures of the Great Awakening were traditional Calvinists, and the strongest theological tradition when it was all said and done was still Puritan Calvinism, which had just received Edwards’ forceful defense.  Yet Noll hints that Puritan theology would break up soon.

If you’re confused by idea of the “commonsense” moral ideas, I still am too, but I believe that he will be explaining it further.  I hope that I’ve summarized his point accurately so far.  I’m going to blog my reaction to each chapter as I go to help me remember what he writes.

And finally, if you’ve never read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address that Noll referred to in the quote above, it’s really short and at the same time packed with profound ideas.  Do yourself a favor and check it out.

The everlasting Christmas celebration…

Every year the holidays come and go.  I, for one, don’t let go so fast.  I have always loved Christmas and all it represents, though as a child, I didn’t know all it represented but I knew I was missing something.   When I became a christian, it became all the more clearer why I loved Christmas…Christ.  The love and grace that exudes from God and the sacrifice of Christ can never be contained.  In our bedtime devotion with the kids tonight, the kids are trying to grasp why God made them…which is to glorify Himself.  He made us to love Him.

So, here it is, January 21st, and half of our Christmas decorations are still up.   Our articfial tree (which I hesitatingly agreed to buy before Christmas) is still up with all it’s beautiful decorations and lights.  It keeps our front room nicely lit.  It makes a nice night light too.  I still have a few strings of lighted garland up too.  They create a great ambience.  I delay in bringing them all down.  I kinda get the bummed that the “spirit of Christmas” lasts but a month.  Maybe 2 (thanksgiving preparations usually extend the holiday spirit a little more).  But why?  Even if you’re not a believer, surely the “spirit of giving” and the “goodwill toward men” and the “joy to the world” does not end December 26th?  But surely, as a Christian, this certainly isn’t true.  Now, don’t be a wise guy, I don’t mean we should give gifts and celebrate everyday with gift-giving like we do at Christmas b/c that’s not what Christmas is about.  For most, it’s about “love, family, friends”, being with those you care for, fun, etc…  and all those things are good.  But the ultimate gift, isn’t it, the gift of life from our Creator, and the gift that will keep on giving… the gift of salvation through the blood of Christ, in whom we can live for all eternity?!!  Like, whoa.  I, too, need to grasp that reality more and more each Christmas.  As much as I enjoy the decorating, the meals with friends, creating family memories, singing carols, etc, I hope to echo the gospel that gives us the REAL hope and REAL change that we can Really all believe in, that Christ came to save sinners like us and through Him, there will one day be a day where the celebration will be everlasting…Praise God. Hallelujah and Amen.

My Sanctity of Life Sermon Notes from 1/18/09 “Rescuing Lives by Exposing Darkness and Loving Jesus”

These notes were intended for me to preach off of and may not be formatted all that well for your reading, but I am posting them nonetheless. Included are segments from MLK’s Letter from Birmingham and several other articles.

“Rescuing Lives by Exposing Darkness and Loving Jesus”

Proverbs 24:10-12 (ESV)
¹⁰ If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. ¹¹ Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. ¹² If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?

Ephesians 5:5-12 (ESV)
⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. ⁶ Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. ⁷ Therefore do not become partners with them; ⁸ for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light ⁹ (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), ¹⁰ and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. ¹¹ Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. ¹² For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

 Planned Parenthood needs to be exposed for their darkness and I want to warn you all not to be deceived by their false lies, which are “empty words”. Take no part in them, don’t believe that they are for “human rights”, and it is indeed shameful what they say and do in secret…and in public.

Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood and an inspiring figure for those in the movement and women’s lib movement. Here is a sampling of some things that Sanger stood for:

 “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” 
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race 

-          Yes there are financial challenges to maintaining a large family, but Sanger proposes that the family’s collective killing is the most merciful thing that can be done. R u serious? This sentiment is foolish…sounds like wisdom to some who say that quality of life is more important than life itself. If quality of life defines ones viability, then we might as well kill off ¾ of the world’s population as an act of “mercy”.

-          It is arrogant to suppose that the poor are unworthy of life and better of dead than poor.

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people.

-          Sanger supported a project to eliminate the African-American race.

-          Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion.

1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.

3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child.

Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry.

-          It’s been said that the most dangerous place to live today is for a black child to live in his/her mother’s womb. That is indeed sad.

-          Blacks are abortioned at a greater rate than there percentage in society and it is taking place by mostly white doctors. Sanger would delight in this news!!!

-          Planned Parenthood gladly takes money earmarked for murdering black babies…no surprise…just making Sanger proud and continuing her legacy.

Academic Freedom Day Coming Feb. 12 2009

 Support Academic Freedom on Feb. 12 and all days!!! Click on picture for link.

You can protest, write a letter to your local newspaper editorial section, call in on talk radio, write the local school board, etc.