Over at Justin Taylor’s blog, he offers a transcribed interview conducted with Ken Myers of the great Mars Hill Audio. I want to talk about this part:
Question: One of the arguments out there by what I am going to call a “high two-kingdoms view,” is that there is not a distinctively Christian way of doing “X” vocation, even that we should resist that because that would be to mix the kingdoms, and if you were to, for example (this would be the anti-Abraham Kuyper position), be a politician, your Christian thought should not come in. Could you interact with that a little?
Myers: First of all I would agree…I am a believer in natural law. Let me put it this way. Let me say for the sake of the argument that I’ll agree with that, there isn’t a distinctively Christian view of politics and art, or anything. But there is a distinctively human view; that is there are de-humanizing possibilities in those spheres; Christians we are necessarily humanists. That is, Christians are necessarily interested in sustaining the best for human beings as human beings.
What I take issue with, and not in a pugnacious way, is the statement that “there isn’t a distinctively Christian view of politics.” I feel quite certain there is such a thing. Contrast, for example, some of the Christian socio-political values that took the place of their Greco-Roman predecessors. Mercy becomes desirable rather than contemptible. The church becomes a brake upon the state’s unrighteousness rather than a servant of it (thinking Ambrose and Theodosius here). The exposure of unwanted children to the elements and wild beasts goes way, way out of style. The gladiator games cease. Constantine closes the courts on Sunday unless there is a slave to be set free. He ends the practice of branding criminals’ faces. We could go on. A Christian politics is a distinctive thing. I suspect we think it is not only because of the degree to which the world now accepts many of those ideas and values as the correct ones.
November 13th, 2009 | 10:22 am | #1
There is a third way between “Theonomy” and “Two Kingdoms”, and it is the Gospel. As we say in my little camp, “The Gospel is the Solution to Culture.”
Before spelling that out, I’ll let someone else take a stab at it.
November 13th, 2009 | 10:23 am | #2
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Myers is both right and wrong.
Yes, there is a distinctively human view, if by that we can intend to mean that Christ is the template for the distinctively human person who is being what a human was intended to be.
November 13th, 2009 | 10:51 am | #3
Hmm… tough issue to tackle. I would throw out for consideration that instead of thinking of Christian politics as “a distinct thing”, it might be more useful to think of Christians as having distinct ideas of sin and grace, which have political implications.
That is, we can rightly condemn (as you point out) the exposure of infants, and even work to change laws or customs that permit practices like this, but do so from the perspective of the Gospel, rather than from a systematic political theory. Thinking about politics this way allows us to be good citizens in whatever society God has placed us, and helps us avoid confusing the things of God and the things of Caesar. It also keeps us from the trap of identifying Christianity too closely with a particular form of government or a particular political movement…
November 13th, 2009 | 10:53 am | #4
I completely agree with Coyle.
It is unusual that I ever completely agree with anyone.
November 13th, 2009 | 11:02 am | #5
Is Myers saying that there is not a distinctively Christian way of doing X, or is he saying there is not ONLY ONE WAY of doing X in a distinctively Christian way?
In this present world, because Christians cannot perfectly mirror Christ, Christians can be, or aim to be, distinctively Christian in their approach to X, yet still arrive at differing political, legal, social, economic, etc., opinions.
In other words, Christians may agree on the fundamental Gospel injunction to care for the poor, but is it not possible to concede that two Christians — working from similar distinctively Christian principles — might disagree on how to accomplish that?
There is merit in acknowledging that foundational Christian principles exist by which Christians can work out ‘distinctively Christian’ positions and ways of living, while recognizing that some times these ways of thinking and acting coincide with the opinions and ways of non-Christians. Natural law and Myers’ formulation of humanism are fundamentally Christian, in that they adhere to God’s purposes for Creation.
Now if only Christians could agree on what the foundational Christian principles are.
November 13th, 2009 | 11:32 am | #6
Here is an interesting article titled ““I’m Not a Social Reformer, I’m Here to Preach the Gospel.”
November 13th, 2009 | 1:10 pm | #7
Hunter,
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, I am the one who transcribed this from the interview. Myers isn’t necessarily saying this. He is responding to the other position and assuming it for the sake of argument. I think you need to clarify this. The title of your post and the way you address it seems to imply this is Myers position. It isn’t.
James Grant
November 13th, 2009 | 1:37 pm | #8
[...] (3)Andy: I still think Whittaker Chambers review of Atlas Shrugged (from Nat’l Review, Dec… Two Kingdoms Theory and Ken Myers (7)James Grant: Hunter, Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, I am the… Questions about [...]
November 13th, 2009 | 2:25 pm | #9
I think it is clear from the transcription that he is speaking in the way you suggest. I’m taking issue with the statement more than with Ken Myers, which is why I talk about not being pugnacious.
November 13th, 2009 | 3:01 pm | #10
How about settling in the middle,
Christian reconstructionism anybody
November 13th, 2009 | 4:22 pm | #11
Fair enough, but I think there was some confusion on the matter, especially considering a few comments.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact