This is a brief response to my critics, mostly Frank Turk.
I think the heart of our disagreement is the Bible and how to read it. I think the Bible is true and binding on a Christian. If it says a thing, we must do it.
Sadly, reading a book is not as easy as one might think. The Bible was written to a particular people and time . . . and has to be contextualized to be understood. When it comes to salvation, the news is good: we get it. “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” and we are saved.
Even then, of course, understanding what it means to “believe” can be difficult!
When the Bible gives economic advice, things get trickier. For many of us the advice to own goats for milk would be counterproductive. We don’t get our clothes from lambs. Most of us have no problem with this, we contextualize the advice.
Proverbs warns about being lazy, but the signs of laziness in a farm based culture are not exactly the same as those in “word” based culture like our own. You can do a good bit of work from bed in our day!
My view of the forms of government described in the Bible follows this pattern. The Bible gives us no sanctified form of government for this life. The government God established on Mount Sinai was for that people, at that place, at that time. Some laws were as shadows for the rest of us (dietary laws) to teach deeper theological truths and have no relevance to me today. (I can eat ham!) Other laws were the best that could be sustained in poor and nomadic cultures. Our much richer and non-nomadic culture can, for example, establish prisons.
We also have a richer political and philosophical vocabulary. This is partly because we have learned the lessons (however imperfectly) from the wilderness government.
Of course, the wilderness government did not last . . . and Israel was ruled by judges and later by kings. There is much to learn in each period from Israel’s sacred history. We get ideas about the nature of man and some ideas about government, but not a full blown political philosophy or anything like it.
There is much of value to glean, but doing so is not simple. Our rulers are not David. They don’t have God’s special promises to David . . . so when our fallen rulers compare themselves to David (as one governor recently did) to justify staying in power, they are wrong. Governors are not monarchs!
Again: there are principles, but they must receive modern application.
Israel’s sacred history is God’s unfolding plan of redemption, not a political guidebook!
The same thing is true about the New Testament. There are binding principles there, but not much detail. It tells me to honor the king, but I have no king (save King Jesus!) and no ruler that has monarchical prerogatives. I think the advice can be contextualized, but this must first be done or I cannot make sense out of it.
In short, there are things I can learn from the Bible about government (human), but the Bible is not enough when it comes to human government. I would vote against (and view as dreadful) anyone advocating the penal coded of nomadic Israel.
The principles are universal, but the application is not. (Example: our sheer technological ability to collect evidence means that the testimony of a human witness, the best one could have in ancient times as evidence, is often much less reliable than “circumstantial” evidence at a crime scene. I have served on cases where “two witnesses” were less reliable than data that would have been unknown to ancients.)
For the vast majority of Christians, the Bible implies human liberty. We are agents who can choose and this choice must be honored. It does not work this idea out politically, but then it does not work many ideas out politically. That is not the purpose of the Bible.
Using a simple and daily example of food choices, I have argued that liberty is compatible with the Bible. I can choose what I eat (no small thing in our house!). This is, of course, only one liberty the Bible implies I have. There are more . . . and it is the job of Christian political philosophers to work it out.
Scripture (here) is not enough.
I think this view of Scripture is at the heart of my disagreements with Frank Turk. He asks:
Please: does the Bible inform us regarding how to use the internet? The answer to that question unravels everything you say here – either regarding your view of authority and how it can be gleaned from the Bible, or regarding all the diversions from the actual question you have posted here so far.
I answer that the Bible tells us some things that are useful in using the Internet, but not everything. Of course, it does not tell us (literally) how to use the Internet. There is nothing about my Mac in it, but this is not the only limitation. It does not even say much about technology and its relationship to men.
This is no shock, since it was not written in societies where machines were more important than muscle labor. We use machines to do what slaves once did (an improvement I think) and of such a culture the Bible must have little to say.
It does contain universal and binding moral principles. It does tell me about God and realities that imply certain things about my use of the Internet . . .but like many things it does not lay out how the Internet should be used in any great detail.
There is a theology in the Bible, but no philosophy of technology. My theology should fill my philosophy of technology (and its use) and my ethics should constrain me as well, but they are not the same thing.
It is left to the joyful use of human creativity! So much to learn . . . so much to create . . . so little time!
March 10th, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #1
“This is a brief response to my critics, mostly Frank Turk.”
By and large, it’s a fine response. I have a minor quibble though. You wrote:
“For the vast majority of Christians (who are not Reformed), the Bible implies human liberty.”
Why did you single out the Reformed? I’m Reform and I believe that the Reform perspective does not rule out that the Bible implies human liberty.
Some Reform folks *may* think that the Bible does not “imply” human liberty (I don’t know who they are. Frank Turk maybe?), but I don’t think it’s correct to single out the Reform position as you did in your parenthetical above.
March 10th, 2010 | 12:48 pm | #2
You are right. I was wrong to do that. I will remove it.
March 10th, 2010 | 1:08 pm | #3
I’ve given not a little thought to the idea that Eden contained a setting where human liberty was given, and I think the correct inference to draw is that both the man and woman had libertarian freedom. It explains how the Fall occurred.
However, I am not sure I would conclude we were “designed for liberty” and therefore should draw a political theory from the case. We obviously, and monumentally, failed to exercise our liberty in a responsible manner. We did not, as Micah says, “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.”
Nevertheless, we do have liberty. And we live in a society where everyone seems to have a natural sense of autonomy and the right to use it in the way he or she chooses (within limits, of course). What God has to say about how we use it ultimately matters. But our society has chosen to honor the same rights that God seems to have given human beings. And this form of government is not something that is incompatible with the idea that God ordains government for administering justice. In itself it may have its drawbacks, but it is better than what has been tried before, I believe.
March 10th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #4
Adam,
If man has a nature, doesn’t it follow that politics ought to take that nature into account?
March 10th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #5
I must be missing something, either that or I am a lousy Calvinist, which is perfectly fine with me and many of my Presbyterian brethren would agree anyway. But seriously, Calvinists believe that men are free to do whatever they want to. Even, dare I say it, they are free to believe in Jesus. Even the “non-elect” may freely believe in Jesus if they want to. Election never hindered a man from coming to Jesus as Lord and Christ. Neither did election make him a rebel against the government. Sin did/does all that.
March 10th, 2010 | 3:44 pm | #6
orthodoxdj,
Yes, I think so. I am talking about something different though going back to the original question posed in JMR’s post about man being “designed” for liberty. Perhaps this is true in a specified sense, but in general sense, I think Scripture shows us that we are not very good at using our liberty…
March 10th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #7
Questions for JMR:
Is it possible for us to break any of the Ten Commandments in our use of the internet?
Is it possible for a government to break the Ten Commandments?
March 10th, 2010 | 9:02 pm | #8
You said The Bible …. has to be contextualized to be understood
I will now shun you as an apostate heretic
and run screaming in circles as my pointy head explodes
March 10th, 2010 | 9:32 pm | #9
On the Bible and Liberty
I don’t know what kind of Christian liberty we have when the purveyors of Christian Correctness bludgeon folks with:
“In all cases, we must remember Jesus’ warning about our words:
“For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:34-37).
March 10th, 2010 | 9:34 pm | #10
Dac: “I will now shun you as an apostate heretic”
In all cases, we must remember Jesus’ warning about our words:
“For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:34-37).
March 10th, 2010 | 10:18 pm | #11
@tuad
No, I was pretty careful in what I said. But hey, Fe is not for everyone
March 10th, 2010 | 11:14 pm | #12
I find myself in the odd position of disagreeing with both Turk and JMR. Turk because he has badly fumbled the biblical case (indeed, never even touched the ball), rather odd for someone who demands Scripture and then goes silent when it is provided.
But JMR, I think you do not give enough attention to Scripture, which does indeed provide specific guidelines for government.
This is ironic, for those guidelines do line up with liberty interests, and those interests do go back all the way to Exodus 20.
The Bible is on your side, dude.
March 11th, 2010 | 12:12 am | #13
My compliments to JMR for a well-argued case.
March 11th, 2010 | 9:43 am | #14
Johnny –
That’s a broad condemnation. I’d love to see you substantiate it.
______________________________
JMR –
Response forthcoming. I think it’s somewhat amazing, really, that this is how you would make your case.
More later — thanks for staying engaged.
March 11th, 2010 | 10:10 am | #15
Michael Bauman: “My compliments to JMR for a well-argued case.”
Frank Turk: “JMR –
Response forthcoming. I think it’s somewhat amazing, really, that this is how you would make your case.”
It’s nice that there is liberty to have such a wide divergence of views.
March 11th, 2010 | 10:11 am | #16
Yeesh. I’ve substantiated it half a dozen times. And this is the response?
That’s a Turkian tactic, throwing a challenge back as if answered. Won’t work, hasn’t worked. Just want the fans in the stands to be aware of it.
Try re-reading the posts and comments to date, and respond to them with substance. Looking forward to it.
March 11th, 2010 | 10:29 am | #17
JMR –
You write:”I think the heart of of our disagreement is the Bible and how to read it.”
That statement brings one into the arena of hermeneutics, i. e. principles of interpretation.
One can ask, “Is there a distinctive Calvinist hermeneutic?” Or, “Is there a distinctive Wesleyan hermeneutic?” Or, “Is there a distinctive Lutheran hermeneutic?” One could continue quite a while with those questions! All of which must be answered in the affirmative!
You and FT will continue your conversation for quite some time. Your hermeneutic and his are very different…thus also will be your understandings of the identical text.
Thanks for taking time to write!
March 11th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #18
Johnny Dialectic: “That’s a Turkian tactic, throwing a challenge back as if answered. Won’t work, hasn’t worked. Just want the fans in the stands to be aware of it.”
Okay.
March 11th, 2010 | 12:46 pm | #19
Dac: “I will now shun you as an apostate heretic”
In all cases, we must remember Jesus’ warning about our words:
“For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:34-37).
Dac: “No, I was pretty careful in what I said. But hey, Fe is not for everyone.”
Okay. That’s a good thing then. Because here’s another warning from Jesus:
“Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way” (Luke 6:26)
March 11th, 2010 | 2:37 pm | #20
Are you guys talking about politics or hermeneutics. I am having a bit of trouble figuring out the issue at hand here.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:20 pm | #21
Johnny –
Link? I must have missed it. I’d be glad to be wrong as the rest of this is going to take a lot of time, and an apology will take 3 sentences if that’s all I have to do.
March 11th, 2010 | 6:19 pm | #22
Brad:
I agree with John Locke on several issues.
Frank thinks Lockes’ views are incompatible with Scripture on some issues.
I think Frank is misreading Scripture.
I hope that sums it up fairly.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact