Here is a rather provocative post commenting on the “bishop bans Biden” Roman Catholic controversy involving the Vice President’s political position on abortion.
What interests me here is the hopeful possibility of constructive engagement regarding the particular brand of what is known as “two kingdoms theology” (or NL2K, or R2K, or Escondido Theology), a novel construal of the relationship between Christ(ianity) and culture that has received a careful analysis and clear response in the newly released volume, Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective.
The blog post reviews the Biden controversy, along with some Roman Catholic casuistry (a good word, by the way!) for advising church members about voting for candidates who support abortion. Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) offered some distinctions relating to evaluating the way in which a candidate’s toleration of abortion functioned in his political activity.
I’m fascinated by the author’s concluding praise for the Roman Catholic Church’s position:
The concern [of Ratzinger's advice] is clearly to place the church in opposition to an evil so grave that it may never be tolerated. For that, I think, the Catholic Church should be lauded. There are some principles of moral obedience binding on a disciple of Christ that simply cannot be compromised, even if (or especially if) that disciple is a civil magistrate.
If we should applaud the church that advises its members regarding political responses to candidates who favor abortion, then by this logic we should also applaud the church that encourages its members—whether citizen or magistrate—to seek effective legal means that will eliminate “an evil so grave that it may not be tolerated.”
This encouragement should be applauded as being something distinct from the church endorsing, or requiring its members to endorse, one or another such legal means to eliminate this evil. (We are not arguing that the church-as-institute should endorse, say, a particular constitutional amendment relating to defending life at conception.)
This encouragement should be applauded because eliminating this evil is also required by “the principle of moral obedience binding on a disciple of Christ that simply cannot be compromised.” We would be troubled if our applause for the church-as-institute were permitted by our NL2K friends to be one-sided—applauding the church’s opposition toward intolerable evil, but not the church’s promotion of the good over against that evil.
Historically, it is exactly this kind of encouragement by the church-as-institute for the church-as-organism that has fueled Christian, Calvinist cultural engagement that seeks to express (not “extend”) the Lordship of Jesus Christ within the field of politics.
Historically, it is exactly this kind of encouragement by the church-as-institute that has identified Christian activity (something distinct from activity by Christians) in various cultural spheres as serving the coming kingdom of God (something distinct from building the kingdom of God).
Historically, this kind of encouragement arose from biblical preaching and teaching that presented the Cosmic Christ as having royal claims upon all Christian activity, as well as all activity by Christians, within cultural life.
Historically, this kind of encouragement from the church-as-institute motivated the collaborative application by Christian believers of biblical principles and perspectives to spheres like labor and management, citizenship and justice, education and nurture, science and art, and more.
If the institutional church should be applauded for opposing the evil of legalized abortion on demand, why should it not be applauded for promoting the elimination of that evil? And if the latter is valid, then on what biblical and theological basis should the institutional church be forbidden from promoting the good—pursued by believers laboring together beyond the activity and competence of the institutional church—in other areas of cultural life?
Without really disagreeing, one complexity is that there is an acceptably wide range of views on many important questions: on what counts as “effective legal means,” on the nature of voting and coalitions, on federalism and the constitution, on distinctions between sins and crimes, on what the “tone” of the church’s cultural engagement should be, on the relative importance of different moral issues, and so on. The institutional church has to be very careful that she not take sides on many of these questions, all the while promoting the relevance of Scripture and sanctified wisdom to the same questions.
Thanks, Nick, for this comment. I agree with your observations, and would also note that the population of the “church-as-organism” is the same as that of the “church-as-institute.” This reality can serve as a built-in brake, I think, to keep the institutional church functioning within its field of competence. By the way, another helpful reality in this regard is confessionally united ecumenical diversity within these non-ecclesiastical spheres of cultural activity. A church of a particular denomination should / would think twice about issuing definite policy positions, while nonetheless setting out the clear biblical principles (making sure they are both clear and biblical) as a form of moral guidance.
Thank you for getting involved on this question, Dr. Kloosterman.
I’m frankly horrified by the things I’m seeing with some of the more radical Two Kingdoms people saying there’s nothing wrong with a pro-choice elected official being a member of a confessional Reformed church.
Thank you, Darrell, for the encouragement. We are discovering that there exists no such creature as “the” Two Kingdoms doctrine. Those who want to advocate the historic understanding as that has been developed and refined among Reformed and Presbyterian folk need desperately to clarify their differences from those whom you describe as radical. From an early point in this more than three-year discussion (recall that I jumped in that long ago with my review in Christian Renewal of Darryl Hart’s religious secularism), I have found that this clarification happens most effectively when the discussion turns to specifics of application.
Thank you, Dr. Kloosterman.
If you haven’t seen the discussion over on the Presbyterian Blues (the blog of an OPC elder from Iowa) regarding whether pro-abortion politicians who are members of Reformed churches should be disciplined, please check it out.
Matt Tuininga has quite correctly distanced himself from that view, and for that he needs to be commended.
There is something very seriously wrong when some OPC elders, PCA elders, and URC members are publicly saying they do not have a problem with pro-choice U.S. Senator Scott Brown being a member in good standing of a professedly Reformed congregation. Granted, New England Chapel of Franklin, Mass., isn’t exactly a solid traditional conservative Christian Reformed Church, but even Jim Lucas was actively involved in the pro-life movement despite being a homosexual, as were several of the women I knew at Calvin Theological Seminary despite being supporters of women’s ordination who were seeking to be ordained.
Abortion is far worse than women in office.
Thank you for referring me to the online discussion, Darrell. I’ll check it out.
I wonder how this discussion would play out if we substituted “a politician who refuses to oppose slavery” for “a politician who refuses to oppose abortion.” Would an elder or minister in our Reformed or Presbyterian churches go unchallenged if he defended a politician who refuses to oppose slavery? If not, why should these churches tolerated in office someone who defends a politician who refuses to oppose the marriage of homosexuals or legalized abortion?
Along with you, I think this concrete, specific issue must be highlighted as one contemporary outcome of the doctrinal innovation among Reformed and Presbyterian folk known as NL2K (called by some, “R2K” or “Escondido Theology’). I agree with you that theologians and seminaries need to help the churches with guidance so the churches can draw the necessary lines in this matter.
Here’s the link to the discussion on whether churches should discipline pro-abortion politicians such as U.S. Senator Scott Brown:
http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/why-preachers-should-stay-away-from-legal-analyis-too/
I think we agree, Dr. Kloosterman, on the parallel between churches refusing to condemn abortion and churches refusing to condemn the manstealing inherent in Southern race-based chattel slavery. Whatever we can say about the abuses of R2K theology, I think any fair evaluation of the movement needs to recognize it has roots in Southern Presbyterianism.
That shows two things: first, that 2K theology is not totally new and, at least in its less radical forms, has roots in the old Southern Presbyterian “spirituality of the church” concept, and 2) that 2K theology has serious problems since it (at best) inhibited the church from speaking out against manifest evil in Southern slavery, or (at worst) was crafted deliberately to defend Southern slavery.
Of course, the Dutch Reformed tradition has its own history on that matter, including Wyatt Earp’s father being a Union Army recruiter in Pella and the early Dutch immigrants who founded the CRC being rather active in anti-slavery Republican Party politics.
Gentlemen, I’d be interested in hearing your response to the following. I responded to the following comment:
“Mass murder of babies in the womb is one of those issues. For a Christian elected official who has the ability to vote against abortion to instead vote for continued baby killing is evil.”
We must make distinctions. Only one kind of person performs “mass murder of babies in the womb” – an abortion doctor. The only other person commiting a sin of commission is the woman having the abortion.
But you are going after Joe Biden and Scott Brown for something different. Neither has had an abortion or performed an abortion. Neither was on the SCOTUS for the Roe v. Wade decision.
And we can go further. It isn’t in their power to outlaw abortion. It’s a consitutional right. So they couldn’t outlaw abortion if they wanted to.
Your position ends up being that they should be subject to church discipline for uttering a policy about the availability of abortion. You would essentially be disciplining them for uttering a theory on what the magistrate should do about abortion. So what you would do is not like disciplining an abortionist or someone who has had an abortion – it is like bringing the power of the Church against a magistrate who thinks nonmarital sex and heresy should remain legal. If you can prove one of those you can prove the others. If you can’t, then you’re likely prosecuting a violation of the culture war.
Thank you for this kind invitation, but for a number of reasons that I won’t explain, I must decline to engage it by way of substantive response.
I would be very willing, however, to respond to your interaction with some specific claim or argument advanced in a Cosmic Eye blog post.
By contrast, if Mr. Maurina wishes to accept your invitation here, I’d be happy to post his response(s), as long as the conversation moves forward respectfully.
Thanks again.
Fair enough, Dr. Kloosterman. BTW, I think you and I have had lunch together. That is, if you were the speaker at a Midwest Presbytery summer retreat at Green Lake who spoke on matters related to the family. Our daughters were both late teens and, if I recall correctly, we went to McDonalds or a similar place.
BTW, I appreciate your tone in your next “Inch by Inch…” post.
I’m glad to make your re-acquaintance! That was some time ago, to be sure.
You may be interested to know that my translation of Herman Bavinck’s The Christian Family was just published.
Thanks, again, for your encouragement regarding tone. I do think the air is freshening a bit.
So, Mikelmann, since the Reformed have determined through time that the state should not oulaw “all” sin, how does that forbid it from outlawing “some” sin? It’s a much different thing to acknowledge that the SCOTUS has indeed legalized abortion (did they indeed term it a “constitutional right?) –we’d all have to do that–as opposed to defending that decision and advocating its permanence. I’m with DTM on this one.
Enumerated One, the context here is crucial. DTM’s position is that a politician should be the subject of church discipline for announcing that abortion should remain legal. That is the question that has been explored, and my overriding interest has not been to provide a safety zone for politicians with wrong-headed views about abortion as much as it is to understand what the church may proclaim as being a good and necessary inference from scripture and, closely related, when the church should uses its power to discipline.
So if you’re with DTM, then you can draw up biblical charges against a politician for saying abortion should remain legal. If you can do that, I will join you.
Meanwhile, citizens can be citizens and vote pro-life, although making it the primary litmus test is, I think, ill-advised because in reality there is not all that much elected politicians can do about it any more.
Getting back to the “outlawing some sin” part, yes, the magistrate should bear the sword to restrain evil, and, as a citizen making fallible decisions about things political, my vote will keep that in mind.
I keep saying something that gets no response, so maybe you will be the first. Do you see how barring a politician from the table for saying he is in favor of legalized abortion is like barring a politician for saying that nonmarital sex should remain legal? Or, if you think those are two different things, I’d like to hear why.
Mikelmann has a legitimate request that those of us who object to his view should draw up draft charges against, for example, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, a member in good standing of a Christian Reformed congregation who has been a public advocate of a pro-abortion position.
Mikelmann is a lawyer and an OPC elder. I think those of us who disagree with him need to work hard to give him what he is asking, recognizing however, that the fine points and technical details are going to differ from person to person and from denomination to denomination. The problem is that it’s precisely those technical details that get charges thrown out on appeal.
We need to answer Mikelmann’s challenge and do it right.
While somebody in the CRC should try to deal with Sen. Brown, the CRC is a procedural nightmare, as those of us who have dealt with that denomination know all too well, and in the CRC the process will be primarily political rather than judicial. I think that means we need to take our time to prepare specifications of error not so much against Sen. Brown specifically, but rather against a hypothetical member of a confessional Reformed church who is pro-abortion but is not personally performing abortions or personally obtaining an abortion for herself or for a wife or girlfriend.
Furthermore, those charges need to meet the procedural requirements of the OPC (which are the strictest of all the major NAPARC denominations) and be of sufficient breadth that they would hold up under both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.
Crafting those charges is not a simple process and it probably needs to be done either by a lawyer or by an expert in church polity.
It does, however, need to be done, or Mikelmann will legitimately claim that we won’t produce such charges because they can’t be produced.
Understand, DTM, that I don’t see this as a procedural hoop meant to trip people up. Simply put, it is not a sin to violate the requirements of the culture law but it is sin to violate the commandments of the Word of God. It may be unusual or even odd, but to discern the difference ask myself if I could draw up charges that convincingly allege sin.
Such do not have to be uniquely adapted to the OPC. I don’t think a lawyer is necessary; in fact there are plenty of pastors I consider far more expert than I am. The general form would be fairly simple:
1. Specfication: On a certain date, politician Smith said abortion should remain legal.
2. Sin alleged: (as a type or category)
3. Scripture supporting the charge:
4. Secondary standards supporting the charge: (optional)
5. Statement in support of the charges: (this could be as short or long as desired)
But I fear we are trespassing on Dr. Kloosterman’s blog. If anyone wants to take this up as a prosecutor then engage in give-and-take with someone defending the politician we could do that over at my blog.
Here is a start, Mikelmann. The Westminster Larger Catechism: Q and A 150: “Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God? A. All transgessions of the law of God are not equally heinous;but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.” So, we non-theonomist Reformed have determined, the magistrate is to protect life from murder, while church discipline handles immorality inside the body of believers, and we rely on the power of the preached Gospel to permeate society and suppress sinful non-violent behavior.
Number, there are advantages to at least mentally filling in the blanks in 1-5 above. It tends to help with focus, misunderstandings, and fuzzy ideas. You have supplied something from the secondard standards (#4) and a little bit of explanation (#5). But if you don’t supply #2 we could wander around a bit.
The kind of allegation makes a big difference. The man hasn’t commited an abortion, and the specification isn’t even about his action on legislation. It is about a statement. So you will need to make an allegation that is responsive to a man making a statement.
Q & A 150 is too general to be of much use in this context. You could use it for any charge that would ever be made, but it doesn’t clarify. It begs the question.
I would hope a church court would not convict someone based on what “we non-theonomist Reformed have determined.” Violations of consensus are not sin – violations of the Word of God are sin (#3 above).
Correction to 10/27 comment: “Simply put, it is not a sin to violate the requirements of the culture WAR…”
Dr. Kloosterman is the expert here on the history of Dutch Reformed (a.k.a. “continental” Reformed) church government, not me. I’m going to defer to his far greater knowledge of Reformed history on this point.
However, speaking purely as a layman, it would certainly seem to me that advocating for the “right” of people outside the church to murder each other is a disciplinable offense. I think that’s part of Dr. Kloosterman’s point.
After all, murder is what we’re talking about when it comes to abortion. Up until this discussion cropped up a few weeks ago, I wasn’t aware that anyone in conservative Reformed circles — let alone the OPC — disagreed with that.
Perhaps I need to ask a further question for clarification.
I understand the distinction between advocating murder inside the church and advocating murder outside the church. I hope we’re all agreed that advocating for the “right” of people who **ARE** church members to murder each other is worthy of church discipline.
Are we? If not, we have a different problem to deal with, and different principles of the Westminster Standards and Three Forms of Unity apply.
Even Mitt Romney back in his “pro-choice” days, when he was a Mormon bishop (comparable to a lay pastor of a local church in evangelical circles) was pretty adamant in his counseling of a woman who was a Mormon that she should not get an abortion in a questionable case when Mormon doctrine might have actually allowed that abortion.
CORRECTION: I just realized it is “enumerated one,” aka “2866oa,” not Dr. Kloosterman, who made the post w/r/t WLC 150.
Dr. Kloosterman, of course I expect you to feel free to step in if I’ve crossed the lines of what is permissible in this discussion.
Side point: I used to get annoyed at the anonymity of people posting on the internet — there are reasons I use my real name — until I remembered that anonymous pamphleteers were not an uncommon feature of the Reformation era and of the American Revolution and of debates on the Constitution. I don’t like anonymity, but I don’t think I can object based on more than personal preference, considering our theological and political history.
DTM, rather than engage the question you have amped up the rhetoric and used your bandwagon (still rolling despite its high mileage) argument. This the point at which it’s best to walk away from the discussion. I hope to find time within the next couple days to work the question into a post.
Mikelmann, I’m not ignoring you.
You have asked, and legitimately so, for a draft of charges to be filed against someone like Sen. Scott Brown.
I’m working on trying to get that done. I think it’s an important question and one that needs to be done right.
What do you think a draft of the charges would look like Mike?
I am not sure it would be wise for an outside member of a certain denomination to draft up mock Charges according to a denominational Book of Church Order. I know if I did that outside of my Churches Eldership I would have to give an account and I am not that astute on Stephen Brown. Besides, I have enough problems knowing what I should know in my Church. I do think it is necessary that a Church practice discipline at this level as I understand the issue. I have noted that before as you, Z, and I seem to be going around on these issues a bit lately. I can answer some of your comments above I am pretty sure but I really don’t have the time again as it is rounding out to be Tuesday night again and I get busy in about 10 minutes for the next few days. I will spend some time with this though.
I do have a question.
Is it right that a Covenant Church Member (especially an Elder) speak openly and promote a dreadfully sinful practice as an amoral or acceptable thing to do in any situation (or any specific situation) before God’s eyes outside of the Church walls. Is that okay with you?
RP, I appreciate that you are busy. Some of what you said suggests that you may be too busy to have carefully read what I wrote above. I’m not going by a particular BCO except in a very loose way, and the question involves a particular statement by a hypothetical man in a particular position. If my question is going to be engaged in earnest it would be much easier doing so as a post rather than entirely in comments on someone else’s blog. You’re welcome to comment at PB when I post it.
I am probably conflating a few discussions we have going on. Sorry if I have done that Mike. I did only skim briefly through this. I am not a blog chaser and usually only go to blog post when someone wants me to directly see something. So I was directed here. I do visit Dr. Kloosterman’s blog though. It is one of the few.
Thanks for the invite Mike. When you get it done send me a notice. rpcna.covenanter at the g postal.
I do wish that you would answer my last question here though if you wouldn’t mind.
Anyone interested in following up on these comments: http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/mock-trial-for-the-church/