Should Christians be concerned about improving society?
Reformed theologians Michael Horton and John Frame give differing answers. I respect both of these theologians. Both make great points. The articles are heavy reads but they are important to addressing the issue of Christ and culture.
After reading both articles, I found myself more in agreement with John Frame. Christians should attempt to improve society by living out their biblically informed view of the world in all spheres of life. Yes, it would be far easier to retreat into a Christian ghetto and wait for the Lord to return -- the only problem is, I don't see a strong biblical case that we are supposed to circle the wagons, ignore the world, and hunker down.
The key here, in my view, is that we participate in the right kind of Christian activism. Christian activism does not mean turning our companies into churches. It means living by biblical truth and allowing our love for God and the truth of His Word to shape how we conduct ourselves in business or government or recreation.
(HT: Between Two Worlds)
Two outstanding reads. Thanks for linking these.
I too tend to agree with Frame's points, but taken with the cautions of Horton in mind.
Posted by: Nephos | July 05, 2006 at 14:15
Both articles are good, but they represent only two points along a much broader line. I think Horton offers some very good correctives particularly for American evangelicals who clearly have created a ghetto subculture. And Frame does a good job of sussing out the more extreme aspects of Horton's position.
But... is Frame a reconstructionist or sympathetic to that position? He seems to move in that direction when he suggests that specific scriptures should be applied in civil society today and that nations are supposed to specifically take scripture into account in policy decisions. If he's moving in that direction, I'd need to shrink back from his position. The relationship of the Church to civil society is much more complex than that in a pluralistic democracy. (Frame also started to lose me right up front when he cited D. James Kennedy approvingly. Yuck!!!)
BTW, a very good read on this is Richard John Neuhas' "The Naked Public Square."
Posted by: ddopderbeck | July 07, 2006 at 17:05
"But... is Frame a reconstructionist or sympathetic to that position? "
I don't know. I am not comfortable with labels anyway. Lots of potential for miscommunication. You would need to unpack all of the nuances of "reconstructionist" -- then again, I probably have not read enough of Frame to be able to answer it anyway.
"He seems to move in that direction when he suggests that specific scriptures should be applied in civil society today and that nations are supposed to specifically take scripture into account in policy decisions."
Give me a for instance ... so I can see what you mean.
"The relationship of the Church to civil society is much more complex than that in a pluralistic democracy."
True ... but unless you are arguing about certain OT ceremonial laws, I guess I would need to see a case where man's law ought to violate and trump God's intent or design ... or to use one of your favorite expressions, where man's law ought to override natural law.
Reading Horton and Frame may not make as much sense to one unfamiliar with reformed, covenantal, non-premillenial thinking. Horton and Frame both come from a similar theological framework -- one very similar to mine -- so their essays and positions on Christ and culture have a certain traction for me and perhaps other PCA'ers.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 07, 2006 at 18:11
Give me a for instance ... so I can see what you mean
The key portion is paragraph 5 of his essay:
"On the best view of the matter, Christian political action is simply applying the principles of Scripture to political life: the sanctity of truth and life, the integrity of the family, protection of property, and so on."
Re-reading the whole paragraph a little more carefully, I think he's pretty balanced about this. I'd certainly agree that Christians have an obligation to translate Biblical / natural law principles into concrete political terms.
but unless you are arguing about certain OT ceremonial laws, I guess I would need to see a case where man's law ought to violate and trump God's intent or design
Right, and I wouldn't ever say man's law ought to "violate" or "trump" natural law and/or the enduring moral precepts of both the OT and NT. But, just saying that is much easier than translating it into policy, particularly in a pluralistic democracy.
For example, take the first commandment -- "you shall have no other Gods before me." I think we'd agree that this is an enduring moral principle, not just part of the ceremonial law. Yet, I think we'd also both agree that this principle cannot be enacted into positive law in a pluralistic democracy. We can't have a constitutional or other legal principle that says "all citizens of this nation must swear allegience to Yahweh alone."
In moral terms, this is because we believe there's another principle in play -- that of human freedom. All people are morally bound by the natural law and by God's specific decrees to worship Yahweh alone, but all people are free to choose not to do so. That's a freedom God gives, and it's a freedom that's fundamental to a pluralistic democracy. But it's not a freedom, in political terms, that we find in any specific Biblical passage, certainly not in the OT. It was sussed out only over thousands of years of history and through may bloody wars. So, it's a bit simplistic, IMHO, to say that we can simply "apply Biblical principles" to the public sphere. We can do that, but only with a significant application of practical reason and reflection. I'm afraid that "apply Biblical principles" too often becomes a slogan with little meaningful content.
I don't know. I am not comfortable with labels anyway. Lots of potential for miscommunication.
This sounds very "Emergent"! I don't like labels either. But as I understand reconstructionism, the position is that Biblical law should always and directly be enacted into civil law. Thus, we should have positive law that says, at least in substance, that "all people should worship Yahweh alone." We should also, according to this view, have laws that, say, provide the death penalty for adultery, since that is what scripture proscribes in the OT for Israel. However you label this view, IMHO, it is misinformed, dangerous, and ultimately unChristian.
I probably have not read enough of Frame to be able to answer it anyway.
Me either. A very brief Google suggests he has been sympathetic to at least some milder forms of reconstructionism: see his review of Rushdoony here: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1976Rushdoony.htm
Reading Horton and Frame may not make as much sense to one unfamiliar with reformed, covenantal, non-premillenial thinking.
True. And as I've been exploring how to "emerge" from my dispensationalist roots, I've been trying to engage this very rich reformed, covenantal tradition on the relationship between the covenant people (i.e. the Church) and the civil state. There is a deep tension in that tradition between reconstructionist-leaning views such as Frame's, other views of social engagement that eschew reconstructionism (I think Meredith Kline -- a Gordon College grad, BTW! -- is in this camp), and non-reconstructionists who seem to advocate something of a withdrawal from the public sphere (ala Horton's essay that you linked). Given this range of views, it's almost hard to call it a single "tradition."
As you might guess, I'd fall more into that middle camp. Actually, here I think the Reformed tradition would do well to draw on earlier veins of Catholic social theory, for example as developed by the Thomists, and as further developed in contemporary political thought by folks like Neuhaus, Timothy George, and other natural law theorists.
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 10, 2006 at 10:25
"We can do that, but only with a significant application of practical reason and reflection. I'm afraid that "apply Biblical principles" too often becomes a slogan with little meaningful content."
I don't think Frame is claiming that it is easy or some kind of no brainer.
By the way, do you think a "pluralistic democracy" is God's design for government? Or do you think God has a design for government?
The reason I ask is that I had a participant in a Pigfest tell the group that a democracy is a Greek concept, not a Biblical one. I had never thought about it before, to be honest. You have given these things lots of thought ... hence, my question.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 14, 2006 at 00:45
"Actually, here I think the Reformed tradition would do well to draw on earlier veins of Catholic social theory, for example as developed by the Thomists, and as further developed in contemporary political thought by folks like Neuhaus, Timothy George, and other natural law theorists."
I know you may not appreciate me saying this, but you and Mr. Colson are incredibly like minded -- at least in this area. Neuhas, George, Budziszewski etc. are Colson's heroes. He loves natural law. We studied it extensively in Centurions.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 14, 2006 at 00:48
By the way, do you think a "pluralistic democracy" is God's design for government? Or do you think God has a design for government?
Excellent question -- requires a book-length response! I'd probably agree with your friend that democracy is not a "Biblical" concept, in the sense that I don't think the Bible specifies democracy as the appropriate form of government. I'd also probably say that God doesn't have a "design" for government, in the sense of a specific form of ideal civil government prior to the fullness of the Kingdom in the eschaton.
But I do think there are Biblical and natural law principles that go a significant way towards outlining the proper shape and role of civil government prior to the fullness of the Kingdom, and I think a pluralistic democracy, with some sort of Kuyperian "sphere sovereignty" concept assigning key social roles to the family and the church, is generally most consistent with those principles. (And yes, my "fullness of the Kingdom" references need explanation -- which is another book-length treatise on eschatology!)
I know you may not appreciate me saying this, but you and Mr. Colson are incredibly like minded -- at least in this area.
I know! I'm not anti-Colson overall. Some of Colson's books introduced me to natural law theory. He's done lots of great stuff within evangelicalism I think, particularly in his cooperation with folks like Neuhaus and his focus on prisons and criminal justice. But there are times when I think his political conservatism overshadows his affinity with natural law theory. And, while I think some of his concerns about Emergent are important, I think he sometimes misjudges it or is too harsh. I also think he's made tensions between faith and science into too much of a culture war issue, even though I'm sympathetic to the critique of naturalistic philosophy. I'd also make all these same comments about Neuhaus, BTW, except for the stuff about Emergent which I don't think is on his radar screen.
I'm just an odd duck: too liberal for the conservatives, too conservative for the liberals!
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 14, 2006 at 11:55
David:
I'm just an odd duck: too liberal for the conservatives, too conservative for the liberals!
I think it's less that, and more that you're libertarian -- which makes you "conservative" on some issues, and "liberal" on others. In other words, there are a lot of issues where you agree with conservatives, and a lot where you agree with liberals, but not very many where neither conservatives nor liberals like your positions.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 14, 2006 at 17:25
Tom -- you're probably right. I just hate the "libertarian" label. It conjures up for me some guy in a bunker in North Dakota.
Posted by: dopderbeck | July 17, 2006 at 09:13