Is it possible to derive democracy from the Bible? If it is, then it should be easy enough to permit freedom in others that doesn’t impinge either on my freedom, or on the stability of society. If it isn’t possible, then why should Christians move toward its defense? Or, laterally, is every effort to “Christianize” government an attempt to move away from democracy?
I suppose the usual defense is that Christianity is more compatible with democracy, or that Christian ideals such as all men being made in the image of God are the foundation for such things as “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” – or that western ideas which began to assume that the King did not make the law but was himself subject to it- which had seed form in such historic documents as the magna carta, are the reason for this- even if most of our founders were Deists. In any event we were founded as a republic, under the rule of law, “natural law” I believe – which King George was subject to as much as any human being. Our founders , as I understand, never envisioned a pure democracy. In my mind personally, though I wish I had time to delve more into the development of western thought and its indebtedness to Christianity, the evangelical church’s seeking a political salvation for society seems to be waning – it certainly has in me. Jeremiah was an unpopular prophet in his day, for calling for submission to God’s chastening and to the King of Babylon!!! It is a fact that the true church of God has flourished under all kinds of regimes. I believe that England was blessed for the purpose of spreading the gospel all over the world, even though they were by no means guiltless- I believe America was similarly blessed- perhaps our form of government exists because of the prayers of simple people in accordance with 1 Timothy 2:1-8.
Thanks for your considerate response. Deism and Natural law are certainly the foundations of our republic, but much of that takes form in the Stoics, who were also responsible for much of the shape of the Roman republic as well. Like you, I think that Christianity has flourished in many different types of political environment. What I wonder is how we justify our engagement in the political sphere as believers. The image of God is certainly the prime consideration when it comes to our association with people, and against van Til, I think we have common ground in that, even enough to create an organism like the state. But how that can play out in the political world is a sticky question. Thanks again. On another note, I am reading The Reason For God and finding it lucid and entertaining. I will be using it for a theology class I am reading in the fall. Just to think, what would have happened to our spiritual development if we had read something like that book back when we were going to school.
its interesting how people interpret Van Til, because when I attended Westminster, for the brief time that I did, I understood that the ultimate point of contact with was in fact that man is image of God. As for politics, I’m not at all sure that Van Til agreed with the so called Theonomy movement in Reformed theology. It actually seems to me that people like Timothy Keller are working out an application of Van Til’s thought in a way that would have blessed him, and to which he would probably have said “praise the Lord” –
It is unfortunate, though to be true to history perhaps unavoidable, that people miss the really good things in reformed thought because of a love of reputation or a love to fight., or just a lust to be right. ( I am thinking here, in case you are wondering, of obnoxious Calvinists) Martin LLoyd Jones, a lover of Calvin, had the balls to say, without a lot of explanation, that Calvin probably went too far in some of his statements- polemics and arguments being what they are… But if one were to ask me what “Calvinism ” is- I would hand them the first few pages of the Institutes. What comes first? the knowledge of God or the knowledge of ourselves? Being made in His image, true self knowledge inescapably reveals God, and at the same time, being relational beings (image of God) we cannot truly know ourselves except before Him in whom we move and have our being.
If you have the time you should check out Keller’s The Prodigal God, especially with the accompanying DVD and study guide. Whoever from Redeemer Church was involved in the production of the DVD, the images of the feast- and the alienating attitude of the elder brother, conveyed by such simple devices as the movement of chairs, are very powerful. Ultimately the work explores the role of the true Elder brother, who at his own expense, the loss of his inheritance, comes after us, who have made a wreck of our lives either by being bad or by being good, and invites us, and urges us to come to the father’s feast.
I have been a man of turmoil within, and have hurt people I love with that turmoil and haste. Today I was blessed to seek rest in the one who, at infinite cost to Himself, died to give me rest, and being effective in this arose, and ascended- to welcome me to the feast… I sense that this rest is the foundation for true courage. With tears I asked Ellen to forgive me. This was a good day. I am thankful for my trials with this. that there will be no state of constancy where I will be able to function without Him.
Dear Spencer,
I may be thinking of the discussions I had with Mike Lowell or Al Stevens about Van Til when I spoke concerning the image of God. My best recollection tells me that common reasoning capacity of man is not enough of a common ground for Van Til. If that is the case, then I have to ask what it is that the image of God consists of, and if the image of God is just a placeholder waiting for Christ before one finds salvation.
My reading of Calvinism has been developed by reading Life in the Son and Elect in the Son by Shank.
Frankly, the dispute about election is so 16th century. We know more than the disputants of those arguments. As a form of determinism Calvinism holds no interest to me at all. As well Arminius, having it only partially right, understood so little of what we do today that the debate looks like the fallacy of false alternatives. The true answer must be neither, or some combination of both, but because the options are mutually exclusive the debate on their terms must be abandoned.
That said, Calvin’s devotion to God is a marvelous sight to behold and the institutes are only tarnished by the troubling language of the Westminster confession.
To think we must continue their debate is like thinking we must use starfield data of 1000 years ago to calculate stellar positions today, instead of looking out the window.
I am always astounded by your strength and your capacity to expose yourself, by your consideration of life. I will look into the Keller book you mentioned. Thanks.
I’m not sure that I know more than the disputants of those arguments… unless i know that arguments amongst the finite about the incomprehensibility of the infinite personal God are futile. I did not find Shank either compelling or comprehensive in his understanding. Practical theology is often so much more direct. I have read that Luther was more blunt and less relational than Calvin, often at times more extreme than Calvin in some of his statements about election… treating people like impersonal blocks moved impersonally about, than Calvin ever would. Yet there is the time when Luther, approached by a worried woman who wondered whether she was of the elect- simply told her to “find yourself elect in the wounds of Christ” which always brings to my mind the words of Bernard, a poet whom Luther loved – well, I am certain you know the ancient hymn “o sacred head now wounded, with grief and same weighed down,” …etc. words which I was privileged to share at my father’s roman catholic funeral- after he took his own life…. to my great sorrow. I consider it a privilege to call you a friend as well, Doug. The impact of the cost which Jesus bore for us- …… “what language can I borrow, to thank thee dearest friend”… may this friend empower you to impact the head and hearts of your students this year!!! Sent with great love and appreciation.
I would have to say that most Christians are, indeed, confused.
Our country was intended to be a Republic, and specifically not a Democracy. The idea that the majority rule of a democracy, (where 51 percent can dictate what the other 49 percent can or can not do), is a bastion of freedom, is ridiculous in my opinion. There can really be no true religious freedom within this.
What many Christians really want – without realizing it, (and this is my opinion, again) is some form of pseudo-theocracy. I don’t know if that is the proper term for it or not. At any rate, with selfishness and ignorance so rampant within the Church, it would only turn out to be another brutal monster like the Vatican proved itself to be in the past.
I should point out that I don’t attribute the dark past of the Catholic Church to christendom. It was a Catholic theocracy. If it were really Christian in nature, it would have adhered to the teachings of Christ, which obviously it did not. This is the same fate a so-called Christian theocracy would find today. If the Church (which does include many Catholics) were to be blessed with a Christian theocracy, it would trash it. I say this based on what takes place in the majority of congregations today within a democracy.
Most of what goes on today within “Christendom” is simply not Christian.
All of that being said, I do believe that a truly inspired and mindfully tempered Christian Theocracy would be successful. Am I holding my breath for that? Of course not. God gives us way too much liberty to screw everything up. And, we usually do.
Blessings in Christ.