A Christian Nation?
Thanks to Hugh and Gavin for their comments yesterday. I agree with you Hugh that there doesn’t have to be an either/or about the mind and the Spirit (though the Spirit must be given priority and the mind submitted to him). However I think that there may well be an either/or when it comes to the Law (i.e the Mosaic Law) and the new covenant. I intend in the near future to write something of greater length on this subject (which I will put on my Pages) but for now let me say in response to Gavin that I feel it is a big mistake to try to use the model of OT Israel and the Mosaic Law as a basis for our own civil law and for building some kind of Christian ‘nation,’ whether directly theocratic or not. I believe that the notion of a Christian nation is a very flawed one, showing a misunderstanding of the nature of the Kingdom and the present stage of God’s purpose that we are in.
It is a a notion which I think is contributing to a divided society in the US. I have more hope for the so-called ’post-Christian,’ multicultural societies of Western Europe. The removal of nominal, traditional and institutional Christianity is a great opportunity for the gospel. After all, it is was into a very pluralistic and multicultural world that the gospel first came and prospered. I may develop some of these thoughts in later postings but I’d be interested to hear people’s comments to help me to develop my thinking in this area.
One thought for now from Scripture:
The Law came through Moses. Grace and truth come thtough Jesus Christ. (John 1)
Shalom!
January 10th, 2006 @ 9:38 am
I think the value and relevance of the law is a central issue. As you point out, the NT revelation must always take precedence but nevertheless the Mosaic law remains a full part of the biblical revelation. Unless we are dispensationalists, it must therefore have relevance and importance since Christ fulfilled (not replaced)the OT.
One website that may be of interest is here. It has some PDF versions of books written by Gary North and other Reconstructionist writers. They are a challenging read but they do present a view that wrestles with the conviction that the Bible provides a comprehensive solution to all complex issues of government and society.
Thanks for kicking this off - looks like the start of a great dialogue!
January 10th, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
The continuity and discontinuity of the OT Law to the Christian under the new Covenant is an interesting one. There is a line to be walked between the adventist and legalist who tries to live under law rather than / as well as grace; and the marcionites and dispensationalists who do not “rightly divide the word of truth!” and see it as two separate expressions of God’s will, or expressions of two different gods.
God has no personality transplant between Malachi and Matthew, so the moral heart of the Law is still a valid expression of God’s love of righteousness and hatred toward sin.
The law is also there as a foreshadow of the realities that are in Christ. So is always relevant, along with all the other scriptures to point us to him.
All the covenants in the Old Testament, are eternal (and completed in the new) so we still have all the promises as yes and amen in Christ. This applies to the Sinai covenant too. The need for high priest and sacrifice, blood and atonement are still fixed and unchanging - yet met once and for all.
But we no longer live in the shadows of the Law, but in the realities that have come in Christ. So we no longer need to observe the law, in as much as it has been fulfilled in Christ.
However this is a separate issue to whether it is valid to use the OT nation of Israel as the basis for a theocratic state. The Kingdom of God grows like the rock of Daniel’s statue, independent and superior to any political nation. It grows as God’s people fill the earth with his glory, until the day when he comes again, and then the cry will go up that the kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever.
January 10th, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
Thanks for your comments fellas. Thank you Hugh for the reference to the site with books from Gary North & the reconstructionists - these are exactly the guys who I think are getting it so badly wrong with their use of the Law and the notion of theocracy (or theonomy)and so contributing to the ‘culture wars’ in the US. The key is in what you say, Chris, about the spiritual nature of the Kingdom as indicated by the statue of Daniel 2. I believe that this understanding of the Kingdom gives us a way of still being salt and light into a fallen world without making the mistake of the theocrats. I also believe that you don’t have to be a dispensationalist to recognise that the Law had and has a specific purpose to fulfil without now being the main basis for personal ethics for Christians or an ethical foundation for public policy. I see that I need to crack on with my fuller account on exactly what I believe the Mosaic Law is for and what it is not for.
January 10th, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
Chris makes a great point. “God has no personality transplant between Malachi and Matthew”. The Law of God is a reflection of His perfect character, which is unchangeable.
I look forward to the biblical defense of Trevor’s comment “the Law had and has a specific purpose to fulfil without now being the main basis for personal ethics for Christians or an ethical foundation for public policy”. If the Law of God is not the main basis and foundation of ethics, then what is?
January 10th, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
I will try to leave another posting about this tomorrow. For now, Chris and Gavin, please put your mind at rest that I do believe in the profitability of all Scripture and the complete consistency of God’s character - including between Malachi and Matthew! I just also happen to believe that an understanding of the role of the Law within a particular stage of salvation-history does not take away from either of those.
I’ll be back!
January 10th, 2006 @ 11:30 pm
One thing you guys need to do is define what you mean by the Law. Is it just the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Law. The NT refers to both as the Law. Keep at it brothers. Blessings.
January 11th, 2006 @ 10:34 am
> I do believe in the profitability of all Scripture and the complete consistency of God’s character
Trevor, I never doubted that for a moment.
Much of the confusion boils down to semantics. I do think we need to be careful when using “dispensational” language though, as this way of viewing God’s word has permeated modern Christian thinking so pervasively, and is totally at odds to Kingdom theology.
January 11th, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
This is a great discussion and I really admire Trevor for tackling the subject. This is not a new subject for me but rather one that I have been at for years. Before one can really get to anything useful we need to be clear about the law (as Roger has said) and be clear about using labels such as reconstructionist or even theonomist. I have many volumes from North, Rushdoony, and others of a younger generation such as James Jordon and Vern Ploythresss. There is much debate even amoung them as to the interpretation of the case laws of the OT. But the one guilding principle I would hold to is this, (please excuse the simplicity). Is God wiser than man? If He is, and He has given us just civil principles, as expressed at least in part by the Mosiac case laws, should we not carefully consider them as perhaps a true expression of justice? When I look at the western cultures and I hear the debates of the sages in the West I am shocked. There was a time in history where one could make a case for natural law as a basis for civil justice but I would agree with the court scholar Robert Bork that in our modern culture what was once considered an obvious afront to natural sensabilities is now seen as virtue. And if we are to look to modern acedemia for principles of justice then we are playing a fools game. If not the Bible to guide us then what? And if I am to look to the Bible would I not do the casuistry needed to speak from the word? And where might I go in the Word to find those principles of justice in terms of civil law? I think I would go often to the mosiac law.
January 12th, 2006 @ 7:28 am
Thanks, Doug. I appreciate your contribution. There is of course no question that God is wiser than us. The question is whether he ever intended us to use the Mosiac Law as a basis for civil government. I don’t believe he did. I realise that over the next few weeks I am going to have to suggest what is the basis for it! For now I would say I don’t despair quite so much as you about natural law - though we are going to have to fight for it in a postmodern age, I do feel that you can still appeal to some vestiges of as sense of right and wrong, and of ‘wisdom’ in many people, that is put there by God as a work of general grace. I plan next week to try to give a response to what I understansd the Reconstructionists’ position to be, though I am sure that you are right and there are lots of different views within that camp.
January 17th, 2006 @ 4:38 am
Trevor I want you to know that I share some of your concerns about the personalities in the reconstructionist camp. And without a right view of the work of the Spirit it will always be only theory. Keep up the good forum. I really appreciate your work.
Doug