Hi Crow,
I have to admit that probably like many posters here, I'm beginning to burn out on this thread. I don't know about others, but the warning sign for me is when every post I make is one I didn't really want to make. However, since you raised some substantive issues in your last post, you certainly deserve an attempt at a respectful reply.
Originally posted by crowMAW
Greetings Seagoon,
I edited your post for brevity of my response...which I'm afraid may still be long.
Don't worry about it Crow, all my posts are too darn long, as I said elsewhere I'm writing a book stream of consciousness style one BB post at a time.
Anyway, usus politicus/usus civili...hmmm are those in the Bible? Is that God's words or John Calvin's?
No, the words aren't in the Bible, but the concept certainly is. The usus politicus was not a creation of Calvin incidentally, you'll find the idea in the theology of a number of Christian denominations including the Lutherans. In fact, you'll even find the basic principles being outlined in Augustine's works which were penned about 1200 years before the birth of Calvin. Indeed the concept of binding natural laws devolving from God can be found throughout the history of the church. The issue here is one of systematic theology, i.e. the systematic and catagorical arrangement of doctrine taught in the bible. There are plenty of theological concepts taught in scripture that we have created words to describe, "Trinity" for instance. The bible does not use the word, but it does teach that the godhead is Triune.
To me, that concept seems counter to the sermon you quoted earlier. It seemed you were saying the church is above man's law, so man's laws are inconsequential to the church. Are you leaving unto Cesar what is Cesar's or are you looking to press your interpretation of God's will onto Cesar?
Crow, I'm writing almost all of the following to explain the theology that lies behind the sermon snippet, I'll caveat that you won't accept this, and I seriously doubt more than a handful of the members of the BB will either.
There are two issues at work here. First, as Christians we confess that there is only one God, and that as the Psalms put it, all the gods of the nations are idols and that regardless of whether we choose to accept it, he is sovereign over all creation, and that he has not left his creation in the dark but has revealed his will to us via the scripture.
The second issue is what is sometimes called "sphere sovereignty." The bible identifies three separate spheres that God ordained in his word to govern humans. They are - The Family, The Civil Magistrate, and the Church. Each of them has a degree of sovereignty over their own area.
For instance, as a Pastor, I have no right to go into a family and command a father to arrange his furniture in such and such away, or send his kids to such and such a school, or tell them when they are to go to bed, and so on. He is the head of his family, not me, he has been given authority over that sphere. But that authority he has been given is delegated by God - in fact the Christian believes that all authority is necessarily delegated authority - and when that father exceeds the bounds of God's law, say by commanding his children to steal he has exceeded his authority and become a tyrant. Any command, therefore, that blatantly contradicts God's laws, is what the UCMJ calls "an illegal order" and must be refused by those whom it is given to.
No Father should command his children to break God's laws, or fail to restrain them from doing so, in so far as he is able. No Magistrate should command the people to break God's laws, or fail to restrain them from doing so, in so far as he is able. At one time it was taken for granted even in this nation, that while no one denomination would be established, certainly the law of God, which was perspicuous, and which had informed and formed the skeleton of all Western law, would inevitably foundational to our own legal code - if only in the way that its fundamental precepts had informed the development of civil law through the ages. For instance, adultery was long a crime in the Western world not only because of its detrimental influence on society, but because it was condemned by the law of God. These truths, you shall not steal, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, were once thought to be so "self-evident" that there was no issue of interpretation necessary, and certainly nothing that would require granting one denomination predominance. You see, postmodernism hadn't yet made its advent and it was thought that anyone with a grain of common sense could understand "You Shall not Steal" well enough to base actual civil laws upon it.
Anyway, in the sermon I stressed that as the church it is not our duty nor our right to frame a constitution for the government, and that we are to be about the work of salvation and that we will never be successful in telling people to "be good" until they have a new heart, and that pastors are not legislators or politicians by calling and that it is not our job to misuse our call to press for legislation. However, Christians are still citizens called upon to act in civil society according to what the bible teaches (and we all act according to our beliefs, even those who call themselves atheists) Additionally as Christians we believe that just as Parents must govern the family according to God's will and Pastors must preach only what is in God's word, Magistrates should also govern according to what the law of God states. Thus when they try to fundamentally recraft marriage, dramatically altering it from the creation ordinance, then they have failed to act according to their calling in their own sphere.
It seems to me, that our Constitution was designed to give religous freedom by not mandating any specific interpretation of God's will. So that my interpretation of God's will is just as valid as yours.
I would defend your right under our constitution to worship as your conscience tells you to do so.
In fact, that is expressly what the confession, which is intended to be merely a summary of what is taught in scripture, explicitly says:
"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance."
[Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23.3]
I'd say that the above is actually a more explicit defense of the "sphere separation" of church and state, and the principle of religious liberty than exists in the Constitution.
However, nothing in the constitution states that the magistrate shall assume and act as though there was no God and no moral law or natural law and that all of his enactments shall be made solely on the absolute assumption of atheism and legal positivism. In fact, I would argue that such a worldview establishes the minority religion of secular humanism and makes its interpretations normative. Modern Secular Humanism is not neutral, neither does it have the endorsement of the Constitution. It's assumption for instance, that there is no God and no absolutes, runs counter to two foundational assumptions in our founding documents.
It is not a matter of "religious interpretation" of one denomination over all others to say simply that natural law dictates that the legal definition of marriage is to be between one woman and one man. For almost 200 years Americans never found that simple declaration to be an interference of the church in the affairs of the state, rather everyone accepted that that was an absolute, that it was simply the correct answer to the question what is marriage?
The difference is that we now live in the age of legal positivism, and will accept no absolute truths save the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths and so we feel comfortable saying "Marriage shall be whatever the courts declare it to be."
Under this assumption not only marriage, but
every fundamental structure in our society, everything that we once felt to be part of the warp and woof of society is up for grabs to whoever controls the court. Want to lower the age of consent to 13? Have at it. Want to make the state the primary guardians over all children and the parents only authorized caregivers? Go ahead. Literally, under this system, the only impediment to whatever change you want is the gang of nine, so control over them becomes the trump card in all matters. Chair, forgive me, but I don't believe that is what Washington, Madison, Hamilton and co. envisaged in their wildest nightmares.
- SEAGOON
