Utopianism emanating from Westminster West...

Dr. Hart,

For a historian, I guess I am surprised a bit by the pragmatism of the argument. History is instructive --else why bother with it?

But, while Christ of culture models fail (I would argue because of confused spheres), Christ transforms culture would simply argue that the Christian is to approach whatever government with which he is faced, Christianly.

And the Christian governor ought to govern as a Christian.

And in situations where Christians can have a voice and a say, they ought to use that voice and a say to maintain Christian values.

For instance, not judging Reagan's heart or his religious commitment, but his Christian ethic on abortion, and his writing on the matter, certainly influenced his policy and his judicial appointments. That would be one example of a Christian influenced America.

These are not intolerant things, incidentally. The Christian doesn't govern to make all men Christians. Rather, the Christian governs to make life better for all, while protecting the rights of Christians, as well as the rights of the weakest --the fatherless and widow, and all that.

Micah was written to combat the unjust taking of property by wicked kings. Is it about Jesus? Yes it is. It is about him as savior, and about him as the Lord who hates things like unjust scales, moving boundary markers, and settling cases unjustly.

Three is no conflict in those things. Jesus is savior, and he is Lord.

In this broken world, no triumph will ever be lasting. We will always suffer great reversals and decline, then hopefully, periods of refreshing and renewal. This happens in the church --should we not expect it might happen in the state? After all, Christ is sovereign in that sphere, too.

And Christians, thinking, acting, and voting Christianly, can turn things for the better. It is the pulpit's job to build their conscience on these things. Francis Schaeffer was right.

One more thing: can we avoid the "Bigger jerk than thou" arguments? I will freely admit to being the biggest jerk here. I fulminate with the best of them, I can excoriate and denounce like a pro. It is a major spiritual flaw.

But, suffice it to say, both you and Dr. Clark can be obnoxious and disliked as well. You're in good company. I would rather have strong men argue strong opinions strongly than everyone playing nice, and pretending this stuff didn't really matter to them, which is a lot of what is wrong with preaching, whatever camp you're in.

Rambling over.

First things first; "Separation of Church and State" is a made up idea. Nowhere in the Constitution or any other founding document is this idea mentioned, only that the "state" cannot set up/run/make mandatory a religion.

Therefore,any argument based on this made-up idea falls apart under it's own weight.

I get the distinct impression that the 2kers are like the prophet Jonah after Nineveh repented.

Towards the end of "Against Christianity," Leithart has a nice little parable of a preacher who calls a king to repentance, but once the king heeds the call, the preacher's response is telling,"I'm a d*** prophet, not a f*****g chaplain." Not that all 2kers are curmudgeons, but Darryl's cynicism seems more anabaptist than reformed.

Dr. Hart,

For such a careful historian, you sure love to paint brothers with a broad brush.

I have given ample influence of exactly what transformationalism looks like in a pluralistic context.

It does not look like retreating into our ecclesiastical closet, whimpering, and calling out for some sort of rapture solution.

It means trying to be salt and light in a decaying culture while influencing policy that protects the least of these, and yes, distasteful things to the culturally elite.

Like the group of ardent Christians standing out in front of the symphony concert collecting signatures from lots of "Christians" in mink coats in 15 degree weather (which I saw just a few weeks back). So distasteful. Symphony goers don't want to be bothered with the gruesomeness of abortion, after all, even if it just means a signature to get an initiative on the ballot. Yuck, so unpleasant to think about. I'd much rather ponder the extra-Calvinisticum. IN fact, I think I shall.....

How interesting that this brand of Calvinism has so many affinities with old separatist dispensationalism.

I really need to self edit: I said the nonsensical "ample influence," when in fact I meant "ample examples."

Nor this one.

David, sorry I didn't get a chance to call today. Too many church responsibilites. I'll check in tomorrow on how you're thinking about anglo-Catholicism.

Dr. Hart,

Trust me, brother, I would not say that doing heroic, uncomfortable things on abortion is more important than the extra Calvinisticum, not at all.

Way back in college when you so kindly leant me your doctoral work on Machen, I read a ton on the Fundamentalist-Modernist debate. With you, I would say that there is a great danger in upholding Christian ethics at the expense of Christian doctrine.

All that I am saying here is that the opposite is also possible. James was written to combat that.

Sound doctrine is crucial. (this very night I preached on Romans 2 from Heidelberg LD 4 on the Law's condemning power). My only point is that sound doctrine cannot be shorn of an engaged life in the civil sphere.

Dr. Hart,

Neither one of us is a constitutional scholar, but I've had the fortune of being taught by a few.

The Constitution is not the only founding document, but that is of course beside the point.

The question is not do we need an official recognition of the Triune God (which our Covenanter cousins I guess would argue), but rather how to be an engaged Christian citizen in the civil sphere, to try to influence the civil sphere Christianly.

The premiere example I would give of a man who understood and lived this reality would be Francis Schaeffer.

It is a problem when Presbyterians sound more like Francis's crank unbalanced progeny than we sound like Francis.

Nobody is arguing for a theocracy, and I think you know that. It is disingenuous for you to keep attributing that argument to me. THus, Christian civil engagement will look different here than it did in Kuyper's Holland.

And, trust me, I don't like what happens when Kuyperianism runs amok either. Balance is important. But, there must be a mean between the extremes of complete disengagement and complete capitulation (Christ of Culture).

Thoughts?