Oh boy! Here they come--outraged, outraged radical Anglicans--right and left--in a frothy lather about our dear HoB and anyone who might reasonably suppose the HoB did well:
That such statement can come from someone in such high office in the Communion is an indication of the heart of darkness in the once Christian and self-proclaimed civilized West that is slowly eroding the Communion of its Christian foundations. Such encroachment on the Lordship of Jesus Christ upon his holy and catholic church – his rightful property – must end.
That's Poon reacting to Kearon's approval of the HoB. See the juicy hyperbole in boldface? See what I mean about Akinola's statement being mild, his rhetoric being tawdry? Poon shows you here how it is done. Whew! The hair on the back of my neck stood up--how 'bout you?
Here's a lefty:
We should either come out and say what we're doing and why (with strong biblical and theological support), or we should stop doing it. If we take the first option, let's face the consequences, if any. It is neither honest nor helpful to do something and then say we're not doing it. It smacks of the worst kind of American imperialism to tell the primates that we've honored their requests, when we really haven't
Note the initial fallacy of neglected alternatives--why are those the only permissible options, especially when exactly what we should do is still being discerned? And let me make a prediction: we will hear more about "American imperialism" in the near future.
It's not necessarily that, as Jake suggests,
The Church is a harlot. But she's all we've got.
I'm not sure reaching for Hosea is so helpful here. Why can't compromise and discernment be messy? Why can't an honest compromise leave everyone disappointed? Maybe this is what a virtuous church looks like when its members are in passionate discord and sedition is in the air. The presumption that the Church should have repented, as if a Church even can do such a thing except in an unhelpfully hazy, metaphorical sense--and the presumption that the Church should have gone further than GC2006 and GC2003 or else betray its fidelity to God seem to misread what might well be going on in the HoB and AC. Moderates are genuinely trying to discern without railroading those who wish to remain at the table. There's nothing unfaithful in the sacrifices that come with the process fo compromise.
And how odd to see left and right join hands in an effort to make sure that process of compromise, that effort of discernment--and nobody should say it is insincere (see Harmon's accusation of false witness in italics up top)--should fail.
Akinola's Reponse? Zzzzzzzz
Is this strong enough for our separatists?
It is remarkable that this rebuff is so...restrained, no? Compare it to Radner, Seitz, Noll and Harding--in fact, I think Akinola should just up and Ordain all of them right away to the Episcopacy so he can finally get better help writing these things. He's still around stateside, no? If he hurries, he can beat the 9/30 deadline. I know, I know--now that would really be alot of purple; but hey, I'm not issuing an ultimatum here, OK?
While we await a meeting of all the Primates to receive and determine the adequacy of The Episcopal Church’s response it seems clear from first reading that what is offered is not a whole hearted embrace of traditional Christian teaching and in particular the teaching that is expressed in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. [my boldface type]
We're waiting for all the Primates to meet to determine the adequacy of the HoB response--note the relatively moderate conciliar tone, admitting that he--Akinola--alone is unfit to make that type of determination. Consitent with that relatively irenic, conciliar tone he uses "seems" in rebuffing it, logically leaving open space for disagreement and error on his part.
Yes, there is some immoderate hyperbole thrown around, but this stuff is trivial, unconnected:
we have looked forward with hope to the response of The Episcopal Church as requested by the Primates when we met earlier in the year in Dar es Salaam. That request was the culmination of many conversations and years of painful negotiations [about four years]
It was our expressed desire to provide one final opportunity for an unequivocal assurance.... [I guess it's an ultimatum after all]
our pleas have once again been ignored [what a goofy thing to say: so obviously false]
we have been offered is merely a temporary adjustment in an unrelenting determination [as if the HoB were some homogeneous army marching in flawless lockstep; I'm reminded of old Soviet posters extolling factory workers to unrelenting labor]
In truth, though I'm fisking the hyperbole (I'm only kind of sorry), there isn't much of it and it is much milder than I expected: like a writer using too many adjectives. It's as if there is so little substance--c'mon, of all Scripture quotes to end on, John 14:21? Isn't there something better that couldn't be so easily appropriated by his opposition? Something a tad more concrete?--what little meat he can offer up has to be dressed up with these tawdry ribbons.
Should we just blame an unusually sleepy Minns and/or Sugden, and let Akinola off the hook?
But seriously, if this missive is indicative of things to come, we have turned the corner as a Communion and may look forward to better times. I can't help but think someone here or in the CoE will lean on Akinola/Minns/et al for something with a little more fire. But maybe the fix is in, and the Separatist/Realignment program has lost the allegiance of enough CoE evangelicals to have lost its leverage over Williams. That would be news. If true, how should we best use the time?
It is remarkable that this rebuff is so...restrained, no? Compare it to Radner, Seitz, Noll and Harding--in fact, I think Akinola should just up and Ordain all of them right away to the Episcopacy so he can finally get better help writing these things. He's still around stateside, no? If he hurries, he can beat the 9/30 deadline. I know, I know--now that would really be alot of purple; but hey, I'm not issuing an ultimatum here, OK?
While we await a meeting of all the Primates to receive and determine the adequacy of The Episcopal Church’s response it seems clear from first reading that what is offered is not a whole hearted embrace of traditional Christian teaching and in particular the teaching that is expressed in Lambeth Resolution 1.10. [my boldface type]
We're waiting for all the Primates to meet to determine the adequacy of the HoB response--note the relatively moderate conciliar tone, admitting that he--Akinola--alone is unfit to make that type of determination. Consitent with that relatively irenic, conciliar tone he uses "seems" in rebuffing it, logically leaving open space for disagreement and error on his part.
Yes, there is some immoderate hyperbole thrown around, but this stuff is trivial, unconnected:
we have looked forward with hope to the response of The Episcopal Church as requested by the Primates when we met earlier in the year in Dar es Salaam. That request was the culmination of many conversations and years of painful negotiations [about four years]
It was our expressed desire to provide one final opportunity for an unequivocal assurance.... [I guess it's an ultimatum after all]
our pleas have once again been ignored [what a goofy thing to say: so obviously false]
we have been offered is merely a temporary adjustment in an unrelenting determination [as if the HoB were some homogeneous army marching in flawless lockstep; I'm reminded of old Soviet posters extolling factory workers to unrelenting labor]
In truth, though I'm fisking the hyperbole (I'm only kind of sorry), there isn't much of it and it is much milder than I expected: like a writer using too many adjectives. It's as if there is so little substance--c'mon, of all Scripture quotes to end on, John 14:21? Isn't there something better that couldn't be so easily appropriated by his opposition? Something a tad more concrete?--what little meat he can offer up has to be dressed up with these tawdry ribbons.
Should we just blame an unusually sleepy Minns and/or Sugden, and let Akinola off the hook?
But seriously, if this missive is indicative of things to come, we have turned the corner as a Communion and may look forward to better times. I can't help but think someone here or in the CoE will lean on Akinola/Minns/et al for something with a little more fire. But maybe the fix is in, and the Separatist/Realignment program has lost the allegiance of enough CoE evangelicals to have lost its leverage over Williams. That would be news. If true, how should we best use the time?
Comments on the HoB Statement, New Orleans
So the HoB's statement is openly transient, a piece composed merely for a specific time, place, and audience. Though it does not wear an open expiration date--nobody seems exactly clear on how long it will have to function--it is already decomposing. But everyone knows that; the piece succeeds if it is enough to get us through this crisis. It does not have to be beautiful to fulfill its function.
The crisis was not the loss of separatist Anglicans so much as the real possibility of a fissure between moderate provinces without separatist inclinations and our province. The intended, primary audience for the document is the wide body of Anglican moderates, especially moderate Primates.
When Radner says
In the end, the response must be construed as a failure to meet the Primates’ requests, although one made with some very small gestures in their direction. and others made to emphasize their disagreement with the Primates,
one should ask--to be clear--after the referent of "Primates". If he means the radical separatist Primates he is right.
But the history of the Tanzania non-ultimatum's making seems to indicate that most Primates, and even the ABC, accomodated the radicals' discontent in order to keep them from walking away from the table. The Tanzania non-ulimatum might not speak to the mind of the Primates, if what we mean is the moderates--and it seems to me that the HoB document is banking on the fact Tanzania did not speak for the moderates propria persona.
What has changed for the HoB, and for the Primates, and for the ABC--and what Radner and others like Hey seem to have missed--is that they now recognize the plan was separation and substitution all along, and they are able to see that this plan was unreasonable all along. "Unreasonable" because the separatist project seems to have made a mockery of the councils and painful labors of the provinces, as if the meetings and negotiations were all a sorry sham for those pursuing separation.
Thus some Anglican conservatives will not be able to see the HoB document for what it actually is: a compromise that is part of a process. "Compromise" is not a category they are willing to recognize, because for separatists reconcilation with an Episcopal Church that has not turned 180 degrees is not a real possibility. But for moderate provinces who took Windsor et al sincerely and seriously, compromise is a welcome development: it means the process of reconciliation can go forward.
The crisis was not the loss of separatist Anglicans so much as the real possibility of a fissure between moderate provinces without separatist inclinations and our province. The intended, primary audience for the document is the wide body of Anglican moderates, especially moderate Primates.
When Radner says
In the end, the response must be construed as a failure to meet the Primates’ requests, although one made with some very small gestures in their direction. and others made to emphasize their disagreement with the Primates,
one should ask--to be clear--after the referent of "Primates". If he means the radical separatist Primates he is right.
But the history of the Tanzania non-ultimatum's making seems to indicate that most Primates, and even the ABC, accomodated the radicals' discontent in order to keep them from walking away from the table. The Tanzania non-ulimatum might not speak to the mind of the Primates, if what we mean is the moderates--and it seems to me that the HoB document is banking on the fact Tanzania did not speak for the moderates propria persona.
What has changed for the HoB, and for the Primates, and for the ABC--and what Radner and others like Hey seem to have missed--is that they now recognize the plan was separation and substitution all along, and they are able to see that this plan was unreasonable all along. "Unreasonable" because the separatist project seems to have made a mockery of the councils and painful labors of the provinces, as if the meetings and negotiations were all a sorry sham for those pursuing separation.
Thus some Anglican conservatives will not be able to see the HoB document for what it actually is: a compromise that is part of a process. "Compromise" is not a category they are willing to recognize, because for separatists reconcilation with an Episcopal Church that has not turned 180 degrees is not a real possibility. But for moderate provinces who took Windsor et al sincerely and seriously, compromise is a welcome development: it means the process of reconciliation can go forward.
WWJD?
How should the House of Bishops respond to the Tanzanian non-ultimatum? Should they totally absent themselves from Lambeth?
Kendall Harmon thinks it is a good idea; Marshall thinks it is at least worth talking about; Jake seemed to like the idea for a time, though perhaps he now has had second thoughts.
Radner put forth a variation: only those prelates unable to bring themselves to consent to Lambeth 1.10--on homosexuality--should absent themselves; Wells likes the sound of it; Bishop Howe sounds like he would approve of it; Kennedy sounds like he'd go with either version.
There are other voices to consider.
So far as I can tell, the largely unspoken subtext of these proposals runs something like this:
Given the ABC's likely inclinations and what the HoB is likely to put out before 9/30, soon the Anglican Communion will fracture, and the break will likely be permanent--much like the break between northern and SBC Baptists, or Protestants and Roman Catholics. To avoid that scenario, radical measures should be taken, such as the ones outlined above.
The rationale for the HoB or certain parts thereof refusing Lambeth rests on the premise that it would somehow keep the AC together. Does anyone think that premise is true? Anglican separatists are intent on replacing the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion, and if that proves to be impossible, they will produce another entity, an alternative communion. For these, excision of the Episcopal Church from the AC is non-negotiable. Why? Separatists remain convinced that the Episcopal Church is on a liberal trajectory that cannot be altered and will only grow in contrariety to the faith once delivered to the saints.
In some conservative quarters it is sinking in: a break-up of the Communion is likely sooner rather than later, and efforts to excise the Episcopal Church are stalling relative to separatist expectations--in part due to Williams' notable lack of enthusiasm for the requisite purification. No wonder there is some anxiety among conservatives, and a search for means adequate to the ends of separation and replacement.
Getting the HoB to stay away from Lambeth is just such a means, enabling better passage of whatever strong resolutions can be mustered to aid the separatist project. A focused Episcopalian presence at Lambeth might rally allies and reasonable bishops to the cause of Moderation, and would almost certainly result in the absence of much of the Global South faction, especially Nigeria.
Nigeria is committed to absence in the event of HoB attendance; going back on their word would occasion an enormous loss of credibility. Yet, Nigeria's absence would very likely hurt the GS-faction's cause at Lambeth, resulting in a weakening of separatist momentum. In short, given Williams' surprising resistance to Nigeria's threat of a boycott, Nigeria's threat looks more and more lilke a strategic disaster for the GS/separatist cause. TEC should do absolutely nothing to prevent that disaster--entirely the work of GS hands to be sure--from visiting the GS faction.
On the other hand, the necessary condition of Nigerian/GS-faction presence at Lambeth seems to be TEC's absence. Only in that way can Lambeth be utilized by the GS faction as a means to strengthen momentum toward separation and replacement.
From a GS-factionalist's point of view, something must be done to get TEC to stay away from Lambeth so that the GS faction can have a chance to dominate it.
Attempts to stay away motivated from some notion of Christian witness or affection or sincere desire to express regret are futile and misguided. Attempts to paint staying away from Lambeth as somehow the Christian thing to do seem to me objectively ideological. What do we know about Biblical meekness exemplified in Moses and Jesus? There is no doubt that it is openly confrontational. Nonviolence and desire for peace do not imply submission or, for that matter, working overtime to enable the triumph of Pharaoh, Babylon, or their contemporary analogues.
If the HoB is serious enough about what it did at GC2003, then it should go ahead and represent its actions at GC2003 at Lambeth as part of its commitment to the didache, the Christian moral response to the Gospel of Christ. Episcopalian bishops would be well advised to spend their scarce energy making a better and more persuasive theological case for themselves than they have up to this point.
Moreover, the HoB has no business copying the GS faction by using absence from the councils of the church as a tool. There is ample precedent in church history for the presence of contending--even heretical--parties at church councils. Consider the precedent we might set for future Lambeth meetings: "Having a tough time communicating? Having a tough time making a persuasive case? Solution? Stay home, of course. Somehow that will help communicate and make your case."
And who else--aside from Canada--is similarly qualified to represent the voices of homosexual Christians? Will their need for representation magically go on vacation? Until Lambeth 2016?
Now that we are engaged in this action, we cannot simply opt out for a path of less resistance--TEC is obliged to represent those voices and take whatever hits come its way. That is genuine fidelity with the weak and defenseless. Absence says, in effect, that we Know discourse is impossible, and our not being there would at least enable discourse for those who remain. Oh? But do we know that? Do we have permission to undermine the necessary conditions of discourse?
Absenting oneself from a church council while continuing to be a church seems to willfully undermine the authority of the council by undermining any claim the council may make to at least approach being genuinely ecumenical. That may not bother those who would deny TEC is a Christian church, or who would see its esse as church diminished--on those views, TEC's absence from the council approaches irrelevance for the council's authority. Otherwise, supporters of GC2003 should pause longer before advocating the Episcopal Church withdraw from Lambeth.
Kendall Harmon thinks it is a good idea; Marshall thinks it is at least worth talking about; Jake seemed to like the idea for a time, though perhaps he now has had second thoughts.
Radner put forth a variation: only those prelates unable to bring themselves to consent to Lambeth 1.10--on homosexuality--should absent themselves; Wells likes the sound of it; Bishop Howe sounds like he would approve of it; Kennedy sounds like he'd go with either version.
There are other voices to consider.
So far as I can tell, the largely unspoken subtext of these proposals runs something like this:
Given the ABC's likely inclinations and what the HoB is likely to put out before 9/30, soon the Anglican Communion will fracture, and the break will likely be permanent--much like the break between northern and SBC Baptists, or Protestants and Roman Catholics. To avoid that scenario, radical measures should be taken, such as the ones outlined above.
The rationale for the HoB or certain parts thereof refusing Lambeth rests on the premise that it would somehow keep the AC together. Does anyone think that premise is true? Anglican separatists are intent on replacing the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion, and if that proves to be impossible, they will produce another entity, an alternative communion. For these, excision of the Episcopal Church from the AC is non-negotiable. Why? Separatists remain convinced that the Episcopal Church is on a liberal trajectory that cannot be altered and will only grow in contrariety to the faith once delivered to the saints.
In some conservative quarters it is sinking in: a break-up of the Communion is likely sooner rather than later, and efforts to excise the Episcopal Church are stalling relative to separatist expectations--in part due to Williams' notable lack of enthusiasm for the requisite purification. No wonder there is some anxiety among conservatives, and a search for means adequate to the ends of separation and replacement.
Getting the HoB to stay away from Lambeth is just such a means, enabling better passage of whatever strong resolutions can be mustered to aid the separatist project. A focused Episcopalian presence at Lambeth might rally allies and reasonable bishops to the cause of Moderation, and would almost certainly result in the absence of much of the Global South faction, especially Nigeria.
Nigeria is committed to absence in the event of HoB attendance; going back on their word would occasion an enormous loss of credibility. Yet, Nigeria's absence would very likely hurt the GS-faction's cause at Lambeth, resulting in a weakening of separatist momentum. In short, given Williams' surprising resistance to Nigeria's threat of a boycott, Nigeria's threat looks more and more lilke a strategic disaster for the GS/separatist cause. TEC should do absolutely nothing to prevent that disaster--entirely the work of GS hands to be sure--from visiting the GS faction.
On the other hand, the necessary condition of Nigerian/GS-faction presence at Lambeth seems to be TEC's absence. Only in that way can Lambeth be utilized by the GS faction as a means to strengthen momentum toward separation and replacement.
From a GS-factionalist's point of view, something must be done to get TEC to stay away from Lambeth so that the GS faction can have a chance to dominate it.
Attempts to stay away motivated from some notion of Christian witness or affection or sincere desire to express regret are futile and misguided. Attempts to paint staying away from Lambeth as somehow the Christian thing to do seem to me objectively ideological. What do we know about Biblical meekness exemplified in Moses and Jesus? There is no doubt that it is openly confrontational. Nonviolence and desire for peace do not imply submission or, for that matter, working overtime to enable the triumph of Pharaoh, Babylon, or their contemporary analogues.
If the HoB is serious enough about what it did at GC2003, then it should go ahead and represent its actions at GC2003 at Lambeth as part of its commitment to the didache, the Christian moral response to the Gospel of Christ. Episcopalian bishops would be well advised to spend their scarce energy making a better and more persuasive theological case for themselves than they have up to this point.
Moreover, the HoB has no business copying the GS faction by using absence from the councils of the church as a tool. There is ample precedent in church history for the presence of contending--even heretical--parties at church councils. Consider the precedent we might set for future Lambeth meetings: "Having a tough time communicating? Having a tough time making a persuasive case? Solution? Stay home, of course. Somehow that will help communicate and make your case."
And who else--aside from Canada--is similarly qualified to represent the voices of homosexual Christians? Will their need for representation magically go on vacation? Until Lambeth 2016?
Now that we are engaged in this action, we cannot simply opt out for a path of less resistance--TEC is obliged to represent those voices and take whatever hits come its way. That is genuine fidelity with the weak and defenseless. Absence says, in effect, that we Know discourse is impossible, and our not being there would at least enable discourse for those who remain. Oh? But do we know that? Do we have permission to undermine the necessary conditions of discourse?
Absenting oneself from a church council while continuing to be a church seems to willfully undermine the authority of the council by undermining any claim the council may make to at least approach being genuinely ecumenical. That may not bother those who would deny TEC is a Christian church, or who would see its esse as church diminished--on those views, TEC's absence from the council approaches irrelevance for the council's authority. Otherwise, supporters of GC2003 should pause longer before advocating the Episcopal Church withdraw from Lambeth.
Debating the Law: Into the Fray
I owe any opponents paying attention some account of what in Christian tradition and the Bible would push a strict, serious, literal reader looking out for "plain sense" to apply the Leviticus punishment today. This is something of a target; where is the soft spot in the Reformed Reconstructionist case, say? Ideally, the conservative wants a reading of Scripture in plain sense fashion that would...
(1) not rest on an appeal to secular morality,
(2) would cogently maintain the wrongness of all homosexual activity whatsoever as Biblical,
and (3) cogently show on nonsecular, strictly Biblical the death penalty should not be applied,
while (4): the reasoning in (3) would not lead to trouble for (2)--that is, there would be no contradiction between (2) and (3).
A tall order--can it be done? First, here is the Target.
I. A Touch of History
Full disclosure: when I threw down the gauntlet to the any part of the Anglican right willing to take it up, I had John Calvin's commentary on Deuteronomy in mind. I figured that at least Calvin would be a good authority to go by on what the Calvinist or Reformed sector of Anglicanism would be committed to on pain of inconsistency:
Let us not think that this Law is a special law for the Jews, but let us understand that God intended to deliver us a general rule to which we must tie ourselves!
That's speaking to Deut. 13:5 (NRSV): But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord your God—who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery—to turn you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
That's just the kind of principle that they might try to say does not apply for Christians; evidently Calvin thought differently. And not only that: Calvin backs up the OT death penalty for apostasy (commenting on 17:2-6), for perjury in capital cases ( 19:16-21 ), for troublesome kids (21:18-21).
Prima facie, Calvin and Orama are close on the applicability of OT Law--complete with penalties--to modern Christians.
And they would not be alone; Calvin's followers de Bres and Bullinger felt the same way about the appliciability of OT Law. Icing on the cake: here is John Knox defending the execution of Servetus under Calvin's watch and with Calvin's vigorous support by reference primarily to Deut. 13. Do we need to get into witch trials? Execution by reference to OT law, complete with penalties: this is how things were done, and how they were done in Massachusetts and elsewhere, in this country, before there was a Bill of Rights, how they were done by serious Bible-Christians who did not get squeamish with bourgeois sentimentality, but had the awful courage of their convictions. And we should never forget.
II. Support In the Bible
On the face of it, Calvin had excellent grounds in the words of Jesus:
Matthew 5:17–19 NIV: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 23:1–3 : Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
And Paul:
Romans 3:31 : Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
7:7 : What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law…
7:12 : So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
6:1,2 : Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!
6:15: Shall we sin because we are not under Law but under grace? By no means!
7:22 : For in my inner being, I delight in God’s Law.
8:7 : The mind of the sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so.
Even better for Calvin: a host of OT prophets imply that OT law will be binding at the end of all things, at what Christians woudl call the Parousia; I won't quote, but encourage you to look it up for fun:
Zechariah 14:3–4,16–17; Isaiah 66:15–17; Isaiah 2:2–3. I can't help but note it's Torah going out to all the nations in Is. 2.
And you can find more than one place where the OT claims the law(=Torah) is eternal--a view with which Jesus above and Paul too seemed to agree:
Psalm 119:152; Psalm 119:160; Exodus 12:24; Exodus 29:9; Leviticus 16:29.
Yes, I'm proof texting in the worst way, adopting the David Virtue "grammatical-historical"/ ACI's Edith Humphrey "plain sense of the Scripture" hermeneutic of my opponents. Anglicanism a la Holmes/Griffiss/Westerhoff/Williams/et al has resources to parry this general trend in the Bible and its logical, historical outcome in atrocity. But my opponents don't buy into Holmes/etc. How will they escape, especially in view of Orama's apparently clear grasp of Scripture's "clear sense"?
III. Theological Reflection
Probably the best living Reconstructionist Covenant theologian--one who speaks for what seems to me the strongest branch of Reformed theology--is the formidible Greg Bahnsen (in this article Bahnsen's target is Norman Geisler; it sounds to me like my opponents might be trying to take a Geisler-like line here). He is in the excellent company of John Frame, Van Til, Clark, and others--all of whom are good theologians with philosophical skill (though not all would share exactly Bahnsen's version of Covenant theology). Note too as an aside, early Anglicanism in what would become the US indulged in a fair bit of Covenant theology (dispensationalism is another crazy ball of wax altogether).
Bahnsen makes the point (Rom. 3:19) that the Law as Paul understood it (and yes, the "New Perspective" on Paul does seem friendly to Bahnsen's point here, Wright and Dunn being perhaps closer to Calvin than Luther) is meant to apply universally, to all nations, "all the world." The argument of Romans 1:26-7 presupposes that universality; as Gagnon notes, Paul is looking back after Christ to the OT in order to condemn Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom. 3:11, 23).
Moreover, this universality/eternity to the law is shown in its full application to the Gentile nations before it was given to Moses (consistent with Paul in Romans). In Lev. 18:24-8 the Canaanites are guilty by the Law. And for those still reading the obliteration of Sodom and Gomorrah as a matter of homsexual activity run amok, Bahnsen's point is especially sharp: the Gentiles of these cities are judged and destroyed according to what became known as Mosaic Law.
One and the same eternal law: before Moses, with Moses, after Moses, after Christ, no? as Bahnsen notes, Mosaic law was not thought to be tribal morality, but a light even to the Gentiles (Isa 51:4; see also Ps 119:46 & esp. 118-9; 94:10-12). We could go on and on and on.
In the NT too, the Law/Torah applies to Gentiles, who are condemned by it: Mark 6:18, 2Peter 1:21; 2 Thess. 2:3 and 1 John 3:4; Rev. 12:17; 14:12).
Those on the Anglican right who'd say Orama is wrong in effect want NOT the plain sense of Scripture whole, but some mutilation of Scripture worked by their own hands, one conveniently sanitized for snazzy altar calls. A strong case with good Scriptural and traditional grounds can be made for seeing the moral Law, of which Leviticus is a part, as being eternal--and as Calvin et al saw--that would include ALL the Law, including the nasty parts about execution.
Modernity frowns on all that, and those mutilating the Law without Scriptural principle by removing the punishments from the principles are acting, it seems to me, from within the framework of Modernity and the European Enlightenment--the very thing they would disavow as Barthians or narrative theologians. Too many tend to forget it was exactly the savagery of the Law in action that helped deliver the Enlightment and Modernity--as well as Anglicanism.
(1) not rest on an appeal to secular morality,
(2) would cogently maintain the wrongness of all homosexual activity whatsoever as Biblical,
and (3) cogently show on nonsecular, strictly Biblical the death penalty should not be applied,
while (4): the reasoning in (3) would not lead to trouble for (2)--that is, there would be no contradiction between (2) and (3).
A tall order--can it be done? First, here is the Target.
I. A Touch of History
Full disclosure: when I threw down the gauntlet to the any part of the Anglican right willing to take it up, I had John Calvin's commentary on Deuteronomy in mind. I figured that at least Calvin would be a good authority to go by on what the Calvinist or Reformed sector of Anglicanism would be committed to on pain of inconsistency:
Let us not think that this Law is a special law for the Jews, but let us understand that God intended to deliver us a general rule to which we must tie ourselves!
That's speaking to Deut. 13:5 (NRSV): But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord your God—who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery—to turn you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
That's just the kind of principle that they might try to say does not apply for Christians; evidently Calvin thought differently. And not only that: Calvin backs up the OT death penalty for apostasy (commenting on 17:2-6), for perjury in capital cases ( 19:16-21 ), for troublesome kids (21:18-21).
Prima facie, Calvin and Orama are close on the applicability of OT Law--complete with penalties--to modern Christians.
And they would not be alone; Calvin's followers de Bres and Bullinger felt the same way about the appliciability of OT Law. Icing on the cake: here is John Knox defending the execution of Servetus under Calvin's watch and with Calvin's vigorous support by reference primarily to Deut. 13. Do we need to get into witch trials? Execution by reference to OT law, complete with penalties: this is how things were done, and how they were done in Massachusetts and elsewhere, in this country, before there was a Bill of Rights, how they were done by serious Bible-Christians who did not get squeamish with bourgeois sentimentality, but had the awful courage of their convictions. And we should never forget.
II. Support In the Bible
On the face of it, Calvin had excellent grounds in the words of Jesus:
Matthew 5:17–19 NIV: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 23:1–3 : Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
And Paul:
Romans 3:31 : Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
7:7 : What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law…
7:12 : So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
6:1,2 : Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!
6:15: Shall we sin because we are not under Law but under grace? By no means!
7:22 : For in my inner being, I delight in God’s Law.
8:7 : The mind of the sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so.
Even better for Calvin: a host of OT prophets imply that OT law will be binding at the end of all things, at what Christians woudl call the Parousia; I won't quote, but encourage you to look it up for fun:
Zechariah 14:3–4,16–17; Isaiah 66:15–17; Isaiah 2:2–3. I can't help but note it's Torah going out to all the nations in Is. 2.
And you can find more than one place where the OT claims the law(=Torah) is eternal--a view with which Jesus above and Paul too seemed to agree:
Psalm 119:152; Psalm 119:160; Exodus 12:24; Exodus 29:9; Leviticus 16:29.
Yes, I'm proof texting in the worst way, adopting the David Virtue "grammatical-historical"/ ACI's Edith Humphrey "plain sense of the Scripture" hermeneutic of my opponents. Anglicanism a la Holmes/Griffiss/Westerhoff/Williams/et al has resources to parry this general trend in the Bible and its logical, historical outcome in atrocity. But my opponents don't buy into Holmes/etc. How will they escape, especially in view of Orama's apparently clear grasp of Scripture's "clear sense"?
III. Theological Reflection
Probably the best living Reconstructionist Covenant theologian--one who speaks for what seems to me the strongest branch of Reformed theology--is the formidible Greg Bahnsen (in this article Bahnsen's target is Norman Geisler; it sounds to me like my opponents might be trying to take a Geisler-like line here). He is in the excellent company of John Frame, Van Til, Clark, and others--all of whom are good theologians with philosophical skill (though not all would share exactly Bahnsen's version of Covenant theology). Note too as an aside, early Anglicanism in what would become the US indulged in a fair bit of Covenant theology (dispensationalism is another crazy ball of wax altogether).
Bahnsen makes the point (Rom. 3:19) that the Law as Paul understood it (and yes, the "New Perspective" on Paul does seem friendly to Bahnsen's point here, Wright and Dunn being perhaps closer to Calvin than Luther) is meant to apply universally, to all nations, "all the world." The argument of Romans 1:26-7 presupposes that universality; as Gagnon notes, Paul is looking back after Christ to the OT in order to condemn Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom. 3:11, 23).
Moreover, this universality/eternity to the law is shown in its full application to the Gentile nations before it was given to Moses (consistent with Paul in Romans). In Lev. 18:24-8 the Canaanites are guilty by the Law. And for those still reading the obliteration of Sodom and Gomorrah as a matter of homsexual activity run amok, Bahnsen's point is especially sharp: the Gentiles of these cities are judged and destroyed according to what became known as Mosaic Law.
One and the same eternal law: before Moses, with Moses, after Moses, after Christ, no? as Bahnsen notes, Mosaic law was not thought to be tribal morality, but a light even to the Gentiles (Isa 51:4; see also Ps 119:46 & esp. 118-9; 94:10-12). We could go on and on and on.
In the NT too, the Law/Torah applies to Gentiles, who are condemned by it: Mark 6:18, 2Peter 1:21; 2 Thess. 2:3 and 1 John 3:4; Rev. 12:17; 14:12).
Those on the Anglican right who'd say Orama is wrong in effect want NOT the plain sense of Scripture whole, but some mutilation of Scripture worked by their own hands, one conveniently sanitized for snazzy altar calls. A strong case with good Scriptural and traditional grounds can be made for seeing the moral Law, of which Leviticus is a part, as being eternal--and as Calvin et al saw--that would include ALL the Law, including the nasty parts about execution.
Modernity frowns on all that, and those mutilating the Law without Scriptural principle by removing the punishments from the principles are acting, it seems to me, from within the framework of Modernity and the European Enlightenment--the very thing they would disavow as Barthians or narrative theologians. Too many tend to forget it was exactly the savagery of the Law in action that helped deliver the Enlightment and Modernity--as well as Anglicanism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)