A reader responds via email:
What’s worse, “taxation without representation” or “infanticide”? The answer seems obvious, but the implication would, I believe, be very difficult for Prof. Reno to swallow.
The more I think about the state-legitimacy arguments, the more I think it needs to be said that precisely these arguments bear some responsibility for the killing of Dr. Tiller. They do so, because a Christian killed the doctor, and because it is Christian doctrines of legitimacy that give theological backing to the use of lethal force. All Scott Roeder did is to say that our particular state fails the Christian test of legitimacy. You’ve already pointed that out, but I think it’s also crucial to actually see the connections between, on the one hand, arguments of the sort Reno advances and their dependence upon misreadings of Romans 13, and, on the other hand, the murder of Dr. Tiller. Yes, Reno quite helpfully admits that even legitimate authority is fallen and unjust. This is an important corrective to readings of Romans 13 that generate naive ideal conceptions of legitimate authority. However, Reno goes on to say that, however unjust and corrupt authority might be, we still NEED the state’s violence in order to have a culture that respects life. “A legitimate, functioning government is the precondition for civilization.” And this is the crux of the issue: once you’ve given a theological blessing to the state’s violence, it’s only a matter of time before some Christians decide that the state’s falling down on the job that God wants it to do and then proceed to take matters into their own hands.
One should note that Reno’s argument here is parallel to James Dobson’s attack on gay marriage—i.e., nothing less than civilization is at stake. Even if this were true—and claims like these are highly dubious; they strike me as false apocalyptic—the mandate for civilizational life-support is obviously not being read out of Romans 13. Rather, a deeply Constantinian habit of mind is overwhelming an otherwise helpful reading of the text. Reno is certainly right that “Paul is not suggesting that the Roman emperor of his day is a trustworthy divine deputy with a pipeline to God.” So far, so good. But Reno cannot be right when he further says that government “is the very basis for any successful collective effort to respect life.” In saying the latter, Reno has, without noticing it, made the sword-bearing function of secular government more important than, indeed prior to, the work of the Spirit-empowered Church. And so against Reno, but with John Howard Yoder and Ratzinger/Benedict, we must say that the Church is a culture of life, the Church is a “collective effort to respect life.” Furthermore, we must observe that in the crucial case, the birth of the Church, the only role government really had to play was in the betrayal of its duty in the crucifixion of Jesus. Theologically speaking, then, Reno has it backwards. If there is ever to be a government that respects life, then there must be a Church-culture which testifies in word and deed that its existence flows from the life-giving, resurrection-power of the Spirit, and not from the death-dealing powers of the world.
Is the Church really “a collective effort to respect life”? In how many churches do they even pray for those who have died from abortion and/or miscarriage?
Or maybe we are talking about an “ideal” church that does not want to primarily perpetuate itself?
This says what I was thinking, only better. :-) And, yeah, I think it’s clear it’s referring to what the Church *should* be rather than what it is.
And I would say that the church, despite its unfaithfulness has a far better case to make for itself as a “collective effort to respect life” than any state in history. The things Bruce describes are all things that I have experienced in the life of my own church. I say that not to deny that the church needs a lot of work in these areas, only to say that this virtues are not utterly lacking.
Hmm. No, I would say the church has no claim on this sort of secular authority. It does not bear the sword. The great failing of both Ratzinger and Yoder is that they fail to understand the difference between this old world and the new creation. The church as an institution belongs to the old world, and has no special claim to make. The true church, that which is new, does not belong to the old world.
Yes, in fact, in this old world, the sword-bearing function of government is essential, and the “Spirit-empowered church” does not belong. We do not see the power of the Spirit injected into the church to create an “empowered” this-world institution. Rather, we see an institution that belongs to the old world, suffers from all of its faults, and has no advantage over it. Same liars, murderers and idolaters as everywhere else–and is governed by the same law as all else in this old world. This doesn’t “need a lot of work”–we aren’t Pelagians, thinking that our work could salvage this wreckage, and we aren’t Marcionites, thinking that the old law isn’t any good for us any longer. It needs to pass away, as it will–and so new creation is everything!
“Taxation without representation” is something worth looking into here. We are misled if we think the American Revolution took place because such taxation is simply “wrong”, and it was the duty of citizens to throw off a government which would impose it, and to establish what they felt was right. What was in fact going on was the assertion of true government (that which actually governed the colonies) against foreign imposition which would have overturned that traditional, legal authority. The “revolutionary” was George III–against that lawlessness, the founders invoked the rights of their local government and law. In Reformation terms, this is the right of resistance of lesser magistrates against greater.
Adam,
Your argument seems to boil down to stating the Church does not exist, in any real sense. Sure, we want to avoid an overrealized ecclesiology just as much as an overrealized eschatology, but is the Church’s telos towards anything in particular? Is God acting to move us closer to his new creation? Or are we just flagellating ourselves for the sake of fire insurance, as the cliche goes?
Michael,
Now I think this gets to the heart of the matter. If real means, “in this age” and “under the law” (and these two mean the same), then you’re quite correct, the church does not exist in a real sense. But then all I’ve really said is that the church is a new creation.
As new creation, it has no telos. It isn’t going anywhere–it only is because its Lord speaks it, only in relation to him. So it doesn’t need to travel, as if it were to move beyond him, or as if his voice alone were insufficient to create it, and so it had to move itself from the old towards the new. No, for freedom Christ has set us free–so nowhere else left to go.
Now, regarding our existence in the present age, that is, what’s happening to these institutions, to the old Adam and his religious life, etc., well, no self-flagellation needed. Our Lord has that part taken care of (as he takes care of all things). The Spirit does work on us, to be sure–drives us to the cross. So we die, used up, poured out, crucified with Christ. Isn’t that plenty?
Adam,
I find your concept of Church a bit baffling, so I started writing on an alternative, more Augustinian understanding of the church, and actually ended up with a short essay. I posted it here:
http://buttrey.ca/michael/2009/06/true-worship-and-the-city-of-god/
It might sound catholic to modern ears, but it’s eminently Reformed, if that’s where you’re at.
Furthermore, I’m perplexed by where you end your list of what the Spirit and Christ do. Did anything happen to Christ after his death? Does that have any relevance for us now? No?
Michael,
I’ll respond to your blog post (which sounds Reformed enough to my ears–but then, I’m a Lutheran, and so inclined to see catholic and Reformed positions as fundamentally quite close together) where it’s at, but very briefly respond to your last questions here.
I probably put things in backwards order in my last post, but that’s not such a big deal. The point stands either way–everything old passes away, and there is a new creation. Death and resurrection. So the work of Christ and the Spirit in this age will look like death.
But those of us who have been united with him by baptism into his death have also heard something else–that death is already behind us (2000 years behind us, in fact), though the world does not know this and will not believe it. I’d think that’s of great relevance–it means that while I see my old self decaying, while I suffer, while the Spirit works to pour out my life for the good of my neighbor, I don’t worry, because I now live Jesus’ own inexhaustible life. And so too the whole church.
Ahh, you’re Lutheran. That makes some sense. I’m afraid I know very little of Lutheranism except Richard Niebuhr’s (mis)characterization of it, but it at least helps me understand how strange your comments seemed at first glance. I hope you don’t mind my saying so; I mean no disrespect to you or other Lutheran(s). :)
No, I generally don’t expect anyone to know Lutheran positions on most issues, especially ecclesiology. Your highest profile Lutherans (e.g., Jenson) tend to advance ecclesiological programs that have little to nothing in common with Luther. Anyway, I’ll reserve that for your blog–interaction with Augustine seems to me exactly the right place to sort this out.
“A legitimate, functioning government is the precondition for civilization.”
Q. Is “civilization” an idol?
While the question, “What’s worse, ‘taxation without representation” or ‘infanticide’?” makes for great rhetoric, it a canard.
The Declaration of Independence spells out a list of “Facts” about King George, including “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” This is the same claim made by the virulent anti-abortionists about our current state. Even R.C Sproul in his series on government stated a legitimate government loses its legitimacy when it fails to defend life, and I do not consider Sproul to be an extremist. He would be inconsistent, however, in the ways Halden has recently pointed out.