Sam Brownback on Our Biggest Battles via David Bahnsen

David Bahnsen attended the FRC Values Washington Briefing this weekend and World Magazine Blog shares one of his thoughts from the weekend:

"Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas hit on one of the biggest issues that has forced a paradigm shift in my life the last several years: The crucial need to fight big battles, and to win them. He defined the biggest battles we are fighting in the values war now as the sanctity of life, the preservation of marriage, and God in the public square. My older life contained so many pitiful distractions with certain theological issues that I get literally ill thinking about it. Current church circles I am indirectly affiliated with are involved in such meaningless and trivial theological arguments that I simply have no doubt as to why they are such impotent churches culturally. As a matter of calling and priority, the esteemed Senator is right. I appreciate this reminder in the political, and ecclesiastical realm. I am more than willing to let others fight about paedo communion, exclusive psalmody, and which theologian is going to hell this week."

I find some things to agree with here and some to disagree with.

First of all, this is pretty much a sound bite, so I know that David didn't intend to write a full blown treatise on the relationship of the political to the ecclesiastical, and I realize he could probably nuance his comments in any number of ways.

Secondly, I think his examples effectively illustrate that there is such a thing as an obsession with theological minutiae which can turn our attention away from the greater things of the gospel and can render us useless in the fulfillment of our civil obligations.

Third, I think Senator Brownback is correct in stating that there are bigger battles and there are smaller battles and we must give our attention to the bigger battles.  And I agree with Senator Brownback's political priorities.

But I want to respectfully disagree with some of Mr. Bahnsen's extrapolations from Senator Brownback's comments. 

 

1. The peace, purity, and preservation of the church is a weightier matter than the peace, purity and preservation of American civil society.

In saying that I don't mean to oppose the two - the desire for preservation of the church and the preservation of civil society can and should be seen as complimentary, not contradictory.  Also, one of the things I have gained from my reading N. T. Wright is a greater appreciation for the calling of the people of God to be a blessing to the nations of the earth.  One of the great problems in Jesus' day was that the people of God, i.e. Israel had forgotten their vocation to be a blessing to the whole earth and instead were wrapped up in internal matters, and this translated into a desire to see Israel rule the nations rather than being a blessing to the nations.  There is a helpful analogy here - if the church's concern with it's own peace, purity and preservation turns insular then it denies its calling to be a blessing to the nations.  And, a part of fulfilling the calling to be a blessing to the nations is the attempt to preserve a well-ordered civil society.  One of the things that is implied but not spoken in Bahnsen's words is that the people engaged in "trivial theological arguments" often do so to the exclusion of civic concern.  That too is a valid criticism with which I agree.

Having said that, God nowhere promises to preserve any particular form of social order or geopolitical entity.  But He does promise to protect and preserve His church.  Chapter 5 of the Westminster Confession states it this way:

As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures, so, after a most special manner, it taketh care of his Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof.

This says it well.  God does have a care and a concern for all of His creatures and it is right and proper to consider the civil sphere as an object of His care and providence.  But He cares more about His church.  He orders the affairs of men in such a way as to benefit His church, but He doesn't order the affairs of men in such a way as to benefit a particular social order or geopolitical entity.

Thus, while it may be the case that some err in their obsession with theological trivia to the exclusion of civil concern, it may also be the case that these people simply have their priorities straight - recognizing the pre-eminence of the church.

2. Theology is a more important discipline than sociology or political science.

Again, I don't want to create a false dichotomy.  Theology is not opposed to sociology or political science.  In fact, theology ought to inform and guide sociology and political science.  Yet I argue that knowing God and knowing about God is more important than knowing about society or politics.  And, for the Christian at least, we ought to understand that without good theology we can't do good sociology or political science.

Somewhere in his book Beyond Culture Wars (sorry, I couldn't find the page number or the exact quote, but I am sure I am close in this), Michael Scott Horton says that in the average evangelical church today one is more likely to be ostracized for having a wrong view of abortion or homosexuality than he is to be ostracized for having a wrong view of the the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or justification.  Yet, there is far more biblical data and far more biblical weight is given to the latter issues than to the former issues.

3. Pragmatism and/or triumphalism must not stand in judgment over the church and theology.

I am anticipating an objection here to my first two points.  Someone might say that if we are doing church right and are doing theology right then civil society will necessariy change and reflect Christian values.  While we ought desperately to want to see the kingdoms of the earth reflect the kingdom of God, nowhere in Scripture is the success of the church linked to it's approbation of, or triumphalism over, the kingdoms of the earth.  In fact, Scripture shows us that one evidence of the church's "sucess" may be persecution from the world and our "values" may in fact be rejected in the civil sphere.

4.  Keep in mind the "downstream" nature of politics.

For this I'll quote a prior entry on my blog called "Why All the Fuss?"

And really, that is all I am getting at. At no point in any of my prior posts have I argued that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. I'm just arguing for a change in perspective. I read some words just today in Nancy Pearcy's new book, Total Truth, that are helpful.  Speaking of Christians revived political activism over the last couple of decades she says:

This heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, yet the impact remains far less than most had hoped. Why? Because evangelicals often put all their eggs in one basket: They leaped into political activism as the quickest, surest way to make a difference in the public arena - failing to realize that politics tend to reflect a culture, not the other way around.

She goes on:

Today, battle-weary political warriors have grown more realistic about the limits of that strategy. We have learned that "politics is downstream from culture, not the other way around," says Bill Wichterman, policy advisor to senate majority leader Bill Frist. "Real change has to start with the culture, all we can do on Capitol Hill is try to find ways government can nurture healthy cultural trends.

And:

On a similar note a member of Congress once told me, "I got involved in politics after the 1973 abortion decision because I thought that was the fastest route to moral reform. Well, we've won some legislative victories, but we've lost the culture (italics hers)." The most effective work, he had come to realize, is done by ordinary Christians fulfilling God's calling to reform culture within their local spheres of influence - their families, churches, schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, professional organizations, and civic institutions.

The bottom line is that, though our concern for the church and theological matters is to trump our concern for civil society and political matters, we are to have a great concern for and be involved in civil and political matters. Yet, as these words from Nancy Pearcey illustrate, the battles for things like the sanctity of life and the preservation of marriage ultimately aren't going to be won in the state capital or the nation's capital.  We need to be in the state capital and the nation's capital, but more importantly we need to be in the church.

5. Remember the political illusion

This is a drum I beat from time to time.  Jacques Ellul spoke of the political illusion, or the increasing politicization of more and more of civil society.  He speaks of it in the sense that it is an illusion to believe that the most pressing problems of humanity have political solutions.  James Fowler summarizes Ellul:

When all values are cast in political form, and all hopes       are directed toward political solutions, believed to be on the       verge of realization, politics becomes the "supreme religion       of this age," propagating its "myth of the solution"       for all social problems, despite the inability of politics to       deal with good and evil, personal character, or the meaning and       quality of life. 

So ultimately, I am going to have to disagree with this statement from Bahnsen:

As a matter of calling and priority, the esteemed Senator is right.

I'll qualify that to say that if Bahnsen is merely arguing against unhelpful theological nitpickiness and arguing for a proper biblical engagement with politics, then I agree.  If however, he means that our engagement with politics and the civil sphere is a greater calling and higher priority than our engagement with the church and theological matters, then I have to respectfully disagree and say that the best hope that Christians have of providing a meaningful Christian influence in the civil/political sphere comes from giving greater weight to the church and theological matters.

Related Tags: Sam Brownback, Senator Sam Brownback, Family Research Council, Politics, Politics & Society, Religion, Christianity, Church, Bible, Scripture

Comments

[Louie Marsh]

Excellent!

Couldn't agree more with the main thrust of this post!

[Doc]

I generally agree with your take on Brownback's comments (keeping in mind that I haven't read his comments nor the article you reference, only your take on them), but...

Matt 7:16 "By their fruit you will recognize them." If someone claims to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, and acknowledges the truth of Reformed soteriology in every other way, but maintains that abortion and homosexuality are OK, what are we to make of that? What if he persistently maintains public membership in an organization nearly totally devoted to antiChristian principles (e.g., the Democratic Party)?

I think you're right that keeping the Church healthy must be primary. And one expression of that health is the political activity of her members. I guess it's a both/and rather than an either/or...

[David Wayne]

Louie - many thanks for the kind words.

Doc - I agree wholeheartedly that this is a both/and proposition. And in my comment about views on abortion and homosexuality vs. views on Jesus divinity, et al, I didn't mean that if you have a correct view of Jesus then it's ok to be pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality. I meant that to illustrate that we are far more attuned to and sensitive to the social issues than the theological issues and this is a huge problem. I do agree with you that this is a both/and thing though, I just think we need to always affirm that the church is of special concern to God. God promised to build and preserve His church, He hasn't promised to build and preserve any particular geo-political entity. Still, prioritizing the church should lead to a reinforcement and energizing of our civic responsibilities.

[Andre Yee]

David

I agree with you completely and believe that you make some very crucial points. Setting up the false dichotomy of doctrine and active engagement in the world is not the answer.

You rightly note that our primary goal isn't the preservation of American civil society but the preservation and purity of the church.

You had many other good points...well said!

Andre

[centuri0n]

I was going to throw an egg at you, Jolly, for your point #1, but you pulled it out by the end.

Good post.

[David Wayne]

Aw come on Frank - you can't pull your egg without telling me why you were going to throw it in the first place!

[centuri0n]

Well, if I can post this without drawing ire or causing a blog war, I have this thing about the Epistle of Diognetus which helps form my opinion about church and culture. Yes: I know this letter is not Scripture, but it is a historical document which evidences the kind of church which evangelized the pagan world of the second century.

See: in that letter, the writer describes the Christians of his day thus:

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

Which is great, right? Who would argue with that? Even Oprah would admit that this is a great way to live (even if she cannot herself do any such a thing).

But the question regarding these christians we have to ask this is: why did they do such a thing? See -- in your agreement with David re: petty theological disagreements in #1, I think you (and he) fall into the trap that it is either we are fighting each other over "petty" theological jots-and-tittles or we are engaging the culture, as the trendy folks say. But the Epistle to D. tells us something that's pretty stunning about these world-changing Christians: they were known for having a high degree of theological detail motivating their "missiological" living. Rather than post all the theology from that letter here, please chase the link I provided and see for yourself.

In that, for example, I think it's a little over-indulgent to say that the efficacy of paedo-baptism (as the example mentioned) -- particularly as we look at the AA/FV controversy -- is inconsequential, or not of any material use, when we are faced with the challenges of a post-christian culture in the west. You know: do we grab the apostate 20-something "by his baptism" when he manifests the hallmarks of reprobation -- that is, pleading with him to be faithful to a covenant that he didn't really sign up for but to which God is faithful -- or do we seek him out missiologically with the whole Gospel which is for sinful men, and tell him that it's not his water-washing which saves him but that his Baptism ought to be a plea to God for a clear conscience? Those are two very different things -- and at least one of them is wrong.

I think there are very few theological debates not worth having -- but I think, in the end, I would have to say that if the whole church is focused on counting the angels on the head of a pin rather than publicly counting the blessings of God in grace in order that the Gospel may be preached and sinners saved, that would be a disaster. And I think it is also very clear that the church is made up of many parts -- some the eyes and the heads and the ears (which would be useful in debating theology), and some the hands and the feet and the mouths (which are necessary for executing the great commission). If we only want a church of hands and feet, we are going to find out quickly that while hands and feet can get someplace quickly, they don't know really where they have gone or what to do when they get there.

Am I raving, or does this make any sense?

[centuri0n]

I'm also mad at you, jolly, because you don't link to me on a regular basis. Even Challies links to me once in a while.

[cavman]

A few things.
The minutia was paedo communion, not paedo baptism, which is a very obscure debate in the church. So surely Bahnsen (related to Greg?) isn't against theology.
Theology provides our message & motivation among many other things. But we conservatives tend to make so many things disputed territory that we never take the important stuff into the world. Salt & light must come into contact with the world to be effective (this will be my sermon on Sunday).
In prep I've read part of Stott's Involvement: Being a Responsible Christian in a Non-Christian Society. Just the historical sketch of how we got ourselves into this mess is worth checking into.
Sadly, the political involvement (bordering on demands) turns off people needlessly (unless it's Pelosi misquoting the Golden Rule). Salt & light has more to do with consistent discipleship and mercy ministry (a glimpse of the Gospel), not political activism per se. The political activism of people like Wilburforce arose in connection with their being salt & light.
Since I've got a sermon still disembodied in my head, I'll stop for now lest I get even more confused :-)

[David Wayne]

Frank - mea culpa on the lack of links - I'll seek to do better.

It could be the case that you are raving.

It could be the case that you are a raving lunatic.

It could even be the case that you are stark raving mad.

But even if one of those is the case, I think you bring up a good point here. You raise an issue of a tension that I have never quite resolved in my own mind, the tension as to when we are engaging in worthwhile debate and when we are debating trivial matters, i.e. the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin type stuff.

I really think you are right though. In the reformation era the church seemed to place a higher priority on orthodoxy than orthopraxy, at least in terms of ink that was spilt and debates that were engaged. Which is not to say that orthodoxy is more important than orthopraxy, but it is to say that orthodoxy usually precedes orthopraxy. I'm not a historian but I wonder if it might be the case that praxis was it's most ortho- when orthodoxy reigned.

I wonder if one of the reasons we have to fight so many battles over orthopraxy today is that we haven't been diligent to fight the battles of orthodoxy.

I also wonder if one reason many of the battles over praxis are fought in the political realm is because we haven't won the battles for praxis in the church, which is because we haven't won the battles for orthodoxy that would have led to orthopraxy.

Alright, enough ortho-lingo.

Cavman - brilliant insight buddy on salt and light - brilliant I say, even coming from a baseball fan - maybe there's hope for you yet.

[centuri0n]

caveman --

You are right in the word in David's post, but the paedocommunion debate is about the efficacy of baptism. That is: if it's a valid baptism, there is no reason not to administer communion to the member of God's church. The argument of paedocommunion is that we should not pay lip service to paedobaptism but honor it as the sign and seal which the confessions say it is.
________________________________________

Jolly:

I think it is exactly right that if we had a church which was founded on substantantial orthodoxy and not mere orthodoxy, and that church was seeking daily to reform itself in humility and in love (resulting in orthopraxy), we would not bother with politics because they are, at best, a poor sister to the work of the Gospel. Government is necessarily a ministry of the sword ordained by God (Rom 13 and all that), but it is a inistry for restraining evil, not for implementing the Gospel or its means.

Amen?

[cavman]

That may be part of the issue (efficacy of baptism). If one wants to argue for a Roman Catholic like view of efficacy, great- but there is no way I can see the Westminster Divines pushing sign & seal so far.

But part of the issue, more determinative for me, since I reject any notion of ex opere in baptism, is the nature of the Table and what it means to discern the Lord's Body.

But this thread isn't about that. And I don't want to get into the nuts & bolts of paedocommunion, a quite obscure view.

[David Wayne]

Frank - Amen for the most part, probably most of the most part.

I think any human society is going to need some form of organization and some form of government. I don't subscribe to the idea that government is only for the purpose of restraining evil, although in the fallen state that seems to be the chief end of government, just not the only end. My rationale for saying this that it appears there will be government in the eternal state - there are those who "rule," in the new heavens and the new earth. So, even in a world were there is no sin, no evil to restrain, there will be government.

Also, the church itself has a governmental structure, and that governmental structure is not merely for the purpose of restraining evil.

So, I know what you are getting at but I would want to nuance the comment about not bothering with politics. I think the example of OT prophets does give the church warrant to speak out against the injustices committed by the nations. I believe that some believers are called to serve in public office and we can affirm then in their calling. I believe that believers may vote, although I wouldn't use the language of moral obligation when it came to believers and voting because I do know of believers who have conscientious objections to voting and I don't believe I could call it a sin to not vote.

I see politics as a legitimate common grace activity which believers can engage in out of love for neighbor and in fulfillment of the cultural mandate - as an aside, I do believe there is some sort of "cultural mandate" present in Genesis 1:27-28 - I am with the neo-calvinists in that regard.

But the church as the church is an agent of special grace, the kingdom of God is independent of and exists parallel to the kingdoms of man in the present world and yes indeed, the ministry of the gospel is a distinct ministry to which the church is especially called and we have to be extra careful to not let the gospel be identified with a political agenda.

Amen??

[centuri0n]

Ya, ok, Amen. this exchange could probably weild some nuance for about 2 or 3 more go-rounds, but I think we'd end up agreeing that we need to be in and not of, and that we should (when we can) vote and advocate for justice and mercy, but not try to make government the winepress of God's wrath.

[David Wayne]

Man you are quick! Yes indeedy on what you say here - it's been fun talking with you on this a bit though.

[centuri0n]

Last one for caveman:

I'd disagree with you that you need an ex opere view of baptism to get to paedocommunion -- all you need is the formula "all who are baptized are Christians" to get there. That doesn't mean they're all saved: it means they are all part of the church on Earth. In that, the paedo-communionist has a very sleek systematic going on: as I have gleened it from Doug Wilson, it's a post-millenial view of the church, and it wislds the covenant in a way which has, frankly, some teeth -- that is, it treats the covenant as if those inside it have some kind of obligations. I admit that it has a lot of appeal ...

... until you read the book of Hebrews or the book of Romans. :)

You can have the last word on this. I appreciate you taking time to tell me I'm wrong. :)

[centuri0n]

Jolly --

I think an angel told me you posted. I was on-line twice this weekend, and one of those times I noticed you had posted an update. Anyway, like I said the first time, I was gonna throw and egg, but by the end of your post you had pretty much resolved all my problems.