We have posted here within the last couple of months about Christian political theology. Recall that James Baird wrote a great book on the topic; and that he argued the state should promote the Christian religion.
Now, Stephen Wolfe and a couple of collaborators have written a more scholarly work on the topic. It is called “A Study Report On Reformed Christian Politics”.
Recall that Wolfe is the author of The Case for Christian Nationalism that was published a few years ago and created quite a stir.
The good news is that you don’t have to buy the new book. It is accessible online here. The bottom line? Their findings are very similar to what Baird had argued in his book.
It is fairly lengthy and cerebral. But you can get to the meat of their arguments by skipping to the Conclusions section on page 207.
Figures from various “conservative” denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church in America have criticized the calls for Christian nationalism. (They have also sought to prohibit church members from saying that one race or ethnicity is superior to another even though the Bible doesn’t even remotely state this requirement.)
In any case, there been a reaction within the “conservative” denominations against Wolfe’s arguments. Starting on page 177 of this new book, Wolfe and his co-authors explain that his position on Christian nationalism has been misinterpreted and misrepresented. He argues that the case he makes is rooted in Christian history and tradition; and that it is biblically grounded.
I did not read the entire work. But the portions I read were quite good; and were rewarding.
I am not cerebral but did understand this: ( I think ? )
The glaring problem with this is that we cannot preach the Gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection without also proclaiming God’s law, to show
man his need for the Gospel. But in proclaiming the law, we will offend non-Christians for more
than the gospel in its narrow sense (“the gospel of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ,” as
VanDrunen said). God calls men to repent from their sins—including idolatry, blasphemy, and
Sabbath-breaking (First Table offenses). Therefore, R2K is a weakened assertion of Christ’s rule
over the nations. It rests on an erroneous interpretation and application of the Noahic Covenant,
as well as an erroneous understanding of natural law’s relationship to the civil government. It is
at odds with traditional Reformed theology and even the modifications of American Presbyterianism. R2K is not sound theology or political theory but rather an accommodation to religious
pluralism. It should, therefore, be thoroughly rejected.
Fred, just for clarification, I think the authors of this piece are NOT proponents of R2K. They cite R2K as part of their discussion, but it is not their approach. BTW, “2K” refers to two kingdoms– the Sacred and Secular.
Here is another explanation of R2K: (Source: Five Solas)
“The Sacred Kingdom – sometimes identified as the Spiritual or the Redemptive Kingdom – comprises clear manifestations of the Kingdom of God. Within this realm, Christ reigns as Redeemer over the people whom He has saved. In order to reveal His will within this Kingdom, Christ primarily employs Scripture. The Bible – especially the New Testament – is therefore said to govern or “norm” Sacred Kingdom realms, particularly including the institutional church and the personal morality of church members.
“The Secular Kingdom, on the other hand – also identified as the Civil or Common Kingdom – includes all other parts of life. In this realm Christ reigns as Creator over all men, exercising His authority not via Scripture, but by means of Natural Law. Natural Law is defined as the revelation of God’s truth as it is encompassed within the creation and written on the human conscience.
“Because Christ is believed to rule these two kingdoms on the basis of different relationships, R2K proponents argue that it is inappropriate to use Scripture – which is meant to govern the Sacred Kingdom – for regulating life in the Secular Kingdom. For instance, according to R2K principles, it would be wrong to appeal to the Bible as the basis for passing a law or as the grounds for a court ruling. Likewise, it (allegedly) would be inappropriate to apply the instruction of Scripture to business management or to the teaching of science.”
Just for reference, TC the excerpt that I posted came form page 176 of “A Study Report on Reformed Christian Politics”
Thanks, Fred. Yes, the authors were differentiating themselves from those that hold the R2K point of view. They were saying there should be a more assertive Christian posture influencing what our laws should be, whereas the R2K people want to shy away from that.