some thoughts

I’ve just come across Abraham Kuyper’s much-heralded Stone Lectures (Six Lectures Delivered at Princeton University, 1898 under the auspices of the L. P. Stone Foundation, later published in 1943 by Eerdmans under the title Lectures on Calvinism) available online compliments of The Kuyper Foundation.

Here’s a brief excerpt:

If the [cultural] battle is to be fought with honor and with a hope of victory, then principle must be arrayed against principle; then it must be felt that in Modernism the vast energy of an all-embracing life-system assails us, then also it must be understood that we have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power. (from the first lecture)

Lecture 1: Calvinism as a Life System
Lecture 2: Calvinism and Religion
Lecture 3: Calvinism and Politics
Lecture 4: Calvinism and Science
Lecture 5: Calvinism and Art
Lecture 6: Calvinism and the Future

On the political side of things, I think he lands with the theocrats, but I’ll be very interested to see how he gets there [Update: No, he doesn’t. But he does demand that every office-holder recognize that he is a “servant of God,” a la Romans 13.] I think the basic argument for law goes like this:

1. There can be no ought without understanding first what is; every imperative must have a preceding indicative. (i.e., “There is a Mack truck heading straight for you; therefore, you ought to move out of the way.”)
2. We can only comprehend what truly is as we experience the world as interpreted by Scripture - God’s inspired meaning of reality, history and all that is.
3. “What,” then, “saith the Scriptures,” about the state?

How we understand the Kingdom of God (and our Millennial views) will have a huge impact on where we’ll land on that third question. If Scripture gives the only true meaning of reality - including the structure, principles, and goals of “the magistrate,” where fits in a separation of church (i.e., denominational authority) and state? Are we to pursue a Christian state? Are we to use political and economic means to try to provoke the arrival of the Kingdom (postmillennialism)? In that case, were the Crusaders right to take the actions they did? Should doctrinal disagreement lead to civil or criminal punishment? Where we wrong, then, to throw off the rulership of (so-called) “British Israel?”

Or, on the other hand, are we in an “Abraham” age of promise and pilgrim politics, loving our neighbors until the Kingdom comes? Do we live like Rahab in Jericho, after the oath with the two evangelist/spies but before the last man of Jericho fell, living “in the world, but not of the world,” because we’re “of the kingdom, but not yet in the kingdom”? And if that’s the case, (which I think it is,) how are “religiously neutral” laws even possible when Reformed Epistemology has taught us so well that there is no such thing as religious neutrality in any sphere whatsoever?

What’s more, what is the true purpose of the state? What are its powers, and from what should it be restricted?

Just a little of what I’ve been thinking about recently. Feel free to chime in with anything relevant…