Dr Greg Bahnsen - Political Ethics: Proper Place of the State in the Ordering of Creation (Part 5)

Outlines we've considered the transformational need for a Christian political stance, asking ourselves the question why evangelicals have this reserve or caution about it. Looking at reasons why there must be a Christian political approach, and then considering the relationship of Christ to culture, We've now begun an examination of the major issues in present day Christian political theory that the first of which is what is the proper function of the state? And the three answers are given to you there. Law, justice and welfare according to Mauritan, law and order according to Henry, and law and social justice according to Bruner and Dooyverde. The next question that arises as a separate one is what is the place of the state in the ordering of creation? And we're going to be looking at the Catholic view, the Protestant view, and then the view of modern theology that fits in very well with the Anabaptist tradition. In particular, the creational, providential and christological views we need to consider now. How does the state fit into God's ordering of his creation? Christians have traditionally affirmed that the existence of state states among men is authorized by God, that their existence conforms to God's will for our human condition. But what is the fundamental status of that authorization? Is it part of God's creation, decrees for the life of man no matter what man's condition? Or is it rather part of his providence decrees for the life of fallen man in particular? Now the Catholic tradition has favored the former view that the state is an order of creation, whereas the Protestant tradition has favored the providential view that it's an order of God for fallen man's condition. Yet passionate though the dispute has often been, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that sometimes there is no genuine issue here. For the Catholic emphasizes the fact that the state is a governmental institution in charge for all the inhabitants of a certain territory of some domain within the common good. And he rightly insists that the Christian neither views governance in general as an evil or necessitated solely by evil, nor does he view such governance as the state state in that light. And on the other hand, the Protestant stresses the embeddedness of our states within our present fallen age. Our states exact obedience from the inhabitants of a certain area by their power of the sword. And given our sinful condition, how else could they exact it except by coercion in the power of the sword? And our states maintain a system of laws whose purpose, you'll note, and whose effect is in large measure to restrain wrongdoing. No one should hold that this is the sole purpose and effect of our laws in part they have a purely regulative ordering purpose and function. Still, there's no denying that our political structure is in large measure devoted to restraining wrongdoing. So what makes it hard to see, what makes it hard to see any genuine issue here is that the coin of the State simply has these two faces. The State is a governmental institution responsible for some domain within the common good of all those who inhabit a certain territory. The Protestant doesn't have to deny this, nor need he deny that God's authorization of such an institution can be seen as belonging to his creational decrees. But on the other hand, the State is also an institution which acts to restrain wrongdoing, and it does so by exercising the power of the sword. The Catholic will scarcely deny this, nor will he deny that God's authorization of such an institution belongs to his providential decrees for a fallen world. The difference between these two views is perhaps best seen, however, not in Roman Catholic versus Protestant writers, but between two Reformed writers, I think here of Gordon Clark and Abraham Kuyper. Gordon Clark strenuously defends the view that the State is an order for fallen man's existence and therefore is an order of the sword, has the power of the sword primarily for that reason, Whereas Abraham Kuyper held that the State was an order of creation and therefore has other functions besides those of restraining criminal activity by the coercive power of the sword. Now, Protestants, and Gordon Clark in particular have sometimes cited Romans 13 to support their side of the dispute. Whereas the Kyperians and the Roman Catholics would hold that a close scrutiny of what Paul is saying makes clear that he provides no support for the view that the state is wholly a negative institution. You see, it is argued that Paul, in the context of what he's doing in Romans, is only speaking to the negative side of the state and not addressing the positive side directly. And the attempt to exclude a positive side for the state, something that goes beyond the negative law enforcement coercive function of the state, the attempt to exclude anything beyond that would amount to an argument from silence for you notice that although Paul says the state is ordained to do the following things which amount to the negative view that Clark and traditional Protestantism is held that the state is an order for sinful man's existence. Paul does not say in Romans 13 that this is the only view of the state. He does not explicitly say that, although I would hold that that is implicit in what he's attempting to do in laying out the proper function of the state. But nevertheless, people can argue he doesn't go on to say, and it can do nothing else than this. Civil authorities, Paul says to the Roman Christians, are God's agents working for your good. And he adds, it's not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are God's agents of punishment for retribution on the offender. It's clear that what is here uppermost in Paul's mind are the related facts that the state is called to deal with wrongdoing and that it is authorized to do so coercively. But as to whether the state also has a positive side, Paul here says nothing one way or the other. He is not here giving a general statement as to the nature of the state. He does not say that the whole of the state's proper function consists of restraining by constraining. This becomes especially clear if one considers the context. One would argue the only side of the state which is relevant to the context is the negative side. For the opening eight verses of Romans 13 are embedded in a larger passage which Paul begins by imploring the Roman Christians, by God's mercy to offer up your very selves to him, a living sacrifice, dedicated and fit for his acceptance, the worship offered by mind and heart. And he closes by saying, love cannot wrong a neighbor. Therefore the whole law is summed up in love. Paul's comments on the state are set in the context of a discussion of the duties of the Christian. And within that context, Paul says near the end of chapter 12 never avenge yourselves. Believe it to the wrath of God, for it is written, vengeance is mine I will repay, says the Lord. Obviously this injunction raises a serious problem for Paul's readers when they reflect on their relation to the Scripture, a problem, however, only with respect to the negative side of the state. The officers of the state characteristically do exactly what Paul urges the Roman Christians not to do they avenge themselves. Paul's solution is bold and striking. He does not say that state officials should cease from doing this. Nor does he say that Christians should, on account of this feature of the state, renounce all context or all contact with it. Quite the contrary. In its very act of avenging, the state is to be seen as the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. So then, the officers of the state are servants of God and must on that account be obeyed. But on the other side of the situation, we must keep in view that the state as we know it is an institution that restrains by constraining and is destined to pass away. Such actions have no place in the kingdom of God. Restraining and constraining belong solely to the present age and therefore to the state. So if one keeps in mind the context, it is easy to see that Paul in Romans 13 is not denying that the state is a positive side. That is, Paul is not speaking to the issue directly in the context of God's ordained use of the state. State, it's the sword that's important. But Paul also indicates that there's room for other things that the state may do. Or such would be the argument anyway. Now, this traditional debate between creationalist and providentialist is thought not only to be based on a pseudo issue. What is perhaps even more important to notice is that the issue it raises is at best on the margin of New Testament concerns, according to many critics. Not only do many people say, hey, look, this doesn't even make that big a difference whether you hold the states in order of creation or only comes in with providence at the fall of man, but it's really on the margin of what the New Testament is interested in. The attempt has been made to show this by those who espouse the so called christological view of the state. The christological view does not, contrary to what is sometimes suggested, offer a distinct position on the issue we have been discussing, that is the function of the state. The proper function of the state is not answered by the christological view, although some people have mistakenly thought so. Rather, the christological view of the state offers a new and important view on the place of the state in God's ordering of Christ, creation, and correspondingly, on the ground of Christian obedience to the state. Our discussion up to this point might be said by some to be, in a measure, unreal. We have been discussing the proper function of the state, and we have just observed that the state, in its proper functioning has both a positive and a negative side. The Catholic, the Kyperian emphasized the former, the positive side of the state, and the Protestant Gordon Clark and others emphasized the negative side of the state and all that is relevant to Christian political action. But it has about it an air of unreality, because for you and I, we're not really presented with states that confine their actions to the proper functioning of the state. I mean, we can talk about what the proper functioning of the state is, positive or negative, but we don't really have that option. We live in the midst of a state that doesn't keep its proper function in line. So neither you nor I nor anyone else really has ever been presented with a state whose actions were the right ones and always the right ones and only the right ones. So not only did the actions of the state consist in large measure, and trying to cope with the results of our corrupted condition, states themselves are corrupted, we would say, and that is what is of concern to the New Testament writers. It's that the state inherently is a corrupt institution. It is one thing to discuss whether God's will to discuss whether God's will that there shall be states belongs to his creational decree or his providential decrees or both. And it's quite a different thing to discuss God's way of dealing with our actual states, those institutions confronting us in history as sinful. And that is the issue a Christological view of the state that the New Testament is interested in. Now, the central claim of the christological view of the stake is that one cannot understand the New Testament thought concerning the place of the state and God's ordering of his creation apart from understanding the New Testament thought concerning the relation of our actual fallen states to the work of Jesus Christ. The New Testament writers neither assert nor deny some abstract authorization by God of the existence of states, some decree on his part. Nor do they ground the injunction to their fellow Christians to be obedient to the state on any such authorization. They ground it on what God in Christ has done and is doing in history. So you see, political wisdom in the New Testament is not grounded on creation or providential decrees. It's grounded on the work of Christ in history. In the opening sentence of Romans 13, Paul speaks not of the state as that which we ought to subordinate ourselves to, but rather the supreme authorities, the exousiae in Greek, the powers that be. And the Greek word that he uses, and in the form in which he uses it plural, is one in which he invariably uses to refer otherwise. In other contexts it said Paul uses that word to refer to invisible angelic or demonic powers that make themselves manifest on earth. So Marcus Barth, the son of Karl Barth, says in his book Acquittal by Resurrection. Always when Paul employs the plural form of this term, he means invisible, heavenly, angelic or divine demonic powers that make themselves manifest on earth. And whenever these powers present or future order under that is, their submission to God's will is alluded to. This subjection is said to be caused by God's action through the death and or resurrection of Christ. So what Paul is referring to in Romans 1, then, is not the powers that be, like kings and parliaments and presidents, that Paul is really referring to invisible angelic or demonic powers. And so the attempt is made to relate Romans 13:1 to 1 Corinthians 2:8, where Paul speaks of Christ being crucified by the rulers of this present age. Now the analogy to 1 Corinthians 2. 8 is complete with respect not only to content but also to language. For there also where it is quite plain that the powers of this age are meant to refer to the angelic or invisible rulers of this age, as well as the visible ones, Pilate and Herod, there stands in characteristic fashion a term that in secular Greek naturally designates only actual human rulers. But in the New Testament it designates invisible rulers as well. So in 1st Corinthians 2. 8, as well as in Romans 13:1, the expressions are purposely chosen to make clear the combined meaning that is typical of the conception that we've been talking of. And I here I'm quoting Kuhlmann in the State in the New New Testament, pages 195 and 196 another passage that is often referred to as First Corinthians 6:1:7, where in defending his view that Christians should not use the civil law courts, Paul says, we are to judge the angels. And so the conclusion seems to be on the christological view that in speaking of authorities and rulers, Paul is to referring referring at one and the same time to civil authorities and to certain cosmic powers backing up those civil authorities. Behind the actions of the civil authorities, Paul sees the influence and in their actions the manifestation of angelic or demonic powers. Now these powers were created by God, and in Christ as Paul is everything in heaven on earth was created, not only things visible, but also the invisible orders of thrones, sovereignties, authorities and powers Colossians 116 but though they are created, these angelic demonic powers fell. The angelic powers fell and became demonic, and in opposition to God they enslaved humanity. So Paul speaks of men as being within the reach of the elemental powers Colossians 2:20 as obeying the commander of the spiritual powers of the Air Ephesians 2:2, as being slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe Galatians 4:3, according to Romans 8:38. Ultimately these powers attempt to turn men away from the true service of God. They try to separate us from the love of God. Paul is pointing on this view to the enslaving God alienating qualities of various factors in our ordinary existence, as well as suggesting that in our struggle to be freed from these factors, we are dealing with powers of which these factors are only the instruments. And as there are a lot of factors in our world that turn us away from God and those factors are under demonic control, and that's what God's dealing with. Further, Paul's list in Romans of things once capable of separating us from the love of Christ suggests that he saw the powers as in turn belonging to a larger group of factors, including, along with cosmic powers, the various contextual structures of human life. Contextual structure, structures which can alienate men from God. And this point of view is pushed very hard by John Yoder in his book the Politics of Jesus, that we'll be coming back to the politics of Jesus to speak more specifically of the state. Now, on this view, Paul discerned the enslaving tendencies of our actual states. He saw how they force us into living lives alienated from God, even to the extent of setting up themselves as idolatrous alternatives to God that we can find just through an empirical experience of history. But behind these phenomena, Paul saw demonic powers at work. And this, for him, would explain how a state could become like that which is depicted in Revelation 13, a state that is a big beast out of the sea, with power and rule and great authority conferred on it by the dragon Satan, demanding that men worship it, blaspheming God, waging war on God's people, and grasping for universal authority. These enslaving powers were conquered, however, by the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It must be said in faith, emphatically, that Paul does not see the work of Christ as consisting merely in the revelation of God's law, merely as laying down the will of God. Nor does Paul see the work of Christ merely as the salvation of a few individuals from the burning. Nor even does Paul see it merely as the creation of a new community, the church. Rather, Paul sees Christ's work as including the conquering of the powers and places, placing them at the disposal of God. Christ on his cross, Paul says, discarded the cosmic powers and authorities like a garment. He made a public spectacle of them and led them as captives in his triumphal procession. Colossians 2:15. You might want to compare Ephesians 1:20, 23 as another passage taken to teach this particular point. The binding of the powers means that we can look forward to the reconciliation of all things through Christ. For Paul says in Colossians 1:20, through him God chose to reconcile the whole world to himself, making peace through the shedding of his blood upon the cross, to reconcile all things, whether on earth or in heaven, through him alone. But now this must be added, that the day of total reconciliation has not yet arrived. When it does arrive, then comes the end, when Christ delivers up the kingdom to God the Father after abolishing every kind of domination, authority and power. For he is destined to reign until God has put all enemies under his feet. In the meanwhile, the mopping up operation and the skirmishes go on, though the battle has essentially been won. In Christ, the angelic powers are called to order insofar as they need it, they are restored to their original order. Therefore, any rebellion in this realm can in principle only take place in accordance with their creation and with Christ's order in the form of unwilling service to the kingdom of Christ, until that rebellion within the boundaries of the kingdom of Christ is broken down in his resurrection and parousia. So said Carl Barth himself in the 1939 book Church and State. Now, the demonic quality of the powers still exist, let's understand that. But even the demonic powers aren't now instruments, even though they're unwilling ones. Instruments in God's order. Oscar Kulman says in his book the State in the New Testament, Paul is convinced the decisive victory over the powers has already been achieved. They have been brought into subjection and stand in the service of Christ. But to use a figure of speech, the rope with which they are bound can be lengthened so that these powers are able even now to attempt to emancipate themselves. But then their demonic nature becomes visible. And as long as they remain in bondage to Christ, however, they stand in God's order. Only when they try to free themselves from the subjection which has already been realized and become totalitarian use the modern world. Only then do they demand what belongs to God. Therefore they must follow finally be conquered yet again at the end of days, although the issue has already been decided. And then, to quote Karl Barth again, what follows when all this is applied to the political angelic power. Clearly this that that power, the state as such belongs originally and ultimately to Jesus Christ. The state can of course become demonic. And the New Testament makes no attempt to conceal the fact that at all times the Church may and actually does have to deal with the demonic state. From this point of view, the state becomes demonic not so much by an unwarrantable assumption of autonomy, as by the loss of its legitimate relative independence, as by a renunciation which works out out in Caesar, worship, the myth of the state and the like. We should add that in the view of the New Testament, in no circumstances can this demonic state finally achieve what it desires with gnashing of teeth. It will have to serve where it wants to dominate. It will have to build where it wishes to destroy it will have to testify to God's justice where it wishes to display the injustice of men. When we now return to Romans 13 and given this New Testament exposition elsewhere, Romans 13 wears a very different aspect indeed from the traditional one that we've become accustomed to. Paul says there that the authorities are instituted or appointed or ordained by God in all likelihood. What he means on the christological view, is that they have been ordained, ordered, or placed in order by God. They have been subjected to Christ's lordship by virtue of Christ's work. They have been placed willingly or not at the disposal of God in the working out of his purposes. They are now God's agents, God's servants, God's ministers, usually no doubt unwittingly so, but working for our good by restraining evil and making it possible to lead a tranquil and quiet life in full observance of religion and high standards of morality. Thus these authorities deserve our subordination, not our unquestioning obedience, but rather our subordination. We must give them their due, no more than their due, but also no less than their due. We must give them that which their office calls for. Romans 13:8. So Paul, in speaking of God's ordering of the state, is probably not speaking of some decree of creation, we are told, nor is he speaking of some decree of providence for fallen man. Paul is rather speaking of what God has done and is doing in our actual history by way of Christ's work. What does this all mean for those of us who engage in politics now? What it means at the deepest level is that we must always regard our actual states with a dual attitude. As we look at the state, the empirical, actual, realistic state in which we live, we have to have a double attitude, a dual attitude. On the one hand, we must give thanks to God for the tranquility which they ensure. And Paul says in 1st Timothy 2, 1, we must pray for them. And as with all sincere prayers, we must follow up those prayers by working within and for our states. We must be willing to work in the context of the state. But at the same time we must always regard our states with a watchful eye, seeing to it that they retain their place in God's ordering and that they do not, by overstepping the bounds of their proper function, move in the direction of totalitarianism. For the totalitarian state always carries within it the live danger of becoming the demonic state, the state which turns men away from the true service of God. Ultimately, even to the extent of setting itself up as an idolatrous alternative to God. And there, finally, we see what is ultimately so threatening in the totalitarian state. In overstepping God's ordering, it verges on the demonic. It is this demonizing of the state that the Christian must above all be on the watch, for neither democracy nor any other form of government is an insurance against it. Indeed, the characteristic looseness of governmental bonds within a democracy constantly tempts the demonic state into trying to secure unity among its citizenry by elevating patriotism to an idolatrous level. Yet even when confronted with demonic states, we can give thanks to God according to the christological view, that all is now under the lordship of Christ, and we are therefore more than conquerors in him, in the face even of the demonic, we can act as freed men. Above all, we can in our freedom, even the demonic state, with a society distinct from every state, a society which is a true community, one from which coercion has been banished, a society which is a reminder of the love that has been lost, but the first fruit of the harvest to come, the Church, that abiding testimony to the state, of the ultimate subjection of all powers to Jesus Christ himself. And so that is something of a summary of the christological view of the state and its proper order within God's decrees. Now, this discussion of the proper function of the state, the summary of Mara Taine and Carl Henry and Bruner and Doje Baird, as well as the summary of the state's proper order in God's plan and God's work, the summary of the state in its creational or its providential or its christological views has been greatly aided. And I have been following the discussion as it was presented by Nicholas Woltersdorf in the Christian Scholars Review, Volume 5, in which he speaks of some major issues dealing with the contemporary Christian's view of the state. As Woltersdorff gives the christological view, he has a very favorable twist to it. He presents it as something in a positive light that we should be willing to endorse. But I would want to add to that discussion, although I think it's invaluable to summarize it, and I'm glad we've done that. But I would have to add that this view, I think, is really exegetically suspect, that as clever as it is, and although it can be turned to some good ends, saying we have to keep a cautious eye on the state, but not avoid working in the state, that Christ is the ultimate victor and will win the victory even in the state, although it has some Good for the totalitarian state always carries within it the live danger of becoming the demonic state, the state which turns men away from the true service of God, ultimately even to the extent of setting itself up as an idolatrous alternative to God. And there, finally, we see what is ultimately so threatening in the the totalitarian state. In overstepping God's ordering, it verges on the demonic. It is this demonizing of the state that the Christian must above all be on the watch, for neither democracy nor any other form of government is an insurance against it. Indeed, the characteristic looseness of governmental bonds within a democracy constantly tempts the demonic state into trying to secure unity among its citizenry by elevating patriotism to an idolatrous level. Yet even when confronted with demonic states, we can give thanks to God according to the christological view, that all is now under the lordship of Christ and we are therefore more than conquerors in him. In the face even of the demonic, we can act as free freed men. Above all, we can, in our freedom confront even the demonic state with a society distinct from every state, a society which is a true community, one from which coercion has been banished, a society which is a reminder of the love that has been lost, but the first fruit of the harvest to come, the Church that abiding testimony to the state, of the ultimate subjection of all powers to Jesus Christ himself. And so that is something of a summary of the christological view of the state and its proper order within God's decrees. Now, this discussion of the proper function of the state, the summary of Mara Taine and Carl Henry and Bruner and Doyoubert, as well as the summary of the state's proper order in God's plan and God's work, the summary of the state in its creational or its providential or its christological views has been greatly aided. And I have been following the discussion as it was presented by Nicholas Wolterstorff in the Christian Scholars Review, Volume 5, in which he speaks of some major issues dealing with the contemporary Christian's view of the state. As Woltersdorf gives the christological view, he has a very favorable twist to it. He presents it as something in a positive light that we should be willing to endorse. But I would want to add to that discussion, although I think it's been valuable to summarize it, and I'm glad we've done that. But I would have to add that this view, I think, is really exegetically suspect, that as clever as it is, and Although it can be turned to some good ends, saying we have to keep a cautious eye on the state, but not avoid working in the state that Christ is the ultimate victor and will win the victory even in the state, although it has some good applications and some creative insights. Exegetically, I think there's a real question whether in Romans 13 Paul was referring to demonic powers as lying behind the powers that be in any way at all. And in theatomy I have just passing footnote reference to this. But there really is no sufficient reason to drive us beyond an imminent, if you will, reference for what Paul Paul is talking about in Romans 13, the imminent referent as just being those human powers, those human officials that are ruling in society. We don't have to go to the transcendent referent or backup referent of demonic and angelic powers in creation as well. And there's question whether in terms of semantics, whether the word used by Paul there as ever when used by itself, used of angels and demons anyway, and whether in the plural it is to be found with that referent. So without getting into a lengthy discussion of the Christological view, I want to point out that there are semantic and exegetical problems. There's a real problem in finding evidence for going beyond what meets the eye or what seems to meet the eye in Romans 13 that Paul talks about human officials. Now let's notice that as we were looking at the first issue that I laid before us, the proper function of the state, that there is need for a regulative principle for the state. There is need for a regulative principle. What that first question poses for us is what is it that should put restraints upon the state? What is it that should regulate the state's activities so that it doesn't overstep its proper function? And I would propose that the regulative principle for the state is the law of God. That since the state is ordained by God, and since the rulers of the state are answerable to God, it only stands to reason, totally apart from looking at the exegesis of particular passages dealing with this, it only stands to reason that the regulative principle for the state would have to be a word from God. God ordained the state. God will make rulers of the state answer for their rule to Him. And therefore it stands to reason that God's law would be the regulative principle of the state. And when we look at the law of God, it is my own conviction that we do not find authorization for welfare being within the domain of the state. The law Certainly commands welfare, but it commands it to be taken care of by the pro priest, by the deacons at the church, by individuals on the basis of voluntary personal charity. And not on the basis of the coercive use of the state's power. So the law of God, I would propose, is the regulative principle for the state. And it does not authorize state welfare, but only mentions legal restraint. Legal restraint. That the state's job is to restrain criminal activity. And that that of course, will lead to the state enforcing fair play within the society. Where neither the rich nor the poor are favored. But there's no head start or privilege or advantage bestowed upon any class in society. But rather the state rules on the basis of equity, parity, evenness or balance, if you will, every man standing before the law equal. So the state exercises restrained upon criminal activity and enforces fair play. But the state is not authorized to engage in welfare. Now, the second issue that arises is the place of the state in the order of creation. And to this question. Well, there's really two questions. The one is, is the state an order of creation or is the state an order of the fall? And then secondly, what do we make of these Christological analyses of the state? Now, in the first question, question, it seems to me that if we read Romans 13 accurately, we see that Paul is associating and identifying the function of the state with the metaphor of the sword. That the state is in its very nature a coercive institution. That isn't, if you will, simply an appendix to the state's function. That is the state's function, the sword, the power of the sword for the enforcement of justice. And since coercion and the sword are the essence of the state. And since before the fall of man into sin there would have been no need for coercion, I would maintain that the state is an order of the fall. That the state is not a creation decree, a creation order, but the state is a fall fallen order, an order that comes in in response to the fall of man into sin. Now, about the christological view and its exegetical study of the powers in Scripture. I've already given my response that I think this is strained exegetically. That the word studies and the logical inferences are not solid enough for us to buy into that point of view. Even for all the good that point of view might offer in practice. Of course, that point of view is also used to support the Anabaptist approach to the state. And therefore it seems to me that it's wide open enough and ambiguous enough to promote some very adverse and abusive consequences, even if it were true. And so I have some difficulty there. Now I want to move on to the third question. The third question is how do you discern God's will in politics? But before I do that, I should give you opportunity to discuss what's gone before, especially this last question that we've looked at. Where does the state fall in the order of creation? More on the Old Testament background. Yes. The question is, is Paul in Romans 13 basing his view of the state on the Old Testament background? And in my book Theonomy and Christian Ethics, that's precisely what I argued that Paul is summarizing an Old Testament perspective on the state, and therefore his conceptions as well as his vocabulary reflect that far more than this rather speculative Christological theory would have us believe. If you look at the Old Testament and the language used, for instance, in the Septuagint, as well as the conceptions of Old Testament civil rulers, you find those conspicuously reflected in Romans 13. Other questions about the christological view or the creational view or the providential view of the state. Although we are ticking off these issues and points of view and going through an ordered outline, I hope you don't fail to see that we're getting quite complicated. We're getting very deep, you see, into fundamental theoretical issues about the state and that a lot of combinations of positions are possible and that various questions influence various other questions the way you answer them. So we've asked ourselves, what is the function of the state? Is it negatively to take care of justice and positively to provide welfare? Is it just negatively to provide for justice or is it negatively to provide for justice and to stimulate the provision of welfare? Is the state something that's part of God's creation order, or is it part of the providential order that comes at the fall, or is it something of the christological order that's under the control of Christ and the feet of the demonic forces? Is it a combination of these things? Yes, you might have already answered this. State is developed. Well, that is a way, yeah. The question is, would the state have developed if Adam had not sinned? And that's a way of asking, is the state an order of creation? On the Roman Catholic view and on the Korean view, the state is really an administrative body. It has an administrative function. It functions to put things in good order so that if Adam had not fallen into sin, there still would have been the need to have to enforce, not enforce, but there still would have been the need to put in order the relationship of the various people in society. There might be need for a traffic patrolman, you see, to keep the traffic moving along. Right? It's not a matter of sin punishment. It's just a matter of good order. And we might have needed bureaucrats to keep track of birth certificates. And who lives where and how you can find them. And somebody to order the building of roads. And to make sure you don't have somebody else building roads side by side. All these things would have had to be put in order. And kept administratively sound. Even if Adam had not fallen into sin. The Roman Catholic and Caiperian view would say. And consequently, the state is an order of creation. There's always the need for the structuring, ordering, organizing, administrative function that we call the state. The traditional Protestant view. The view of Clark and others, in my own view, quite honestly. Is that. That if Adam had not fallen into sin. There would have been no need for the state. Because the state is not an organizing function. The state is a coercing function. It is a punishing function of those who violate good order. So that even if there had been need for traffic patrolmen, bureaucrats, people to keep things organized. Even if there had been that need. There would be no need for the state. Because the state only enters when there's punishment called for. At the violation of good order and justice. Moreover, I'm not convinced, as speculative as the question is. I'm not convinced that we would have had a great need for this organizing power of the state. All right? Because it seems to me at least conceivable and plausible. That unfallen men never would have had conflicts with respect to what side of the street to drive on and where to build their roads and that sort of thing. There never would have been such an urgency to find somebody. That you'd have to have organization of like a phone book or something like that. Or that you would need bureaucratic help to do the paperwork to keep up on everybody. Why would you have to keep up on everybody? You wouldn't have to tax people. And you wouldn't have to punish people. So you'd never have to track anybody down. And even if we did have cars that ran into each other in an unfallen world. That people wouldn't die. So maybe. I mean, it wouldn't be any great problem if you didn't have traffic patrolmen. I realize this gets humorous in terms of its speculative character. But all I'm saying is I just don't see any real proof that the state, as we understand the state in the Bible has any place before the fall. And so I would say that if Adam hadn't fallen, there would be no state, even if there was organization and bureaucracy. Other questions on this issue, let's turn to our third major question then. In our outline, we have looked now at the transformational need for a political stance. The question what is the proper function of the state in Christian thinking today? And we know something now by way of background of Maritain, Carl, Henry, Emil Bruner, Herman Dolliverd, the Catholic position, the Protestant position, Christological, more or less Anabaptist tradition seen in Culman and Barthes and Yoder and others. And we're going to be turning now to consider the question where is Christ politically working today? And another way of putting that question, perhaps even a better way, is how do we discern God's will for the state? If you will survey the field of evangelical and reform publications over the last 40 years or so, one thing will become quite evident. Conservative Christians have come out of political hiding and want to be heard on matters of social ethics. Now, of course, there is the exception to this generalization. It's a sad one that within our reform circles we've also seen the tendency toward retreat from the world and obscurantism and disinterest, if not subordination of the cultural mandate and those sorts of things. But for the most part, I think the tendency, if you look overall at the evangelical conservative church, is to come out of political hiding and to be heard. It used to be the case that when a Bible believing author wanted to write on some aspect of social morality or political policy, he had to give an introductory apologetic in defense for entering into such an area of discussion. Given the background of liberal or modernistic involvement in politics, given the threat of the social gospel, and given the evangelical withdrawal from the world that was encouraged by a church centered pietism and law denying dispensationalism. Anyone who wrote on subjects of political or social ethics would easily be suspected of compromise or departure from the faith. So reticence characterized evangelical and reformed publications in these areas. But times have obviously changed. If we pay attention to the avalanche of books which have begun to be published over the last few years on the Christian approach to politics and social ethics, we have to conclude that times have changed, the pendulum has swung back, and it seems to me swung back so far in the other direction in fact, that some measure of suspicion is likely to be felt toward any Bible believing author who renounces or completely ignores such a vital Concern as sociopolitical ethics. Trusted writers in the conservative tradition of theology have now taken to penning their opinions about political morality. Men with visible political connections have written about their conversions and their Christian involvement in society's leadership. Pressing problems in governing of the state, from tolerance toward homosexuality to legalized abortion, have forced an end to the policy of Christian silence on social issues of the day. Increased interest in the notion that Christianity pertains to the whole man and not simply to his inward spiritual destiny. Increased interest that the principles of Christianity touch on all areas of life and not merely an hour of worship on the Lord's day. Increased interest that the coming of Christ's kingdom has implications for the renewal of the entire creation and not only the saving of souls from hell's fire has naturally, you see, worked itself out in an increased interest in a Christian view of science, a Christian view of art, a Christian view of economics, a Christian view of politics and everything else. And so, due to many factors, Christians have more and more in the last generation become politically aware and politically active. I was asked earlier in today's lectures why it is there is been this swing. And here I offer in a more organized way some of my thoughts. I've suggested that we see the pendulum swinging back because trusted writers now have taken up political questions. Secondly, there have been conversions to Christianity. In the case of visible politicians, there are pressing problems, homosexuality, abortion and the rest. There is also more of an awareness today that salvation pertains to the whole man, that Christianity touches on all areas of life, that the coming of the kingdom brings renewal for the entire creation, and therefore one must have a whole world and life view, and that has to include politics. So, due to many factors, Christians are more and more in our previous generation becoming politically aware and politically active. None of this, I think, should legitimately suggest, of course, that Christianity is primarily, or even most importantly a political position. That's what needs to be said to, say, satisfy the Walter Chantries of this world and others like him. Nobody is contending that Christianity is primarily a matter of politics or that its key interest is, or what it sees as most important is a political position. What we've been saying so far ought not to minimize the centrality and the indispensable truth of the good News that Christ came to save his people from, from the curse of sin and the penalty of final judgment for the rebellion. The cross and resurrection, the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and the necessity of justification by faith have not been forgotten, have not been subordinated by us. However, the Full implications of those truths are being appreciated again, even as they have been appreciated in previous days of the church's existence. In 19, Isaac Watts wrote a now famous hymn which expresses some of these implications. A hymn which Bible believing Christians have sung for over two and a half centuries. And so there's no question but that in the good old days as banner of truth, Puritan oriented people tend to think in the good old days, back with Isaac watts in the 18th and 17th centuries and that period of time when people understood what Calvinism was, in the good old days they understood that their Calvinism, their evangelical faith, had implications for all of life. And so Isaac Watts wrote this famous Christmas song. Joy to the world the Lord is come Let earth receive her king Let every heart prepare him room and heaven and nature sing so every heart you see the inwardness there should receive the King who has come. Watts goes on. Joy to the earth the Savior reigns. He comes as a king, not just for the heart then he is reigning. Let men their songs employ While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains repeat the sounding joy. No more let sins and sorrows grow Nor thorns infest the ground. He comes to make his blessings flow. Far as the curse is found. You see, the salvation Jesus brings is comprehensive salvation. As far as the curse is found. He rules the world with truth and grace and makes the nations prove the glories of his righteousness and wonders of his love. Jesus rules the world and is now making the nations prove the wonders of his love. And so the church, you see, has sung of the political implications of the gospel for years now. It has sung that earth, earth must receive her king, a reigning Savior who rules the world, making the nations prove his righteousness. And this king is interested in more than the inward souls of men and their heavenly existence in the future. As a savior from sin, Christ is interested in every aspect of life infected by sin at man's fall. He comes to make his blessings flow. Far as the curses found. Just because man's social existence and his political efforts have been cursed by sin, Christ the King proves his righteousness in the realm of human politics, even as he reigns over every other department of man's thoughts, man's life and man's behavior. Let's take a break.