Dr Greg Bahnsen - Political Ethics: Revolutionary Subordiantion View; Anabaptists (Part 8)

Description of the proper Christian posture toward the civil order is designated revolutionary subordination. And you'll be reading about this when and if you can get the books by Richard Mao on politics and the Biblical drama. I'm going to be following Mao's discussion of the dialogue between the Anabaptists and the Reformed in my and remarks here. And Mao thinks that there's an analogy between what Yoder would say about the proper Christian attitude toward politics and the kind of advice that Paul gives to women and slaves in the New Testament. Paul's advice to women and slaves in First Corinthians as well as elsewhere, according to John Yoder, would not be necessary if these individuals had not already been experiencing the liberating power of the Gospel and the Gospel was eradicating patterns of domination and submission. The idea is, you don't have to tell women to be in submission if they hadn't been tempted not to be in submission, because the Gospel is already giving them greater freedom and and power since they were realizing their true worth in Christ. According to Yoder, Paul tells them they should not waste efforts and attempts to change the patterns of the larger society. And I quote, their freedom can hardly be realized within the present status by voluntarily accepting subordination. I'm sorry, Their freedom can already be realized. There was something wrong with that quote. Their freedom can already be realized within the present status by voluntarily accepting subordination in view of the relative importance of such social distinctions when seen in the light of the coming fulfillment of God's purposes. Yoder says this in his book the Politics of Jesus, which is what we'll be using throughout our discussion. Now, this same advice would seem to hold for the Christian's relationship to the civil order, that we can realize our freedom in the present circumstance by voluntarily accepting subordination in the civil order. But Yoder does want to make a qualification here. There is one difference. When Paul offers advice to women or to slaves, he tends to turn around and call for husbands of these women and masters of these slaves and to conform to patterns of servanthood. That is, they should be willing to serve those who are submitting to them. But according to Yoder, there is no analogous invitation to the king to conceive of himself as a public servant. Was this only because, as a matter of course, the apostolic preachers and authors recognized that there were not kings in their audience? Or was it that, in line with the teaching of Christ, which had been preserved in several forms, Jesus had instructed his disciples specifically to reject governmental domination over others as unworthy of the disciples calling of servanthood. Well, Yoder's answer is plain. He says, in the case of women and slaves, women and slaves are told to be submissive, but then husbands and masters are told to serve those who are submissive to them. Now Paul tells Christians, be submissive to the government, but he doesn't go on to say, and the government be a servant to those whom you rule over. Why doesn't Paul say that? Maybe since there weren't any kings in the church to tell that to, that's not likely. It's rather that Jesus had specifically said that that pattern of domination, that civil pattern of domination and rule was specifically to be rejected in Christ's people. It's precisely because the Christian rejects the domination of the government. He doesn't reject the domination of the government over him, but he rejects governmental domination as something that's within the will of God, something that's approved. It's just because he rejects this form of domination that he can be subordinate to to such domination, accepting the obligations of, and I quote, the voluntary subordination of one who knows that another regime is normative. Now you have to hang kind of loose to this, to this reasoning. I do think that it's a mindset and a paradigm and outlook that you can make sense of, but it tends to have some ironies and reversals in it that you're not accustomed to. What Yoder says is it's just because we don't approve of governmental domination that we can submit to governmental domination because we know that our allegiance is to another normative government altogether. The adopting of this posture means that we accept powerlessness, as I told you last hour, and we refuse to exercise brute power and violent lordship to promote what Yoder calls righteousness backed by power. He sees that as a vain attempt to govern history. So you begin to understand already the Anabaptist revulsion to Christian involvement in government. We don't believe in righteousness backed by power in a vain attempt to govern history. Yoder wants us to follow the pattern of revolutionary subordination involving an attitude of ambivalence towards civil government. Christians must in some sense approve of government, and that approval operates at at least two levels. As Mao points out, whatever the merits or the demerits of a given political rule, we must submit to it because God has commanded us to do so. The required subjection to government does not necessarily involve moral approval, however, of governmental policies, nor does it involve obedience to every governmental dictate. And I quote the conscientious objector refuses to do what his government asks him to do, but still remains under the sovereignty of that government and accepts the penalties which it imposes, is being subordinate, even though he is not obeying. So if you're a conscientious objector, you're not going to obey, but you will accept the penalties. And therefore in that way you are recognizing that the legitimacy of that of that government and its authority over you. And so on this level, the Christian approval includes toleration of the existence of government itself. It means that we refuse to engage in revolution and insubordination against even tyrannical governments. And we do so out of a willingness to participate in the character of gods. And Yoder speaks of this as victorious patience with the rebellious powers of his creation. God is being patient with these rebellious powers here. He's being seriously patient with the rebellion that he sees in his created order. But now, more specifically, the Christian approves of government, approves of and that it's possible for Christians to actually get involved in some functions performed by governments. There is a broad sense in which whatever a government does is providentially ordered by God, even though that doesn't mean that whatever the government does is good. But there are some governmental functions which can be labeled as good by Christians. It may be a modest labeling of them as good, but we can call some functions of government good. These have to do with maintaining peace and order in a limited manner. For instance, the police function of the state, as long as the police function of the state is subject to certain safeguards. And so we ought not to interpret Yoder as calling for a simple minded or simplistic rejection of all government. The Christian must share in God's providential patience with governments, however tyrannical they may be. And he must also hope for governments who will promote social harmony without committing gross injustices in the process. Yoder should not even be understood as ruling out then in some degree participation in the government. In fact, in his book the Christian Witness to the State, Yoder suggests that involvement in the election process can be an important means by which Christians speak to those who are in authority. And he sees refusal to vote, if it's justified on Christian grounds, as construable also as a means of positive witness to the government. It's even conceivable that a legislator, if he has no concern for his re election or for developing a power block, could, without compromise, conceive of his office more as an occasion to speak to the authorities than as being an agent of the government. This is a little Bit of weaseling here, I think. But what Yoder is saying is I could even run for office, I suppose, as long as I used the running for office not as an occasion to gain a power block and think about reelection and try to govern people, but rather as an occasion to talk to those who are in government. Okay, I would put it this way. None of us here in this room are invited to speak on the floor of the Senate and enter into its debates. And so if I run for office, then I'll be able to go to the the debates and witness against the people there in the Senate or to the people there in the Senate, even though I personally would not vote or would not engage in the use of power to try to govern people. And so you understand why I spoke of an ambivalence in one's attitude toward government. Patience with governments does not mean a lack of concern about governmental policies. And so we shouldn't think of Anabaptism, at least modern Anabaptism, as a quietistic withdrawal from the world. However, this concern cannot take the form of involvement in the government itself and what is essential to governments, because the political order operates in accordance with patterns that Yoder thinks are incompatible of Christian discipleship. The Christian must speak to authorities, but a Christian can never operate as an authority of the government. And within that framework, Yoder's argument with Calvinists has to do more with the question of pacifism and legitimacy of just war considerations. There's more involved than just whether one should be a pacifist and what amounts to a just war. Yoder sees the Calvinist view as being this, that what is ordained is not a particular government, but the concept of particular government, the principle of government. As such, the Calvinist claims to possess criteria for distinguishing between proper and improper governments. And so, as Yoder says, if a government fails adequately to fulfill the functions divinely assigned to it, it loses its authority. It then becomes the duty of the preacher to teach that this has become an unjust government worthy of rebellion. It can become the duty of Christian citizens to rise up against it, not because they are against government, but because they are in favor of government. Okay, now that's the way he sees the Calvinist view. And over against this view view that assumes the legitimacy of the integral distinction between good governments, which Christians should bless, and bad ones, which they should rebel against. Yoder insists that instead, Christians should rather rebel against all governments and be subordinate to all governments. For subordination is the Christian form of rebellion. It's the way in which we Share God's patience with the systemically rejected. Okay, the Calvinist. To rephrase this, the Calvinist draws distinctions. He says God's given us criteria. On the basis of these criteria we can say this is a good government, that's a bad government, proper government, improper one to a government to which we submit, a government to which we do not submit but we will rebel against. Yoder says no, no, we submit to all governments and rebel against all governments. He doesn't like this idea of criteria for judging governments. He says all governments fall under the condemnation of God. All governments must be submitted to. And that is the Christians form of revolution to submit to the government. It's important to note here the matters on which Yoder does not disagree with the Calvinist. And in this he may be departing somewhat from the historical debate between Calvinists and the Anabaptists. But he does want to at least bring the debate to the specific focus that he has in mind. Yoder does not deny that there is some kind of distinction to be made between proper and improper governments. After what we've just said, there is at least some distinction. He says there are criteria that come into play in our attitude towards government. The place of government in the providential designs of God is not such that our duty would be simply to do whatever it says. And so he would agree with the Calvinists that the Christian is provided with a basis for offering an aggressive critique of specific governmental policies. A critique which might even be presented through some kind of use of political channels. As we've indicated already, the important points of disagreement would be these then. In the first place, Yoder rejects the Calvinist basis for deriving norms for distinguishing between proper and improper governmental activity. He doesn't agree with the basis the Calvinist has for gaining these norms and making the judgments about proper and improper governments. Secondly, Yoder would reject as improper some of the items which the Calvinist places within the proper domain of governmental activity. As an example, the Calvinist thinks it's right to use force to back up righteousness. And Yoder would not like that particular conclusion. And then thirdly, Yoder would dissent from Calvinist prescriptions concerning the motivation for and the manner of political involvement. He would disagree with the motivation and manner that the Calvinist offers for political involvement. In order to be clear about the roots of some of these disagreements, let us briefly sketch out considerations that the Calvinists would likely want to introduce at this point. Are we. Let me ask this question. Are we to view human governments as essentially coercive and manipulative or are these elements of governmental activity connected only with the functioning of government under sinful conditions? The distinction between a sinless and sinful government, a proper and improper government, may be helpful to introduce here, depending on what your view of the state would be in terms of God's ordering, whether it's a creation order or a providential order based on the fall of man. But of course, whether you view the state as being essentially an order for the sinful world or not, we will still want to draw the distinction between activity, activities and policies that result from the sinfulness of governments and those which are the government's response to the sinfulness of human beings. As such. There's a difference between this being an order that deals with sin and this being a sinful order. And often Anabaptists tend not to catch that distinction. They blur those two. Now, Yoder sees as operating in this tradition, something he calls the theocratic ideal. The theocratic ideal. And I think it's interesting here that Yoder, somebody who has no interest in the theonomic debate as such, someone who is not trying to honorifically find in his own background and tradition the roots of his present convictions, that he is the one who sees the Calvinist as being historically promoter of the theocratic ideal, the outsider. Yoder, who in one sense can be a little more objective about our tradition, says that our tradition is theocratically governed oriented. Calvinists and Anabaptists would agree that the Old Testament people of God, Israel and the New Testament Church are theocratic societies. The question is whether it would be proper to attempt to bring contemporary societies, in addition to the contemporary church, into some degree of conformity to theocratic standards. The question between the Anabaptists and the Calvinists is seen. And here I'm using Mao's words as a question as to whether we should try to bring a degree of conformity to theocratic standards to modern societies. That's the key issue. The Calvinist would want to point to the kinds of accommodations to the sinful condition that take place within the theocratic framework developing after the fall of man. When Samuel brought the request to the elders of Israel who wanted a human king before the Lord. You know that the response of God was initially that of disapproval of the motivation for the request. 1st Samuel 8. 7 says, Hearken to the voice of the people and all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. But the shift from a pure theocracy to one of administration by human Kings did not completely obliterate the promise of divine guidance and divine blessing. Indeed, I see a divine accommodation to this change of government indicated in the subsequent speech that Samuel made to Israel in 1st Samuel 12:14. It says, if you will fear the Lord and serve him, and hearken to his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well. So you see there it seems to be acceptance of the situation and blessing on the circumstance on the situation. If the people should fall, follow the voice of God. The songs of Israel reflect this desire for a divine blessing on human rule, even to the point that the king is often viewed as an important channel of divine blessing. In Psalm 72 we read, Give the king thy justice, O God, and thy righteousness to the king's Son. May he judge thy people with righteousness and thy poor with justice. Let the mountains bring prosperity for the people, and the hills in righteousness may he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor. Okay, now the next step in the argument the Calvinists would want to point out is an important one because since we could argue, the line of reasoning assumes a theocratic context in the Old Testament, so the attitudes toward human rulers in a theocracy, whether before or after the fall, are irrelevant to non theocratic context. Hence the person might want to say, well, that was back when they had a theocracy that isn't applicable today. The Calvinists will want to point out that it's a fact that in the Old Testament there are attempts on the part of those who presuppose a theocratic basis in Israel to address pagan political situations from within the context of theocratic teaching. And as you'll recognize here, this is the heart of the theonomic argument with respect to the obligation of Old Testament nations around Israel to obey the law of God. That those who knew the law of God and were oriented in that direction nevertheless used that law to rebuke Old Testament nations about Israel and called upon them to keep that law. In the Old Testament there are attempts on the part of those who are in the theocracy to address pagan political situations. And thus Amos did not restrict his prophetic critique to the policies of Israel. Jeremiah counseled the Israelites in captivity to seek the welfare of the city where they had been sent into exile. Daniel admonished Nebuchadnezzar to break with his sins by practicing righteousness to break with his iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, so there would be a lengthening of tranquility in his reign. In these and other Old Testament temples, there seems to be an extension of the principles learned in the theocratic context to what we would call non theocratic political situations. These individuals seem to make the transition from the expectation that justice will be promoted in the midst of a redeemed people to the insistence that those same standards of justice can be applied even where the God of Israel is not acknowledged as Lord. Formed churches are willing to take the argument another step. When the New Testament church offered supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving for all men, for kings, and for all in high Authority, as in 1 Timothy 2, this was done in continuity with the Old Testament vision of a righteous society, the standards for which could even be applied to pagan rulers. Now, on this interpretation of the situation. Now given this approach to the Old Testament and the standards of the theocracy and the extension of those standards to others and the continuity of vision in the New Testament, it wouldn't be unthinkable that some Christians would go beyond praying for justice in their society. And if the opportunity would arise, as it did in the Old Testament for men like Joseph and Daniel, the Christian Christians in the New Testament could even seize the opportunity to promote justice by serving in the courts of their day and becoming politicians and being involved. Now this, I think this approach, the Calvinist approach, the theocratic ideal obviously cast some doubts upon Yoder's concept of revolutionary subordination, even if they are inconclusive, as it may not be the final word. But it certainly gives some initial problems for us to consider with Yoder. However, it could be replied that while there may be some surface plausibility to this Calvinist reading of the biblical situation, that the real heart of the issue has still not been touched thus far. We have a situation in which the reform perspective, the theocratic ideal, is a plausible alternative to the Anabaptist position. But it could be argued that the plausibility of the Reformed option fades in the light of further considerations. More specifically, we have to come to grips with Yoder's contention that the New Testament thrust on us a pattern of decision making which stands as a radical alternative to that which inspired attempts to manage society are to promote righteousness backed by power. And as Yoder might say, the New Testament has a completely new outlook, one that breaks with righteousness backed by power and the idea of managing society. Yoder singles out what he views as three Widely accepted, but false assumptions in a good deal of Christian social ethics. First of all, the presumption that the relationship of cause and effect is visible, understandable and manageable, so that if we make our choices on the basis of how we hope society will be moved, it will be moved in that direction, because that's a false presumption. Secondly, the assumption that we are adequately informed to be able to set for ourselves and for all society the goal toward which we seek to move it. That's another false assumption. And thirdly, an assumption even more basic than these that effectiveness in moving toward these goals which have been set is itself a moral yardstick. That if we are effective, that that itself is a device by which we can judge the rightness or wrongness of our movements. As Christians, according to Yoder, we must not ask how we can cause good things to happen, but how we can act in such a way that our actions witness to God's already having acted decisively in the cross of Jesus Christ. How can we act as those whose actions are the effects of what God has brought about on the cross? We must, to put it in Yoder's terms, see our obedience more as praising God and less as running his world for him. More is pleasing God and less is running his world for Him. Now, there are several difficulties that we will have to raise with this thinking, I believe. First of all, the refusal to run God's world for him or to manage society is not a posture whose praiseworthiness is immediately obvious. Yoder says we should refuse to manage society, refuse to run God's world for Him. Well, now, is that something we should praise? We can legitimately ask that question. It seems to be a negotiable point because how does this relate, for instance, to the biblical mandate that we are to have dominion over the created order? If human beings are with a capacity for assessing situations, projecting into the future, planning strategies and the like, wouldn't it seem a judicious exercise of our abilities to put those gifts to use even in the area of social and political planning? And if God does require us to do these things, some attempts to run his world for him are important means of praising God rather than working against God and His standards. We need to ask ourselves. Secondly, while it's indeed important to warn ourselves that we must not view other human beings as completely locked into a world of cause effect processes so that they're like cogs in a machine, we must be careful not to carry that warning to an extreme, because there is a relationship of cause to effect in this world means to end. In this world. We, even in guarding against assuming an attitude of omniscience, must also be warned against retreating to skepticism so that we don't know how one thing leads to another in this world. Calculation and prediction are crucial elements of everyday experience for human beings, and they are even important in our interpersonal and social maneuverings. Without them, it would be very difficult to walk through a crowd, to drive a car down a busy street. We have to know that when I pull the wheel this way, the car goes that way and I miss hitting the curve, curve and this person and so forth. We have to have some estimate of cause effect relationships if we're going to operate in the world. And so no moral theology can rightly ignore the crucial importance of calculation and prediction. And if a moral theory says, you know, we shouldn't be interested in cause effect prediction, then I think there's a certain unintelligibility that over overcomes the theory. It's indispensable to know means to end relationships and moral deliberation. We've had an entire course on the situational perspective to ethics where this has been emphasized. In order to know the morally relevant features of a situation, we must get our facts straight. And that involves predicting the responses and reactions of human beings to specific courses of action and taking those courses of action on the basis of what we consider cause effect relationships that are dependable. And so I'm not sure that Yoder is right to say that we should refuse to manage God's world. I mean, God seems to me has commanded us to manage the world. Secondly, there's a real philosophical problem when he says we have to escape view reflection on cause effect relationships as not being proper to, or at least something we're not able to reflect adequately on. You've got to reflect on that if you're going to be involved. Refusal to run God's world for him or to manage society is not a posture whose praiseworthiness is immediately obvious. Yoder says we should refuse to manage society, refuse to run God's word world for him. Well, now, is that something we should praise? We can legitimately ask that question. It seems to be a negotiable point. Because how does this relate, for instance, to the biblical mandate that we are to have dominion over the created order? If human beings are created with a capacity for assessing situations, projecting into the future, planning strategies and the like, wouldn't it seem a judicious exercise of our abilities to put those gifts to use even in the area of social and political planning. And if God does require us to do these things, some attempts to run his world for him are important means of praising God rather than working against God and his standards. We need to ask ourselves, secondly, while it's indeed important to warn ourselves that we must not view other human beings as completely locked into a world of cause effect processes so that they're like cogs in a machine, we must be careful not to carry that warning to an extreme. Because there is a relationship of cause to effect in this world. Means to end in this world world, even in guarding against assuming an attitude of omniscience, must also be warned against retreating to skepticism so that we don't know how one thing leads to another in this world. Calculation and prediction are crucial elements of everyday experience for human beings, and they are even important in our interpersonal and social maneuverings. Without them, it would be very, very difficult to walk through a crowd, to drive a car down a busy street. We have to know that when I pull the wheel this way, the car goes that way and I miss hitting the curb and this person and so forth. We have to have some estimate of cause effect relationships if we're going to operate in the world. And so no moral theology can rightly ignore the crucial importance of calculation and prediction. And if a moral theory says we shouldn't be interested in cause effect prediction, then I think there's a certain unintelligibility that overcomes the theory. It's indispensable to know means to end relationships and moral deliberation. We've had an entire course on the situational perspective to ethics where this has been emphasized. In order to know the morally relevant features of a situation, we must get our facts straight. And that involves predicting the responses and reactions of human beings to specific courses of action and taking those courses of action on the basis of what we consider cause effect relationships that are dependable. And so I'm not sure that Yoder is right to say that we should refuse to manage God's world. I mean, God seems to me has commanded us to manage the world. Secondly, there's a real philosophical problem when he says we have to eschew reflection on cause effect relationships as not being proper to, or at least something we're not able to reflect adequately on. You've got to reflect on that if you're going to be involved in the world at all. And thirdly, it's important to make a distinction between engagement, engaging in actions that will have the effect of coercing other human beings and acting out of the sole motivation to coerce and dominate other human beings. The attitude of desiring to dominate others is often seen in people who join the police force. Sadly enough, there's a kind of human tendency associated with theological pattern. Even that can be traced. And people who feel pushed around in this world are of little significance. Those who haven't received respect and dignity elsewhere in their lives join the police force so they can shove people around. They can have, you know, the badge and the right therefore, to act like bullies. Now, if that's why the Christian gets involved in politics, because he just loves the idea of dominating others, then of course we would disapprove of this kind of sinful motivation. However, there's a difference between that and being involved in politics, knowing that it will have the effect at some points of using coercion on people. Yoder would argue, however, that we must assume all coercion and that what distinguishes a truly Christian lifestyle from other forms, forms of human interaction, is just that the Christian will not under any circumstances make use of that approach, the use of coercion. It may be that that would be a unique pattern for human affairs if Christians would not have coercion used or seen as legitimate anywhere. But it's one thing that it would not do, and that's that the refusal to use coercion would not introduce a new pattern into politics, because the avoidance of all coercion producing activity would in effect be a rejection of any significant political activity. And therefore politics would go on quite all right as it is without us. Okay. A fourth problem I have. We must note that the concepts of coercion and violence and domination are often very ambiguous. It's not clear how to understand or explicate them. In the church and in the family, matters of church discipline and child rearing often pose problematic situations in which coercion and even violence seem unavoidable. It may be that the lessons that Christians learn in these more personal areas can be transformed and extended into the political practice itself. It just seems to me that coercion and violence have such negative connotations when used in a generalized, an abstract way. But obviously coercion and violence can be found in proper settings too. And why can't we take that understanding of coercion and violence, the non problematic understanding, and transfer it to the state? Fifthly, let's ask whether we can be so sure that the Christian that refuses or who refuses to act to curb political or economic oppression thereby escapes responsibility for coercion and domination. It seems to me the refusal to act can itself become a way of managing the affairs of others. Because the refusal to be involved, to use force, to stop the improper use of force, is itself a brutal action because of what it is allows to take place in the world. And this brings me to the final point in dealing with Yoder's case as it's been presented thus far. The question that is fundamental to every other question, finally, is what kinds of action, if any, are compatible with the commitments of those who are living in grateful responsibility to what God did in the cross of Jesus Christ? In spite of the way in which Yoder occasionally formulates this matter, the difference between the Anabaptist and the Calvinist is not really accurately that the Anabaptist views his activity as an effect of the cross, whereas the Calvinist is always trying to cause things to happen. That's just a little bit honorific for Young to say. Well, we Anabaptists, we always do things because what we're doing is we see it as the effect of Christ's work on the cross. But you Calvinists are trying to go out there and try to cause things. We're effect people. You're cause people. Well, it just may be that the reason we're trying to cause things to change in the world is because of the effects of the cross of Jesus Christ in our life. Now, the crucial factor in Yoder's answer to the question of Christian political involvement is his understanding of the confrontation with the powers which took place in the death and resurrection of Christ. As we discussed yesterday, he says that the patterns of domination in government and the powers that lie behind them must finally be judged in the light of the cross of Jesus Christ. In the work of Jesus Cross, what took place was a victory over the powers, but in a manner which from any other perspective would have counted as defeat. Christ confronted the powers and, Yoder says, accepted powerlessness. And it was in the acceptance of powerlessness that Jesus overcame the demonic powers of the world. And I quote, the powers have been defeated not by some kind of cosmic hocus pocus, but by the concreteness of the impact of the cross upon them is not the workings of magical words nor the fulfillment of a legal contract calling for the shedding of innocent blood, but the sovereign presence within the structures of creaturely orderliness of Jesus the kingly claimant and of the Church to herself is a structure and a power in society. The Christian's submission to the state grows out of an attempt to imitate the work of Christ on the cross as characterized by the Voluntary subordination of one who knows that another regime is normative. The voluntary subordination of one who knows that another regime is normative. Now, Yoder properly rejects traditional romantic versions of the call to imitate Christ. And he says that the imitation of Christ must center on the work of the cross. And I quote only at one point, only on one subject, but then consistently, universally, is Jesus our example in His Cross. Okay, so traditional problems with the imitation of Christ, Christ, people say we're supposed to live as Christ did. But of course, Christ had a specific calling and specific abilities that we don't have. We can't perform the miracles of Christ. We may not be called to have an itinerant preaching ministry around Galilee and all the rest. So this idea of walking in the steps of Christ can be a misleading ethical idea. And Yoder says, only at one point do we imitate Christ, but then universally and consistently we imitate him in his cross. For Yoder, it is absolutely clear that to participate in the Lamb's War, which is the traditional language of Anabaptists, that they are pacifists, they are engaged in the Lamb's War. They war in the same way that Christ does. To participate in the Lamb's War means that Christians must refuse to manage society. Now, I'd like to respond to Yoder's point of view here about imitating Christ consistently and universally in his cross by making the counterclaim, even as Mao does in his book, that we cannot consistently and universally imitate the work of the cross. That Mao, excuse me, that Yoder calls us something to something which, as recognized by Mao, cannot be done. The encounter. First of all, the encounter with the forces of evil seems to involve much more than can be grasped by viewing the historical concreteness of the cross. The event of the cross has important links to both previous and later events and those events. That complex of events includes in addition to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, the lifetime of Jesus involvement in our sinful condition, the agony he went through on the cross, the ascension of Jesus to the Father, and now the final act that we're waiting for, putting all enemies under his feet. See, the transaction of redemption is a complex syndrome of events. And even if the cross is the focal point, we cannot think that the cross is the one and only thing or that the cross can be abstracted from that context of events. And so when we take into account the complexity of the work of redemption, we can legitimately ask to what degree we are to imitate certain aspects of the suffering of Jesus in view of the fact that his suffering had connections to events that we cannot duplicate. I mean, how much of that complex of the cross are we supposed to imitate? The sufferings of Jesus too? The ascension of Jesus, the temptation of Jesus, the subduing of every enemy under his feet. I mean, you just can't take the cross and isolate the one element of the cross, accepting powerlessness for that time and make that, you see, the whole of the Christian political option. It's interesting that Yoder uses the word subordination to describe the relationship of Jesus to the powers. Again, the powers understood as these demonic forces that were behind the political movements leading to his death and resurrection. Yoder speaks of Jesus being subordinate to the powers. But in traditional theology, the language of subordination describes Jesus relationship to the Father. Jesus was in subordination to the Father. And so that would apply to Jesus obedience to the will of the Father. And therefore, if Christians are to be subordinate, insubordinate to the Father as Jesus was, that might involve a willingness to pursue the will of God and to manage God's world, to manage society for the sake of God. When we view the cross of Christ, moreover, as a transaction with the powers, these cosmic powers, we do not need to do so in such a way that we abandon our understanding of the cross as a legal transaction. Paul does not neglect the idea of a legal transaction that took place on the cross. In Colossians 2, 1315 he says that God has forgiven us all our trespasses, having cancelled the bond which stood against us, nailing it to the cross. So even if Yoder wants to make the cross of Christ our model, which abstracts it from the whole complex of things, even if he wants to make subordination to the powers the key point, even though in the Bible it's subordination to the Father that counts, we have to go on to see that Yoder cannot make the cross of Christ purely and simply a transaction between Jesus and the powers, the cosmic powers. Because in the Bible it's a transaction of legal and economic importance. Jesus paid it all. As Revelation 5 says, worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain, and by thy blood didst ransom men from God, for God, from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they reign on the earth. That interesting. There you go. You have the legal, if you will, transaction, the ransom taking place by the cross of Christ. And for that reason God's People reign on the earth. The very thing that Yoder seems to think is improper for Christians to do. By his death on the cross, Christ paid the ransom to reconcile us to God, and by that same act overcame the powers to establish a new kingdom in which we can reign with Him. It's just because a payment for sin was made that victory over the powers was possible and necessary. A third line of criticism of Yoder and his idea of imitating the cross of Christ. A cause for great personal comfort for Christians is to know that they need not consistently in universal, imitate the death of Christ. It seems to me that the Bible comforts us just with the opposite of Yoder's exhortation. He says we must imitate consistently, universally the cross of Christ. But the Bible says it cannot be imitated and need not be imitated. And that is the source of real comfort, it seems to me, for the Christian, Christ faced death, the horror and the agony of that situation. But we do not have to face death as Christ did. We can say with Paul, o death, where is your sting? Christ went to the cross to cry out, father, why have you forsaken me? We don't face that. We do not look upon death. We are not in the same situation as was Jesus. If it would be wrong for us to think that we must face death in the way Jesus did, and I think it would be wrong for us to think we face death as Jesus did, why must we face the powers after the manner of Christ's work on the cross? His was the confrontation with the powers, the means of their ultimate defeat on the cross. Their sting was removed. We do not have to fear the powers because Christ encountered them and defeated them. So, just as we, it seems to me that we do not need to helplessly submit to death in the same horror and agony as Jesus did. Likewise, we do not need to submit to the powers in the way that Jesus did. It's just because Jesus did it all that we don't have to imitate his work. So what I'm questioning here is whether Yoder really has a proper biblical model for Christian political work and Christian political attitudes. There is no convincing general ground for arguing that Christians must imitate the cross of Christ in the manner Yoder has suggested in his book. Now, I approve of the Anabaptist conviction that as disciples of Christ, we walk in a new and a better way in this world. I approve of the idea that we must learn how to carry out our warfare on a biblical model. But I do know Yoder has the biblical model. I do not believe that it's honorable to say we refuse to manage God's world. I do not believe that it makes sense theologically or exegetically to say we will imitate the quote, cross of Christ. And for these reasons, I cannot accept the Anabaptist option. And I think that the theocratic ideal that I laid out for you earlier is in fact a far better alternative, one that does not face the same kind of problems from a biblical standpoint. Well, let's take our remaining moments for whatever discussion of the Anabaptist reform conflict, questions that you'd like to ask or discussion you'd like to pursue, observations you'd like to make. Go ahead. In I think it was 72, a man named Michael Brown wrote a book recently, understanding Pietism. He wrote yet another book which was kind of a wasn't very much the New west and Christian Radicalism. He went through some of the Mennonite and Anabaptist traditions and tied them up with the Students for the Democratic Society and all the different leathermen and the more violent types. Now, how do these people fit into this framework? Yeah, the question is references made to research, background work that has been done and published where connections are drawn between the radical Christian left and the Weathermen and underground groups that are more violent in orientation. And I think the explanation for that is in the twofold path that Anabaptism throughout history has. Has seemed to walk at the time of the Reformation, you'll find Anabaptist. There are two schools of Anabaptist thought. One is revolutionary Anabaptism. You think here of the Munster rebellion, one of the biggest embarrassments to the reformers. John Calvin is extremely concerned that that will be taken as a model for what Reformed churches stand for around Europe. And writes his institute somewhat in answer to that fear that people should understand that. And that's why he condemns those who want to renounce all government on the basis of Old Testament model. He doesn't renounce the Old Testament model. He renounces the sedition and the revolution that the Anabaptists have associated with it. But in addition to the revolutionary Anabaptists at the time of the Revolution Reformation, you'll also find the pacifistic Anabaptists, those who say, we don't get involved in patterns of domination, we are pacifistic, we follow the Lamb's War. And these Anabaptists refused to engage in governmental service when the Westminster Confession of Faith was written. In the chapter on the Civil magistrate, a word is said about the fact that that Christians don't have any superior place in government. The leaders in the Church don't have any superior place. But then something is added saying it is not wrong for governments to hold office in the government. And the reason for that is the reformers on the one side saw the Roman Catholics who wanted to dominate politics, you know, the Church over the state, and on the other hand, saw the Anabaptists who said the church should flee politics. Politics. So at the time of the writing of the Westminster Confession, it's not revolutionary Anabaptism that's of concern. It's pacifistic, obscurantist, retreatist, Anabaptism. That is the worry of the writers of the Confession. And in our own day, I think the same thing is to be found just because of the ambiguity of Anabaptist moral premises and their moral, moral outlook. You can go two ways. One is in the direction of revolution and liberalism, the other in the way of retreat and withdrawal. Now, of course, John Yoder stands somewhat in between. On the one hand, he doesn't believe in using violence. He's a pacifist. He wouldn't be like the Weather Underground or anything like that. But on the other hand, he's not a retreatist. He does believe Christians have to be involved in presenting a prophetic witness to their society, showing a new model of redemptive love in society, accepting powerlessness as a way of revolution. It's just in that way that they hope to bring about changes in society and to confront the powers and defeat them, even as Jesus did. So Yoder wants to be involved. He's not a retreatist, but he doesn't want to be involved in a violent way. Doesn't even want to see government used powers of domination to accomplish its purposes, to back up righteousness with power. Now, I've seen studies, in fact, one of the main writers, American women writers, with respect to liberation theology, Ruther, I think her name is Mary Ruther. Anyway, I have a book on liberation theology by her and what she traces liberation theology to historic Anabaptist. And so Anabaptism definitely tends toward the liberal side of the spectrum. But this wants to accomplish liberal ends like the sojourners, through peaceful means or whether, as with the older Anabaptists, through revolutionary means. Jordan would be opposed to say something like the American Revolution. Yes, you would, because that would be using power to confront power. But we accept powerlessness to overcome the powers of this world. Go ahead. It seems to me his belief or non Belief in righteousness backed by power root a criticism of God because God is righteous. But God is also all powerful, and he enforces his righteousness through his power. Except that he says, we are imitating God. Now, I say, I agree with you, but I agree with your criticism because I think Yoder has misinterpreted the Bible and has the wrong conception of God. But on his conception of God, he says, no, I'm not being critical of God, because God shows patience, victorious patience, with the rebellion in this world. And we should show that same kind of patience. God doesn't step in and just put things in order, you see, and force things back into line. God does, you know, accomplishes his redemptive ends through his Son, who is willing to give up his life, who is willing to go through this revolutionary subordination and be victorious in a patient way. And so we too, should be patient. Rather than getting involved in punishing criminals and going to war and all the rest, we should simply have a model community of the simple life where this pattern of domination is not what prevails. We should be an alternative witness in our society. Well, as you read in Christian politics today, and it's a big field, I mean, a lot of people are involved. You will definitely see then this Anabaptist tendency as one, at least one major strain of thought in the literature that's being published today. And you should know of the classic debate between the reformed and the Anabaptist, which I think has been very well summarized in Mao's book, which I hope you can all get someday. Let's take a break.