Dr Greg Bahnsen - Political Ethics: Thematic Approaches: Cosmonomic (Part 14)

As the sovereign over heaven and earth, you do hold us in your hand. You do direct every event of history. For the sake of your church and for our individual good, we pray that you might continue to guide our lives and direct our study in this class. That we might think thoughts which are honoring to you. That we might think your thoughts after you on our creaturely level. We pray, Father, that your spirit might not only illumine us, but give us the strength and the courage to carry out our convictions and to make a difference in this world, especially in the political arena about us. We pray these things in Jesus name. Amen. Well, yesterday we finished another major section in my lecture outline on political ethics. Let me just review for you what we have done in our introductory material. I began by discussing the need, the specific need for Christians to have a transformational stance on political matters. And then I tried to introduce you to the major issues in Christian political theory today. And I isolated three particular questions. First, what is the proper function of the state? Secondly, what is the place of the state in the ordering of creation? And thirdly, where is Christ politically working today? Or how do you discern God's will for politics? And under that third question we isolated large number of schools of thought or camps within the Christian outlook, within Christian sub society, if you will. And I hope that will help organize your reading so you'll know where people are coming from as you read Christian political material today. The second major section of our course dealt with the philosophy of the state from a more strictly philosophical standpoint, trying to find an answer to the question on what basis should anybody obey the state? What right does the state have to compel our obedience? And we examined eight specific secular theories, the Power theory, Traditionalism, the True Self theory, the natural Law theory, classical Contract, contemporary contract anarchism, and Marxism as theories of the state. And then I tried to point out what the underlying issues are and indicate that only the Christian can answer the question ultimately as to why we should obey the state. And that's because only the Christian has a foundation for his ethic in the first place. That can indicate why we should obey any moral standard, much less the moral standard of the state. So we have been given an introduction to our need of this kind of a course and the major questions that lie before us. And we've done some apologetical background work on the major views of the state proposed in the history of philosophy. And then today, what I want to do is to begin exploring various Christian approaches to the state that I've assigned to you for Your reading and our goal will be to discuss doibertian philosophy, the cosmonomic philosophy, as it approaches the matter of the state. I'd like to look at the book by Richard Mao, Politics and the Biblical Drama, say just a few words in passing about Culver's book on human government from a biblical standpoint, and then discuss the more relevant question that's close to us, and that's the Puritan ideal or the theocratic ideal as it's been critiqued by various people, Meredith Klein among them. And after we've discussed then these Christian approaches to the state, we'll take up specific problems that get down to applying our philosophy of the state. And the problems that I'd like to get through by the time we're finished with the course tomorrow are the separation of church and state, the issue of welfare, capital punishment, war and civil disobedience. But today we begin by various Christian perspectives on the state, important writings from a Christian, conservative Christian, for the most part, Reformed, conservative Christian perspective on the state. And we'll begin this morning with Herman Doyouva, the Christian Idea of the State. A little booklet that I've asked you to read by doyouvaerd. Doyouvir can be summarized in the following way. He says the fear for many people is that the Christian idea of the state amounts to speaking of fascism or Roman Catholic totalitarianism, where the church runs the state and dominants every aspect of society. He says many people fear the notion of. Of a Christian idea of the state because they can't distinguish that from fascism or Romanist totalitarianism. However, Dolibert is not willing to let that fear scare him off from the subject, he says, because redemption applies to the heart of man, and out of the heart are the issues of life. Therefore, redemption must be as broad as the sin of man is. And if the sin of man has touched on politics, then redemption should touch on politics as well. If our hearts are redeemed and out of the heart are the issues of life, then out of the heart should come a redeemed approach toward politics. And so he says that there must be a Christian political stance, there must be a Christian idea of the state, even if people wrongly feel and fear that it's going to lead to fascism or Romanist totalitarianism. As an aside, let me add here that I find it interesting that doyoubaird says that people will make this accusation. They'll fear that that's the direction of our thought, but we must go ahead anyway. It isn't true that we're interested in totalitarianism or fascism. And yet many modern doyoubardians in this country in particular have criticized the theocratic ideal that is proposed by theonomists as their political model, have criticized that as being a form of Hitlerian fascism or totalitarianism that follows the Roman Catholic Church's idea of the interaction of church and state. And so the followers of doyoubird having, if you will, gotten over the idea that their ideas might be taken as fascist and totalitarian, and now turning around and using the same inappropriate tool of criticism against those that they don't like. And I find that a little bit ironic. Nevertheless, Doyvard says we have to have a Christian idea of the state, even if people fear it. He says that the Christian idea of the state was perverted in past history, though, when it came to compromise with pagan and humanistic views. And the culprit of this compromise in particular for Doyouva, it is the dichotomy that's drawn, the distinction that's drawn, the separation that's insisted upon with respect to nature and grace. Doyewa finds a nature, grace, tension or dichotomy in all of the school, the major schools of thought on Christian politics leading up to our current day. He begins his survey with Thomism, begins in the medieval period with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. According to Thomism, autonomous reason, reason that is a law to itself, reason that is self sufficient, reason that doesn't need outside authorities and guidance, self sufficient, autonomous reason applies to the realm of nature. All natural subjects, for instance science or technology or history, matters that pertain to the natural world can be competently studied by autonomous reason and thus natural reason. Autonomous reason can apply to the state because the state is natural to man. The state is the whole and indeed it is the end of human community existence. The state is the whole of life and it is the end of life where man is a social creature needing the state. Now Doyou says it's no surprise then that if you have autonomous reason applied to the state and the state is seen as the whole of man's life, drawing together all the various elements of life into the whole, that it's no surprise that totalitarianism should be the outcome of this approach. The realm of grace, on the other hand, we've been talking about nature, on the other hand, the realm of grace is the realm of God's rule and God's rule, God's grace is temporally manifested in the Church. God's rule is coming to expression in the Church. Therefore it's no surprise that for Thomism, the Christian idea of the state must mean state that is in subjection to the rule of God. And the rule of God is manifest where in the Church. And therefore the Christian idea of the state means the state in subjection to the Church. So you have nature and grace, if you will, all these natural subjects, including the state grace, the rule of God manifest in the Church. And therefore, if you're going to have a Christian idea of the state, necessarily the state must come under the institutional Church nominalism, which is a step up in history from Thomism. Nominalism turned away from the rationalism that was implicit in the Thomistic philosophy, where there's a general good above God. Rationalism holds that even God is subject to certain standards that lie outside of himself. Nominalism turns away from this rationalism, where God is accountable to some higher good, and endorses the voluntaristic approach to ethics, where God is not bound to any law at all. It's just a matter of arbitrary choice. Then in a sense that God has told us not to murder and commit adultery, he could just as easily have created a world where different moral standards would hold just the opposite of what we now believed to be right and wrong would take place. Now, in nominalism, the inner life of grace releases man from law. Here you see a form of antinomianism where when a man is redeemed, then he's guided by the Spirit and he doesn't have to follow internal dictates of law. The redeemed man is released from law. Law then applies phenomenalism only to the lower temporal life of man, where sin is reigning. When man is under sin, then he's under law, and the lower temporal part of his life, if you will, his biological existence, his physical existence, all these things are subject to law. But over against this lower temporal realm of life, where sin is reigning and therefore law is reigning, over against this stands the realm of grace, or the realm of Christian freedom, the realm of spirit. So nominalism completely divorces the natural realm from the realm of the Spirit, a realm subject to law, from the realm that is characterized by Christian freedom, and holds that the state is not to be Christianized in any sense supposed to come under law in any sense in a Christian, with a Christian notion of law. It's not even to come under the Church. The state is over here in this one realm, the realm of sin and law and physical affairs. And then there's the realm of grace and the Spirit and freedom. And you don't combine the Two. Yes. I think that Chantry's views, in fact, reflect kind of a nominalism. Yes. Where you have these two different realms, and they shouldn't be mixed. Although remember that Chantry has these, you know, weaseling sorts of qualifications. Having said that, we don't pay attention to the realm of matter and time. However, that doesn't mean that we, you know, completely want to escape the world. It's very hard to understand exactly where he does come down because of the implicit contradictions in what he says. But the main thrust of his book certainly tends in this direction. Now we have Thomism, nominalism, and then we come up in history to the Lutheran synthesis, as Doyeberg calls it. Lutheranism attempts to synthesize these two realms of nature and grace. Lutheranism tries to synthesize, first of all, the Protestant view of Scripture with classical philosophy. Here's the attempt to bring in autonomous philosophy, the classical philosophical perspective of the Greeks, and to make that harmonious with Christian understanding of theology based on the Bible. Okay. So this synthesis between the Protestant view of Scripture and classical Greek philosophy and Lutheran thinking is added to the dualism that already exists in nominalism between law and evangelical freedom. You have the realm of law and you have the other realm of the free Christian man who is set free by God's grace. Now, this synthesis leads to. To the view that the state must again serve the church in the form of a state church. It isn't so much that you have the Pope ruling the church as well as the state, as in Thomism, but rather the synthesis between the realm of law and the realm of freedom amounts to the state establishing its own denomination. So you have the Lutheran Church being the state church of Germany, for instance. Now, this idea is worked out further in the 20th century by Emil Bruner, who says that there's a natural realm of ordinances, a natural realm of ordinances, and that this is an autonomous area of law. So you have, if you will, the world out here that is subject to law and ordinance and works according to regularities and patterns. This natural realm of ordinances, an autonomous area of law, is against the realm of Christian faith and Christian grace, which is ruled by unprincipled love and not subject to law. Remember, Brunner is really the theological father of situation ethics that Fletcher and AT Robinson, these men really look to Emil Bruner's divine imperative and get their guidance from it. Bruno says, you have this realm of love. Christian freedom is guided by unprincipled love. And then over against that, you have the natural realm that has ordinances and laws and regularities. Now, political life belonging to the natural aspect of man's existence. Political life, then, is ruled by natural reason as it discerns laws and works out moral standards on the basis of its own autonomous study. Whereas the Christian realm is the realm of unprincipled love and freedom. So you don't have the two coming together. The political life is ruled by natural reason and is not to be considered Christian political life. There's no such thing as a Christian approach to politics. There's simply the Christian using natural reason and trying to come to good conclusions in the realm of politics. Well, you can see as we move then from Thomism to nominalism into Lutheranism and its synthesis, that the next step is naturally going to be humanism. And this is what Doyevard points out. Humanism tries to synthesize, tries to bring together the science ideal. Now, the ideal of science is to find coherence in the realms that it studies, to find law, like relationships. And so you have the science ideal, on the one hand, emphasizing law and coherence, and on the other hand you have human personality, which is not always coherent, that's not always subject to laws and regularities, a pattern in that way, but rather is characterized by autonomous freedom, being a law to itself, being free and unshackled by physical conditions in the world, or by moral standards imposed by God. So you have the science ideal, the realm of law and determinism over against the realm of human personality characterized by autonomous freedom. Now, the state is constructed out of individual units through an arbitrary contract in humanism. This is the classical contract view that Doybert is speaking of. We have all these individual units, these individual people, the many who come together and arbitrarily contract to have a state. Now, there's a twofold result that comes from this. The idea that you have the science ideal over against human personality, and that the state is nothing more but a loose collection of individuals who have contracted to have a rule over them. The twofold result, according to Doyvard, is first of all either state absolutism, which has authority over the church. The state is just a collection of people who have contracted together, and they are run by the realm of reason, autonomous reason, and therefore the state can even dictate to the church, have authority over the church. Or on the other hand, you have individualisms, constitution, constitutional rights being emphasized, and you have a complete separation of church and state. And therefore religion becomes reduced to an inner life, a matter of the spirit. Whatever is invisible and just a matter of personal conviction. So on the one hand you get absolutism, where human society, the state, can dominate every element of life, even the church. Or you have church and state separated in a way that the church takes over this inner realm of freedom that's not subject to law. It's just a matter of idiosyncratic conviction. And the state rules all the outward affairs of life. And so religion becomes reduced to an inner life concept altogether. Now, Dauebert is not satisfied then with Thomism, nominalism, Lutheranism or humanism. He says that each of them is characterized by a nature grace dichotomy. In one way or another. You have the realm of nature and the realm of grace set over against each other. Delouvere would hold that a Christian alternative can be based on other principles. And there are three principles that I'll mention in particular. The Christian alternative is first of all based on the principle that all functions of human existence stem from man's heart, a heart which is renewed in Jesus Christ. And if all functions of human existence stem from this renewed heart in Jesus Christ, then even all societal relations, including the state, all societal relations will be temporal manifestations of the invisible church of Christ. Christ has redeemed our heart and has created what deluberry calls a supratemporal as going beyond the temporal world, a supra temporal root unity of mankind. And this supra temporal root unity of mankind is the kingdom of God reigning in the hearts of men. There is this kingdom of God that unites the hearts of men into a root unity. This is a unity, a kingdom, a reign that goes beyond time. It is part of the heart of man, not part of those things which are conditions of temporal existence. So the first principle of a Christian political stance is that all functions of human existence stem from man's heart, which is renewed in Christ. So that all societal functions and relations, including the state, will be temporal manifestations of the invisible church of Christ Christ. The invisible church being the supra temporal root unity of mankind, the kingdom of God reigning in the heart. Secondly, Dooyevard says the kingdom of God is his total rule. The kingdom of God is his total rule. And this is the ground of the state. The kingdom of God as His total rule is the ground of the state. Over against the notion of a total all embracing state, Doygart actually says that we need to look to a supra temporal theocracy as the Christian foundation of the state. A supra temporal theocracy. The rule of God beyond time. And the notion of antithesis plays an important role here, where the Christian is pursuing the supra temporal kingdom of God, the supra temple temporal theocracy that is set over against all humanist false ideals. So there must be an antithesis between the church and the world, between the Christian outlook and the humanist outlook, between the biblical outlook that has the ground motive of Scripture and any autonomous approach to life. The kingdom of God is the ground of the state and that stands in antithesis to every other false ideal. And then thirdly, Delavert says the law of God relates the eternal kingdom of God to the temporal world. It's the law of God that is kind of the cement or the juncture between the temporal world and the rule of God. The kingdom of God, the realm of eternity and the realm of time are brought together via the law of God. And when the law of God relates the eternal kingdom to the temporal world, it does so without a dualism between nature and grace, or a dualism between law and freedom. These things must not be set over against each other. The natural world, in the realm of grace, the realm of law and the realm of freedom, they are not an antagonism to each other. Daubert holds that the law, deeper meaning, is not an impersonal principle apart from God, which is the view of rationalism, that the law, like the law of contradiction, the laws of logic, the laws of goodness, and so forth, these are impersonal principles that even stand apart from God and principles to which he must conform his activities. But Doyle Bird says that the law is not an impersonal principle apart from God, but rather the law is God's own character, which is fulfilled completely in Christ, who offered wholehearted religious service to God. The law of God, this character of God, fulfilled completely in Christ, is addressed to the heart of man. It's not addressed exclusively to man's reason or to man's mind, but it's addressed to his heart. Because out of the heart are the issues of life, which is the origin of all norms and pertains to all spheres. So when the supra temporal kingdom of God, the root unity of mankind, addresses the heart of man with the law. This law of wholehearted religious service to God pertains to every sphere of life. You know, those are the general principles that Doyvard uses to work out a Christian view of the state. We need to go on from these principles to his specific theory of the state. Now, we've just talked about the conditioning principles, the preconditions of a Christian view of the state. Dooyewer goes on to advance a specific, specific theory of the state in terms of his cosmonomic modal structure. A cosmonomic modal structure. And one lecture surely cannot do justice to the complexity of Doyevird's thought. I realize that I'll be a bit over simple here, but we do have to do some summary work so that we can discuss it. And because I don't believe that this is going to turn out to be that helpful, I don't want to spend more time than that on it. So with the caveats, I will move on. Doyouverd's specific theory of the state, then, is advanced in terms of his cosmonomic modal structure. And the first point we can make about that by way of summary is that Doyouba says the law of God is the boundary between God and creation. The law of God is the boundary between God and creation. So if you think of two realms, the thing that stands between the two realms, the realm of God and the realm of creation, is the law itself. The law is the boundary separating God from creation. Every temporal sphere of life, underneath that law, every temporal sphere of life has its own law, its own regulating principles and regularities. Now, let's think of some of these spheres of life. There's the mathematical sphere of life and the biological sphere of life, the physical sphere of life and the historical sphere of life, and the linguistic sphere of life. There's the historical, the social sphere of life, the ethical sphere of life. There's religious sphere of life. Each one of these spheres, according to Doyvard, has its own, own particular law, its own, if you will, structure and principles of operation. However, the laws for each of these temporal spheres of life are rooted in God's will, rooted in God's established world order. So you have God, the boundary law, and underneath the law, all these temporal spheres of life, with each having their own structure and operating principles. But those structures and principles being rooted in the will of God and established by the world order that he's made under his law. Now, sphere sovereignty is taken as a cosmic, non arbitrary principle, then, that every sphere has its own sovereignty, its own manner of operation, its own rules, its own regularities and structure. The rules of math do not apply to society. Social rules and conventions don't apply to math. Every sphere has its own cosmic principle, which is not arbitrary. None of the temporal spheres, moreover, can be derived from the others. When doyouverde lays out the different areas of life, the spheres of life. The important thing is that not one of the spheres can be seen as an application or subdivision of another sphere. So math is not a subdivision of biology, biology is not a subdivision of math. So that makes them separate spheres. However, you wouldn't want a sphere that talks about all wood or wooden objects, because that would be part of the physical conditions of life. And it wouldn't be right to have just a completely new sphere for the wooden sphere of life, if you will, because that would be just the subdivision of another one. You cannot derive any of the spheres, the basic spheres of life, from any of the others. They are irreducible structures. They are irreducible structures. And so he believes there's an irreducible realm of math, an irreducible realm of sociology, an irreducible realm of ethics. And you can't, as I've indicated, turn one into the other or derive one from the other, reduce one to the other. Now, these irreducible structures or spheres of life have an original area of competence with their own law sphere for each aspect. They have an original area of competence, that is, there's a specific goal for each area, that is its realm of competence. Each area of life, each sphere deals with some aspect of reality and is uniquely competent to deal with that aspect of reality. So we turn to the mathematician to find out about numerical relations, but we wouldn't turn to the mathematician the find out about sociology. The area of competence for each sphere is strictly drawn. Now, if you have, he says there are 15 or 16 of these basic spheres of life. Now, if you take these 15 or 16 spheres, what brings them together? How is it that there's any unity in creation? If you have one set of laws, structures, principles operating around regulations for this area, another for this area, another for this area, another for this area. How are any of these brought together? I mean, how can there be any unity in our experience and in our world? Well, according to Doyvard, the deeper unity and full meaning of the law spheres is religious. He says there is a religious unity to all of these. This deeper unity, this form, fuller meaning of the law spheres is the supra temporal root unity of creation, the root of reborn of the reborn cosmos. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the word revelation of God. Jesus Christ as the divine is the deeper unity of all these areas of life. And so at this point, Doyouvrg uses his image of a prism. Now, sphere sovereignty is taken as a cosmic non arbitrary principle, then, that every sphere has its own sovereignty, its own manner of operation, its own rules. Its own regularities and structure. The rules of math do not apply to society. Social rules and conventions don't apply to math. Every sphere has its own cosmic principle, which is not arbitrary. None of the temporal spheres, moreover, can be derived from the others. When Doyouba lays out the different areas of life, the spheres of life, the important thing is that not one of the spheres can be seen as an application or subdivision of another sphere. So math is not a subdivision of biology, biology is not a subdivision of math, so that makes them separate spheres. However, you wouldn't want a sphere that talks about all wood or wooden objects, because that would be part of the physical conditions of life. And it wouldn't be right to have just a completely new sphere for the wooden sphere of life if you. Because that would be just the subdivision of another one. You cannot derive any of the spheres, the basic spheres of life, from any of the others. They are irreducible structures. They are irreducible structures. And so he believes there's an irreducible realm of math, an irreducible realm of sociology, an irreducible realm of ethics. And you can't, as I've indicated, turn one into the other or derive one from the other, reduce one to the other. Now, these irreducible structures are spheres of life, have an original area of competence with their own law sphere for each aspect. They have an original area of competence. That is, there's a specific goal for each area that is its realm of competence. Each area of life, each sphere deals with some aspect of reality and is competent to deal with that aspect of reality. So we turn to the mathematician to find out about numerical relations, but we wouldn't turn to the mathematician to find out about sociology. The area of competence for each sphere is strictly drawn. Now, if you have, he says there are 15 or 16 of these basic spheres of life. Now, if you take these 15 or 16 spheres, what brings them together? How is it that there's any unity in creation if you have one set of laws, structures, principles, operating, regulations for this area, another for this area, another for this area, another for this area, how are any of these brought together? I mean, how can there be any unity in our experience and in our world? Well, according to Dewvere, the deeper unity and full meaning of the law spheres is religious. He says there is a religious unity to all of these. This deeper unity, this fuller meaning of the law spheres is the supra temporal root unity of creation, the root of the reborn cosmos. Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the word, revelation of God, Jesus Christ as The divine law is the deeper unity of all these areas of life. And so at this point, doyouberg uses his image of a prism? A prism. You know, when a light shines into a prism, what comes out is all these different colors of the rainbow you see or the color spectrum. And you can move from one to another, from the. The yellow to the orange to the green, what have you. And he says, that's what creation is like. It's like a prism. Jesus Christ is the light, okay? He's the super temporal unity, the religious unity of all these things. But as the light comes into the created realm through the prism, then it breaks down into all these different areas. So you have the area of sociology, the area of biology, the area of history, area of math, and all the rest. Now, let's get a little more complicated. We have all these law spheres, then, law spheres that are supposedly in some way brought together and made unified in a supra temporal, beyond the temporal world, religious foundation in Jesus Christ. Now, in the law spheres themselves, there is a universality and succession, as the law spheres have a particular relationship, building from the lowest to the highest, from the least complicated to the most complicated, perhaps. So you have math at the very bottom. Then you add to math motion. You add to motion something else, something else, and you come up. You have biology and then physics, and you have historical relations, you have sociological, theological relations, you have ethical relations, and finally religious relations. There's a succession to the law spheres. You must move up the ladder with them, if you will, and an organic coherence among the law spheres such that if you're talking about, let's say, sphere number eight, whatever that is, sphere number eight, and those things that are part of sphere number eight will mirror the lower aspects of creation and anticipate the higher aspects of creation. There is this lower to higher order, but those things which are lower anticipate the higher, and those things which are higher mirror the lower. Now, just between you and me, as I see it, this is Doily bird's way out of the bind that his category structure is going to create. And he says that each one of these spheres has its own separate system of laws, regulations, structure, and so forth. When that doesn't actually fit the world as we see it, when there is this overlap in combination, he'll be able to account for that by saying, oh, but every sphere mirrors its lower spheres and anticipates its higher spheres so that you have a way in which you can incorporate elements of other spheres by way of anticipation or mirroring in the sphere that you're talking about now, the full reality of a concrete thing, let's say we're taking a chair. The full reality of that concrete chair cannot be enclosed or reduced to any one aspect on the modal scale. That there's no one raw sphere that totally captures the thing itself. Every concrete thing, for instance, our chair functions in all of the aspects. There's a social aspect to the chair and a numerical aspect to the chair and a biological aspect to the chair. Every concrete object functions in all of the aspects. But each particular thing has its own individuality, structure. That is to say, every particular thing has its own peculiar grouping of aspects. Okay? So the combination of biological features and physical features and mathematical features and historical features and sociological features in a chair is going to be different than the combination of those things in a rabbit. And that's what gives every individual thing its own individuality, structure. Its peculiar character is determined by the set grouping of aspects within it. So that there's an inner structural law for rabbits and an interstructural law for chairs and an interstructural law for everything that exists. Every particular thing has a unique, peculiar grouping of aspects, creatuality, structure. Okay, so every law sphere has its own particular peculiar domain of competence. But there's this coherence with all the others. So there's mirroring and anticipation between the spheres. Then every concrete thing reflects all of the spheres of life, but in different combinations. And that creates an inner principle of law or individuality, structure for it. Now, every particular thing with its individuality structure has a typical end function, a typical telos, to use Aristotle's words, a particular goal or purpose toward which it is moving. Its typical end function is the last aspect in which it functions as a subject. Chairs are not a subject in sociology. Chairs are objects. In the study of sociology, if I'm studying, say, the sociology of people drinking, it may well be that chairs have something to do with that. When people go to their cocktail parties, they sit on chairs. So that is an object of sociological study. And maybe you might take interest in the way chairs are set up and what it means for social relations when different configurations are found in a room. Well, that may be of interest, but a chair is not a subject of sociology. People are subjects of sociology. So according to Doyouba, the end function of something is the last aspect, the last sphere in which it functions as a subject. The end function is the goal toward which all the lower functions are directed in that object, the aspect which qualifies it for its unique characterization. So chairs have their proper ends, rabbits have their proper ends, human beings have their proper ends, and the state would have its proper end too. Then everyday experience or naive thought does not distinguish these aspects. If you go out on the street and you ask somebody about the modal distinctions, individuality, structures, coherence among the spheres, simultaneity and coherence and mirroring and anticipation, they have no idea what you're talking about. It's not just that they don't know the vocabulary, but they'll have no idea of the world being related in this way. Because people who are not engaged in theoretical thought, who are not engaged in, if you will, a university mindset, are not worried about drawing fine distinctions and seeing setting one area of life over against another and distinguishing the mathematical aspect from the biological aspect of this object and all the rest. Naive thought just takes things in their wholeness, enjoys creation, the flowers and the trees and relationship to God, and just doesn't draw a lot of distinctions. It's not very sophisticated that way. Everyday experience or naive thought does not distinguish these aspects, but views them in complete unity. There's an, excuse me, an implicit experience of the aspects, the modal aspects, but they are not distinguished explicitly. On the other hand, apart from naive experience that sees everything in their wholeness, all things in their wholeness, you have theoretical science. Theoretical science draws these distinctions, sets one aspect over against another. Another tries to find logical order in things. Theoretical science considers things from a particular point of view, trying to articulate a particular aspect of reality. And so theoretical science distinguishes the law spheres. The mathematician, you see, focuses just on that narrow element of life, the sociologist just on that particular element of life. Whereas person, thinking naively, not theoretically, just takes math and sociology and biology in terms of an undifferentiated wholeness of experience. Okay, I realize some of this is bound to sound awfully obscure and abstruse, but having said this, we can now, in light of the Doyou Verdian philosophy, tell you what his Christian view of the state. According to Delaver, societal bonds have their own inner individuality structure. You know what an individuality structure is? What makes the rabbit peculiarly a rabbit? Its unique or peculiar combination of the aspects of reality. Now, societal bonds have their own individuality structure as well, which are uniquely determined by their goal and their foundation. There are societal relations, and the individuality structure of a societal relation is uniquely determined by the goal that it has and the foundation that it has. The goal that it has is its function and the foundation it has. Is its origin. So the origin and the function, the unique origin and function of a societal bond gives it its individuality structure. Now, what is the individuality structure of the state, that unique societal bond called the state? Well, Doyuberg does not hold that the state's individuality structure is that of the totality of social relations. He doesn't think that you have like educational relations, industrial relations, familial relations, church relations, friendship relations, what have you, and that the state is just the combination of all those things. It's the totality. He says, no, that's not the proper structure of the state. Nor is the state merely a combination of individuals who have contracted together, for instance. The state rather has its own inner God ordered law structure. The state is not just a combination of individuals. It's not the totality of social relations. The state is a unique order in creation. It has its own inner God ordered law structure that cannot be reduced to some aspect of reality. The state can't be reduced to sociology, cannot be reduced to history. The state cannot be reduced to ethics. The state is its own particular aspect. Well, what is the end function? What is the goal of the state? What is the proper function of the state? According to Doyoubird, the end function of the state is juridical. The state is the juridical sphere of life, the sphere of legal justice, the sphere of legal justice. That's the end function of the state. Now, the founding function, the origin of the state. Remember I said an individuality structure is determined by its end function and founding function. The end function of the state is juridical, whereas the founding function of the state is its historical power formation over a territory. The origin of the state is a historical power formation over a particular territory. Now, according to Doyvard, this power formation over a territory in history is part of God's institution for the sake of sin. God has brought about historically this power formation over territories because of man's sin. And that makes the power of the sword essential to the state. The power of the sword is essential to the state. That doesn't mean the sword is used as an end in itself. It's used for the sake of temporal preserving of creation. In the juridical realm, the sword is used for the sake of legal justice and the temporal preserving is done by means of common grace. God's common grace is operative in preserving the world through the essential use of the sword and the juridical function of the stone. And the state should be seeking therefore a common good for mankind, which is doyouvard's pluralism coming out. The state must seek a common good for mankind, which means a pluralistic society where one religion is not preferred over another, one labor union preferred over another. But there must be a plurality of religions, labor unions, schools, and so forth, with the state not giving preference to one. So as a general principle, the state must seek the common good. In a pluralistic society, therefore, the state must be a limited state. And it can only be a limited state, says Dolibert, a state that will not move into totalitarianism if it is restricted by an intrinsic limitation. See, given his philosophy, the state has an intrinsic limitation. It has its own end function, its own founding function, its proper goal, the laws of its operation, its own individuality structure. And given the individuality structure of the state, it must be limited to its own sphere of competence. However, he doesn't think you can have a limited state if you attempt to use external restrictions on it. You can't say, like in the case of Mauritan, the state can do all these things, but then we can now externally say, but don't go any further than this. Dovard says no, you'll never be able to restrain the expansion of the state externally. The restriction must come from an inner dynamic, an inner understanding of the law sphere of the state. Doyva is insistent on distinguishing might from right. He says the right for the state, justice for the state, is defined by its inner structure, its own sphere of competence. Now, when Christians engage in discussion of state or political matters, Christians approach this juridical function of the state with the goal of the common pluralistic good. They approach this with hearts that are in the grip of the biblical ground motives of creation, fall and redemption. Christians do not come to the state with specific guidance from the Bible. We don't come, as we call a biblicistic or fundamentalistic way. Saying scripture and verse says, the state must do this, the state must do that. Rather, a Christian approach to the state is to approach the juridical function of the state with a particular kind of heart, a particular kind of motivation, a person who is in the grip of the overall biblical theme of creation, fall and redemption. We are redeemed people. We have that general thrust about us, that ground motive. We're in the grip of creation, fallen redemption. And then we try to apply our hearts to the specific questions of the state's functions and how to pursue the common good. Well, there's some real helpful aspects to Doyvardian philosophy, I think. In the first place, I'm coming to evaluation now that I'VE laid out what he says. Dolibaird is helpful. He gives incisive analysis of other philosophers very often. Dollivert has often very good critiques of pagan and humanistic philosophers. And Dolliverd has insisted over and over again that the autonomy of human thought must be rejected. So he has a good critique of the autonomy of human thought and the dialectical tensions within non Christian philosophers. He points out that every non Christian philosophy abandons the true God and then absolutizes some aspect of creation and makes it its authority and God in the place of the living and true God. And against this, Doyvard wants to reject the autonomy of human thought. So I think there are some good elements in Doyvardian philosophy and I don't want that forgotten as I go on to say some pretty hard things about this philosophy. I would say that although there are these helpful elements, the Bible also tells us these things. I mean, we didn't have to wait for Dovard to come along to tell us that human autonomy has to be rejected, that human beings tend to absolutize some element of creation after they've rejected the true God, and that there are these dialectical tensions in non Christian philosophy. It's not something that we uniquely waited for doyoubert to tell us, although we appreciate that he has emphasized those things and has given us valuable insights in those areas. But my main points of criticism would be the following. First, I have some real questions about the initial plausibility of this philosophy. I realize that a lot of people, especially those who are not trained in philosophy, read this and they're just wowed by the big vocabulary, what appears to be a complicated metaphysical structure for everything when all is said and done. There isn't a whole lot of plausibility to any of this. It may look impressive, but it's stunning. People can sit down and devise complicated metaphysical jargon that doesn't tell you anything about the world. Secondly, I think the quality of thought in Doyouvard is really less than what Christians should expect, that far from being initially implausible, that when you do a Christian analysis of it, he's not nearly intellectual enough. I think this is really quite simplistic, not very perceptive about the world and certainly not very helpful in solving key philosophical questions. And so I think it's less than what Christians should expect of a Christian philosopher. And thirdly, in certain areas, I think Doilivert has to be concluded as unfaithful to Christ. Now, when all is said and done, not only is this not initially plausible and, in fact, less intellectual than what Christians would expect. But its value is questionable just because certain applications of Dolioverdean philosophy are unfaithful to the teaching of Christ in Scripture. So I realize it's a hard critique. I'm saying this isn't really good philosophy, and it's not good Christian thinking. But it has to be said, because I think this is one of the real threats to Christian scholarship today and to especially the Christian idea of the state, that people would buy into this philosophy. I don't think that it will work out, and I think it will lead you to be unfaithful in certain areas to Christ. When we come back from a short break, I'm going to discuss the naive theoretical distinction, the idea that theology studies only one area of life, the area of faith, and then look at the modal scheme itself. Before we move on to a discussion of Richard Mao.