Dr Greg Bahnsen - Political Ethics: Thematic Approaches: Teleological (Part 15)

Take just a few more minutes now on our analysis of doyvaert to complete the criticism that I began. I've already said that there are some positive and helpful things in doyoubert. He does have an incisive analysis of humanistic philosophers. He does insist that all autonomy for human thought must be rejected. And so that's good, and we're glad for that and for his insights. However, I have some questions about the initial plausibility of the doiherdian system. I wonder if Christians should be satisfied with this level of scholarship. And I think that the scholarship that's been advanced by Doitva and his followers is at some point unfaithful to Christ, and therefore the value of the overall effort is drawn into question. Now, three areas that I want to touch on very briefly. First, the naive theoretical distinction, which of course is foundational to Doyvard's philosophy. The opening question that I have about the naive theoretical distinction is what does it mean? What does it mean to say that there's a difference between theoretical thought and naive thought as a matter of actual fact and experience? We never perceive the undifferentiated totality of things. Nobody ever has this total view where nothing is distinguished from anything else. Nobody has this undifferentiated view of the whole of reality. We always perceive aspects of things. And it seems to me that the abstraction of one aspect from another is a more or less matter for us. That although the child running in the field may not distinguish the flower from the grass from the sky with the same precision that, say, somebody studying the same situation scientifically would, that nevertheless there is some distinction, the child knows the difference between the flower and the sky and implicitly is working with that distinction. And therefore, since nobody has the undifferentiated perception of the whole of reality or of any particular experience, and since there are distinctions in all of our experience, it's just a question of whether we have more distinction or less distinction, greater explicit attention to the distinction or not. That I'm not really sure you can maintain any absolute naive theoretical breakdown as doyvird wants to do. Secondly, there's no scriptural evidence that we've been given that the Bible addresses only the naive interest of man and not theoretical interest of man. Dovard assumes the Bible must be a naive book dealing with the undifferentiated whole of reality and the man in the street mentality, rather than being scientifically geared drawing theoretical distinctions. But there's no scriptural evidence that the Bible cannot address theoretical areas. In fact, Christians are told to study the deep things of God. And we are told in the Bible that man doesn't live by bread alone, we need to live by the word of God. So whether we're doing politics, mathematics, or biology, we've got to have the word of God direct us. And the deep things of God are crucial to the word of God as it directs us. And so I have real questions as to whether the Bible can be said to address only the naive aspect of man's thinking and not as theoretical thought. So my first area of disagreement with doyouvard is this absolute distinction between naive and theoretical. I'm not sure there is any real absolute distinction. Secondly, according to doyouvaerd, the realm of scientific theology, the theological science studies only one area or one aspect of human experience, the faith aspect of human experience. The word of God is not the object of scientific study, says Dollyweer. The word of God is the basis of scientific study. And theology doesn't study all the relationships of reality. It does not study the total picture, because theology is not equipped to do this. Theology cannot be, if you will, the overall science that has to be philosophy. And theology does not study any particular area or relationship of reality in a theoretical way, except the religious area. So theology studies only the faith aspect of human experience. I have three responses to that. First of all, why should we agree with this? It seems to me that this judgment is a dogmatic judgment, one that is offered without any argumentation. How do we know that the Bible cannot address other theoretical areas, that the Bible is narrowly concerned with the faith aspect of experience? There's some real question about that. Secondly, the implications of this premise are decidedly untrue to the Bible itself. The implications drawn from the premise that theology studies only the faith aspect of human experience are decidedly untrue to scripture. Scripture deals only with faith concepts and can teach only about religious faith. According to the doyou verdeans, it does not teach about science, history, or philosophy. And thus exegesis of the Scripture is authoritative only for faith principles and not for exact details. And here the Doi verdeans often speak of what we must the way the Bible controls us when we come to other areas of life is in terms of the power of its message rather than the meaning of its message. The Scripture is a power word rather than a text or meaning word, so that when we read about history and about science and about math and other such things from the Bible, that that should grip us, that should be a word of power to us. But it's not the meaning and exact details of the Scripture that give us theoretical information for all these areas of life. So that's the implication drawn from the doi Verdian premise that the Bible deals only with faith. But from my standpoint, I trust from yours, the philosopher is not in a position to impose a scheme on the Bible, telling us what it can and cannot say. The philosopher from outside cannot come to the Bible and say, now we're going to restrict your domain. You can't speak to us in economics, you can't speak to us in social philosophy. You can only speak to us when it comes to theology and faith. The philosopher is not in an imperial position to impose such restrictions on the Bible. The Bible says that we are responsible for its words and its details and not just its general thrust. Notice that the Bible holds us accountable to every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and Jesus says to every jot and tittle of that which has been revealed, so that we do have to pay attention to details and we have to take the details seriously, understood properly in context, according to the genre, the literature that's being used, to be sure. But nevertheless, the details of the Bible, and not just the general thrust of the Bible, are our Christian responsibility. And my third response to this premise, that theology studies only the faith aspect of experience, is that the attempt to hold that scriptural revelation is authoritative in philosophy, science, politics, and all the rest is often derided as rationalism and biblicism by the Doyou verdeans. The attempt to say what the Bible speaks to us with respect to philosophy or science or politics, even though we admit that it's not a textbook in these areas, a systematic treatment of these areas. But what it does say in these areas is authority is taken as biblicism by the doyvardians. According to them, the power of the Scripture must grip us, and they pit that power word against the text, word that informs us. But it's rather clear that the Bible says that it is giving us information, that God is revealing to us things which we would not ordinarily understand. And so the Doyouvedians, I think, have an untrue conception of revelation when they reduce it or make it, for the most part, a word of power rather than a word of meaning and information. Okay, now my last major area of consideration is the modal scheme. In Doevild, we've looked at the naive theoretical distinction and found it wanting. We've looked at the premise that theology deals exclusively with the faith aspect of experience, and now we'll look at the modal scheme. And again I have three remarks on it. The modal scheme, first of all, cannot be based in Scripture. If doibert tries to tell us the Bible teaches this order and succession of spheres in reality, if he says that's taught in Scripture, he would contradict his own system of thought because the Scripture is not theoretical in nature. What the Bible teaches is naive, deals with just the undifferentiated whole of reality, our everyday experience and thinking. So the modal scheme is not biblically based. Now, if it's not scripturally based, we can ask, secondly, in what sense is it uniquely Christian? I mean, if the Bible doesn't teach this modal sphere, why should we think that Christians should see the modal sphere and maintain the distinctions of the modal diagram of reality that Dojoberg gives? Why should we think that's a uniquely Christian outlook if it's not taught in the word of God? And then thirdly, if the modal scheme is Christian in the sense that all the best philosophers must agree with it, that is that general revelation teaches us the cosmonomic system. If you just pay attention to general revelation, then I would point out in the first place, the best philosophers do not agree with it. As a matter of fact, the better 20th century philosophers haven't come up with anything like the modal scheme of dolibaird. Secondly, category schemes, all category schemes are relative to the purposes of the schemers. That is to say, we can divide reality up a lot of different ways. We could say reality is left and right. Everything in reality is either left or right. Or we could say that it's either material or immaterial. We could make three categories or five categories, and the adequacy of our category scheme would be relative to the purposes for which we're trying to divide things up. Category schemes need to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. But beyond that, the purpose of the category scheme will determine how complicated it is. So it seems to me the idea of a category scheme advanced by doyoubairt is just to indulge in what is really, you know, a give or take situation. It's completely relative. How valuable it is to you depends on the purposes to which you'll put it then. Thirdly, philosophical conclusions about the world ought not and cannot be derived from schemes that are imposed on the material being studied. If I want to go to the world and I have a nine category scheme for everything in the world, I can't then turn around and draw philosophical conclusions from the scheme that I've imposed on the evidence, and that's what Doybrod seems to me to be doing. He comes with an arbitrary modal scheme. To him it's not arbitrary, but he comes with a scheme that is not somehow universally recognized and demonstrable to anybody who has doubts about it. And he imposes that scheme on the material being studied, then turns around and draws from his scheme certain philosophical conclusions. But that's just building into your evidence what you want to draw out of your evidence. And that's not fair. So I can't accept the modal scheme as being uniquely Christian or universally accepted as philosophical truth. Well, if you get rid of the naive theoretical distinction in doyouva, you get rid of the modal scheme in Dooyevaire and you refute the premise that the Bible speaks only to the faith aspect in Dooyevaire, I dare say you've gutted the system. I mean, without those three major premises or ideas, doliberdianism falls to the ground. And if Dolly Verdianism falls to the ground philosophically, then its view of the state, it seems to me, is going to be equally weak. It's not going to be defensible because his view of the state is a particular application of his philosophical scheme. Alright, so there is good in doyouba and there's that which is not so good in doyouba. And I hope that you'll draw the distinction, distinctions that are necessary here. What questions would you like to ask about doyevird? Now? Yes. Given all the problems that there are in doiweird's system, why the apparent endorsement of Rushdini and Van Til? The question is why the apparent endorsement of Rushduni and Van Till of doyvaert, if there are all these problems in doyviard's system? And the first thing that I would say by way of response is that the endorsement of Van Til and rushduni was a very early matter. I mean, back in the mid-50s, early 60s, you would have favorable things being said about Doyevir and encouragement given to read Doyouvard. However, with the progression of Doyevird's thought, the drawing out of the implications of his thought, it's become clear to many people that the favorable elements that were originally seen in Doyevard are counterbalanced by some very unfavorable elements and implications in his system as well. I would add to this secondly, that at least in Van Til's case, he never was entirely enthusiastic about dooyevaire. And then thirdly, where Rushdoonie and Van Till have endorsed Doyevaire, interestingly, On areas where he criticized, criticizes autonomous thought, shows its dialectical tensions, and where he holds there must be an internal limitation on the state, things like this, themes which Van Till and rushdooney would both endorse but argue for in different ways. What I've criticized here is the positive philosophical scheme of Dolly Baird and his approach. And it's not this positive or constructive scheme that Van Til and Rushdini have ever given decisive public enthusiasm or endorsement to. How much influence did the Derivarians have on science? Yes, the Dilieverdians do like to present themselves as something of the cutting edge of Christian scholarship and being right up with the modern world and able to hobnob with scholars outside of their circles and be respected and all that. And there's a certain degree of truth in that for any Christian scholar that really does his homework, right? I mean, he's going to know some non Christian scholars and he may even have been read by some, be respected by some. Whether there has been any uniquely enthusiastic response in the secular world for doyouverdian philosophy is subject to question in the Netherlands. I understand that dooyou's juridical philosophy, his jurisprudence, his writings in jurisprudence have been given attention outside of Christian circles because he was a lawyer and apparently wrote impressively in that area. But whether philosophical, philosophically, Dova the Doyou verdeans have made an impression or scientifically, I have real doubts about that. One almost gets the impression that if they get any attention from anybody, that that in itself is significant to them. Just because they aren't, for the most part, given a lot of credence outside of their own circles. It'd be similar to people in the Chalcedon circles getting excited that Newsweek mentioned them. You know, the reason that's so exciting is because it is so uncommon rather than because, you know, everybody recognizes that. And the same thing is true of them, I feel. Yeah. Did you want to ask another question? Yeah. What major philosopher has any comment on Booty systems? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Do you know of any major philosopher that had commented on. Well, I guess this is all gonna. It's all gonna rest on what you take as a major philosopher. I've heard some American philosophers teaching in universities, whether they're the most published or not, say things. And some Calvin College professors obviously would have said things, but of course that's within their own sociological circle. And I have heard that Dutch thinkers have commented on Duoy Baird, but I'm not really aware of any, you know, outstanding modern recognized philosopher that has said anything very extensive about Doyevir. Anyway, if it has been said, it's certainly not been any big deal. The kind of modernity, a contemporaneous stature that the doyouverdians want to maintain they have, along with the other movements of philosophy today is just not to be seen. It's not obvious that the world's paying attention to them. And I don't think it's obvious that Christians should pay attention to him either. Other questions on Doyerver okay, I'd like to turn then from Doliver to a discussion of Richard Mao and his book Politics and the Biblical Drama, which I hope you'll be able to get hold of and read. By way of summary, we could say the following about Mao. His method of engaging in Christian politics is paradigmatic and situational. Paradigmatic and situational in the sense that he wants to follow the facts of the biblical drama. He wants to look at the account of creation, the account of man's fall into sin, man's redemption, and the coming age. He wants to look look at the progress of biblical history, what he calls the biblical drama, from the situations, from the facts that are presented to us in the development of biblical history, he finds paradigms for politics, general themes that can be used to guide political decisions for a Christian. And so he studies the development development of biblical history, the drama of biblical history, and in each section dealing with creation, sin, redemption, the coming age. In each section he finds there models or paradigms, general themes that are to be followed. Now, after he gets the general themes or paradigms for the relationship of people in the political realm from the biblical drama, the working out of the facts of biblical history, he then draws what I consider fairly vague inferences from those motifs to particular questions. For instance, if in the coming age one of the things that's going to be characteristic is that Jesus Christ as the all merciful and sovereign king, has taken care of the needs of his people and the poor have been uplifted and so forth. Then from that general picture or motif, Mao wants to draw conclusions to particular instances or issues or questions of our own day, for what a Christian should want to say about helping the poor or ending racial discrimination or something like that. So you understand the general pattern is to look at biblical history, the teleological or situational standpoint, to look at biblical history, the facts as they unfold, take from the major areas creation, fall, redemption, coming age, paradigms or motifs of the proper relationship in politics, political relationships, and then from those motifs draw fairly vague inferences to what Christians should do on particular questions today. Okay, so this is a summary of Mao's method, and I think it can best be understood when you read it. I'm sorry that you haven't had the opportunity to do that as yet, but when you do read it, I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. You study history, you take models from history, and from those models, you draw inferences as to what you should be doing today. Now, I'd like to respond to that method of doing Christian politics. I think there are some real problems that have to be faced. First of all, the models for Christian politics that are used by Mao are found in somewhat questionable places. The models for Christian politics are found in somewhat questionable places. I'll give you three examples. He uses creation and the social situation at creation as a model for Christian politics. Today. You stop and think about that. Is that entirely appropriate that Christians should find the model for politics in creation? Well, the difficulty is, of course, that we don't live in a created, unfallen world. We live in a world that's not characterized by Adam in the garden, but Adam thrust out of the garden. We live in a world characterized by sin. And under the circumstances or conditions of sin, it seems to me the relationships between people and the way they have to be governed and dealt with by God will be completely different than in an unfallen world where everything is righteous. So I have some question about drawing a model for my present political involvement from a situation that doesn't pertain to my world, namely the created and fallen world. Okay, a second illustration here. Mao uses the redeemed community as a model for Christian politics. He says, now look at the way the church should operate. Look at the way God is making a new humanity in the church. And often Mao's insights about creation, the redeemed community, consummation, are excellent insights. The difficulty is not so much in what he says, but to what he applies it. And here we find that difficulty. It's one thing to talk about the way the church should function, but after all, is the church a model for the state? In an ironic way, you have here somebody who's not a theonomist who doesn't observe the separation of church and state because he uses the church as a model for how people. People should relate in the political sphere as well. And that is just a questionable premise. If the way God works with the church and the way he works with the state, if the principles for the two institutions are different, then we have to wonder whether it's adequate to use the Church and the directions given to the Church and the structure provided for the Church as guidelines for political, political and state questions. And then thirdly, I think another illustration of where models are inappropriately used is the model of consummation. He speaks of the New Jerusalem, the new heavens and the new earth and the way things are related there as a pattern for the way things should be related here. But it may just be that the New Jerusalem, that the New Jerusalem is not a model for our present world just because the New Jerusalem comes by the supernatural eschatological power of God. The New Jerusalem is not something that functions in the natural world, but must come down from heaven, from God. You see, only the hand of God can bring about the political circumstances and conditions of the New Jerusalem. Well, anyway, whether you look at creation, the Church or the New Jerusalem, there is some question about the appropriateness of these models for Christian politics in our fallen world today. My second hesitation about Mao's general method of doing Christian politics has to do with Mao offering an ideal vision for Christian involvement in the state rather than particular guidance, particular directives. That is, I think he's overly general and not nearly specific enough as to what the Bible tells us. And let me give you some examples of how he insists on having, if you will, this ideal vision, this general pattern for involvement, rather than going to the Bible and getting particulars from the Bible. On page 12 of his book, he says, if we cannot derive answers to fundamental questions about society and politics by strict deduction or inference from the Bible, neither can we set the Scriptures aside as irrelevant to our reflections on these matters. We must attempt to speak about political matters out of minds and hearts disciplined by the Word of God. Our political thoughts must be developed to the point where they are fitting ones for people who confess obedience to the will of God. We must engage in a very complex conversation in the presence of the Word. We must listen to what is going on in the political realm on this page. He says we can't get answers to fundamental questions by strict deduction from the Bible. We must rather do is make sure our minds are informed by the Bible. We have a general biblical orientation to things, and that we carry on then a complex conversation about the facts in the presence of the Word of God, which is a rather poetic way of saying that we always keep in mind the Bible's out there in the presence of God's Word and how it directs us, but that you could deduce strictly an answer to a political question isn't willing to Go with that. On page 69 of his book, he says. God has spoken to human beings. As a consequence, his people cannot help being a speaking, proclaiming people. We may often speak too much or misleadingly, but that does not mean that we are wrong in thinking that we are called to speak on God's behalf. Furthermore, God has addressed himself to the totality of human existence and experience. He has spoken a word which has application to politics, among other things. And so we must speak about politics. We must attempt to articulate a faithful message for the political realm. That's rather vague and I think rather unhelpful just to say we have to attempt to articulate a faithful message. But how do you do that? And what kind of message will it be? Well, on page 83 he says it's one that will not offer specific guidance. Page 83, Okay. On page 82, he mentions the hopelessly complicated mission that we've been given in this world. The mission to carry a faithful message to God is a complicated situation, and he seems to conclude this chapter. This is at the end of the chapter saying that the call to engage in the Church's complex mission can also be met with a kind of comfort. The one who issues this call is himself a complex Lord. He has approached us as the proclaimer of a word, a servant lord and a king who brings disciplined healing to our brokenness. But our experience is of a God who is the self, same one throughout all of these things. It is because of this experience of a God whose redemptive mission to us is a complex unity that our required response, which might at first glance see to be a matter that will be plagued with confusion and fragmentation, can be instead the occasion for an ever expanding awareness of the riches of his grace. What we have here, then, is a task that is so complex that we retreat to a generalized and internal comfort that God in some way is going to articulate a faithful Word through us. In page 138, he affirms the ambiguity of Christian politics as he sees it when he says we would not deny the tensions and ambiguities involved in the perspective we have been developing. Indeed, we would insist that these tensions and ambiguities, properly understood similar ones in God's own attitude toward the present condition of his creation. To put it in another way, our attitudes toward present day institutions and cultural patterns must be neither more optimistic than God's nor less optimistic. What he says is, I'm insisting here that we have something of an ambiguous stance on politics because of the tensions and ambiguities in the world around us, and that these tensions and ambiguities actually reflect God's tensions and ambiguities with respect to the political world that he sees too. So my point is that Mao does not offer particulars, concrete directives for the state, but offers us rather an ideal vision, and that in the midst of that, there's going to be a lot of vagueness and a lot of tension and a lot of ambiguity. My first hesitation was the appropriateness of the models he used. God has spoken to human beings. As a consequence, his people cannot help being a spirit, speaking, proclaiming people. We may often speak too much or misleadingly, but that does not mean that we are wrong in thinking that we are called to speak on God's behalf. Furthermore, God has addressed himself to the totality of human existence and experience. He has spoken a word which has application to politics, among other things. And so we must speak about politics. We must attempt to articulate a faithful message for the political realm that's rather vague and, I think, rather unhelpful just to say we have to attempt to articulate a faithful message. But how do you do that? And what kind of message will it be? Well, on page 83, he says it's one that will not offer specific guidance. Page 83, Okay. On page 82, he mentions the hopelessly complicated mission that we've been given in this world, the mission to carry a faithful message to God. It's a complicated situation, and he seems to conclude this chapter. This is at the end of a chapter saying that the call to engage in the Church's complex mission can also be met with a kind of comfort. The one who issues this call is himself a complex Lord. He has approached us as the proclaimer of a word, a servant lord and a king who brings disciplined healing to our brokenness. But our experience is of a God who is the self, same one throughout all of these things. It is because of this experience of a God whose redemptive mission to us is a complex unity, that our required response, which might at first glance see, seem to be a matter that will be plagued with confusion and fragmentation, can be instead the occasion for an ever expanding awareness of the riches of his grace. What we have here, then, is a task that is so complex that we retreat to a generalized and internal comfort that God in some way is going to articulate a faithful word through us. And page 138, he affirms the ambiguity of Christian politics as he sees it when he says we would not deny the tensions and ambiguities involved in the perspective we have been developing. Indeed, we would insist that these tensions and ambiguities, properly understood, reflect similar ones in God's own attitude toward the present condition of his creation. To put it in another way, our attitude, attitudes toward present day institutions and cultural patterns must be neither more optimistic than God's nor less optimistic. What he says is, I'm insisting here that we have something of an ambiguous stance on politics because of the tensions and ambiguities in the world around us, and that these tensions and ambiguities actually reflect God's tensions and ambiguities with respect to the political world that he sees too. Okay, so my point is that Mao does not offer particulars, concrete directives for the State, but offers us rather an ideal vision. And that in the midst of that there's going to be a lot of vagueness and a lot of tension and a lot of ambiguity. My first hesitation was the appropriateness of the model he uses. My second hesitation has to do with the ambiguities and vagueness of what he says. And then thirdly, I believe that Miles point of view leads to some rather questionable conclusions. That even if you don't have difficulty with the method of using models that aren't really given by God as models for present day state, and even if it doesn't bother you, there's a good deal of ambiguity and vagueness in how he draws his conclusions. Rather than looking to particular applications from the Bible, we can at least say that the consequences of Mao's point of view, the conclusions that he draws, are rather questionable. And I think a leading example of this is what I call the liberty ideal. The Liberty ideal Mao holds that we as Christians should not believe in the enforcement of morality, we should not believe in enforcement of morality. We should rather hold that the state should interfere in the activities of men and punish men only when men are infringing on the liberties of others. So if a man attacks his next door neighbor is going to kill him. That would be infringing on the liberty of the next door neighbor. And the state has the right to intervene, or in the case of rape or kidnapping or arson or perjury. Affairs like these infringe on the liberties and privileges and rights of others. However, the state should not enforce laws against homosexuality. Laws against people who are engaged in victimless crimes, for instance, perverse acts between consenting adults is not a proper matter for the state's jurisdiction. Because the liberty ideal is to be maintained. The state only interferes when people's liberty is being infringed. Now, I've argued against the liberty ideal in the chapter on society or in the state in my book on homosexuality, and we'll be looking at this a little bit later in our course as well. But I believe the liberty ideal is not the Christian ideal for politics. That liberty is not the soul are the highest value in Christian politics, but obedience to the directives of God, righteousness and justice are the highest priorities. And therefore, if Mao's point of view leads him to endorse the liberty ideal, that in turn reflects his theological method as a Christian, I believe. Okay, I told you just briefly, in broad strokes, what Mao's method is the paradigmatic and teleological method of finding themes in the biblical drama of history and drawing vague inferences from particular questions. I've said that I have trouble with it because I don't think the models he uses are appropriate always. I think that his use of a vague vision instead of drawing particulars from the Bible leads us to ambiguity. And thirdly, there are conclusions he draws which are rather questionable. Before I go on and say more about Mal, what would you like to ask in that debate with Dr. North, did he use the same approach, and how did he answer? I do believe that the debate that Dr. Mao had with Gary north illustrates his method. He talked about what it meant to be a sojourner to take a He used a particular biblical image or metaphor and tried to draw out its implications for our attitude toward the poor. And I don't think that's completely illicit to do that sort of thing. The Bible teaches us in a lot of different ways, and that's one of the ways the Bible teaches us. The problem is that that method is very inexact. You have to be careful that you're using proper models, that you're focusing on the elements that the Bible wants to teach by way of these models or metaphors, and that your inferences are good inferences that are conforming to what the Bible teaches elsewhere and stuff like that. But I don't recall that Dr. North specifically talked about malice in hermeneutic, if you will, the way he goes to the Bible and finds political direction. We know how Doyvir goes to the Bible, right? Dober goes for a word of power. The Bible should grip us. And if we get into the ground motive, into the grip of the themes of creation, fall and redemption, then we can go out there and apply our cosmonomic scheme and ideas of the state to our concrete political situation. We do so in the grip of the Bible's message. Now, Mao is a step better than that, it seems to me. Mao says it's not just the gripping power of scripture, but the drama of Scripture. When we look at what God says about the state with respect to creation, with respect to fall, redemption and consummation, that we get guidance, we get ideals. And there's a limited sense in which that is true. However, the problem is how do you get particulars? How do you draw specific conclusions from that? How does this give you concrete guidance? And especially I have questions about that method when it can be used to draw what I think are contrary to Scripture applications for politics. And we're going to go on and study another approach to the Bible as informing Christian politics. But before I do that, I would like to survey very quickly Mao's book, chapter by chapter, pointing out some good things and some questionable things in it, because if you read it at all, it will be after I'm gone. And so I'd like to leave some notes to guide your reflections when you get to it. Mao points out in chapter one. This is going to be somewhat random remarks going through my reading of Mao to help you. In chapter one, Mao discusses the need for mindful activism. Mindful activism. And by that he means that our Christian approach to politics shouldn't be interested just in motivation people to get out in the world and do something, but we should be patient enough to do a study of the issues so that when we do go out in the world and get engaged in changing the situation, that it's going to be a result of mindful activism, an example of mindful activism, rather than mindless, ignorant, and therefore misled activism. And I think those are very good remarks. Pages seven and eight. And then Val also has some good remarks in pages 9 through 11 on the impossibility of apolitical theology. He discusses how some theologians want a theology that's devoid of politics. And he says if you study the biblical models, you know, Christ is a king, for instance. You can't get away from saying political things. You're to say things of political import in your theology if you're true to the Bible. I agree with him on pages 11 to 12 that the Bible is not a textbook of theology, even though you cannot do biblical theology without talking about politics. He discusses the impossibility of apolitical theology, but then qualifies that, saying that the Bible is not a textbook of politics. It's not a systematic treatment, an exhaustive treatment of politics. I would agree with that. He adds as well that our political stance cannot come simply from reading the Bible, that we must also listen critically to the world. And you'll know from our course on the teleological or consequential approach to ethics that that is true, that when we develop a Christian political, political stance, we must know what the world is about, what the facts of our situation are, how things work in the world, what the means to end relationships are. So we have to study the Bible, not as a textbook, but we must study the political implications of the Bible, and we must study what the world is saying and bring these into relationship. Okay? The ethical method of Mao is seen to be teleological. If you look at pages 15 to 20, pages 15 to 20 in his book, he brings up some current questions in political thinking on pages 15 to 18. And those questions deal particularly with the goal and the means of politics, especially in an age of disillusionment, in an age that has had its dreams shattered so often. What is the goal for the state? And what means can the state use to enforce its authority? And then in pages 18 to 20, he says that the Bible, which is going to shape the Christian answer to the question of the goal and means of politics. The Bible is seen as a drama in four stages. The biblical drama unfolds as creation, man's fall, God's redemption of man, and then the new heavens and new earth, the consummation. So there on those pages, you see quite explicitly that his approach is going to be to find answers about the state, its goal and means in terms of the drama that Scripture gives us, the teleological or situational perspective, and ethics. In chapter two. Now he begins with three questions for political philosophy. What is the relationship of the state to human nature? What is the purpose of the state? And what is the basis of our obligation to the state? Now, we've done some work generally in this area already yesterday when we traced the various political philosophies through history. Mao is raising these questions for us. And he says that the Christian has to answer those particular questions about the relationship to human nature, the purpose of the state, and the basis of our obligation in four stages. In four stages. And he's already given, of course, those four stages in the biblical drama. It says in each stage, the way we answer is going to be somewhat conditioned by the new circumstances or the conditioned environment in which man lives. The book of Genesis, according to Mao, gives us hints, gives us hints as to what our view should be of the state. And these hints are later seen. Made more explicit later are developed, if you will. When we lose something that God originally has given us in creation and then are restored through redemption to that Genesis gives us that creation hints of what the state should be. We lose that to fall, and redemption begins to show us what it was that we've been needing all along. And so the aim for Christian politics is going to be to discern God's creative purposes, to discern the ideals that God has for the state. Okay. When Mao looks at the created order, considers a couple of questions. First of all, what is the basis for social arrangements? Are social arrangements just egoistically instrumental? Do they exist just to help us as individual people? Or is there some intrinsic value in social arrangements? And the data he offers to answer this question is Eve's creation. Eve was not created, he says, just for Adam's convenience. And therefore social arrangements are not merely egoistically instrumental, a means to an end, but there's intrinsic value in our social relations, and that should help us make decisions about the social relationship of the state too. And then he says the image of God is further data for answering the question about the basis for social arrangements. He goes on to the question of the purpose of social structures. And he says that a glimpse of God's intended social condition, what God intends for the social condition of man, can be found in the Garden of Eden. If that's true, if a glimpse is given of God's purpose for social structures in the Garden of Eden, then we can rule out the view that social relations are unnatural and that they are imposed on us to an original state of war. That is, we can rule out the view of Hobbes that the state comes in to overcome the difficulties in the state of nature. Secondly, Mao says we mustn't expunge the individual by absorbing him into the complexity of the larger social unit. If we look at the creation account, we see that the individual has an individual dignity and is not to be just obliterated as he's absorbed into the larger social unit. So that sociality is both a human feature and it's something that we have, a characteristic we have before God. The individual is not to be absorbed by a social unit. Thirdly, Mao says the capacity for social relations can be exercised properly, positively or negatively. So there must be social interdependence. And when there's not social interdependence, what we have is sin and hell. And again, you see how he has this general model that sin and hell mean no interdependence socially, and therefore it's sinful in the world around us, not to try to get along in the political realm, to have interdependence in our. Our social arrangements. And finally, he says, in the created order there was no natural hierarchy among human beings. And since there was no natural hierarchy before sin, there was no coercion to be used. Therefore, coercion is not an end in itself for politics today. We begin to see then how he looks at the data of creation. Eve's creation, Adam's individual dignity before God, the lack of high hierarchy, what sin is, how hell comes into the picture through lack of interdependence. And he tries to draw from that then social and political conclusions. Also in this chapter, Mao has an extended discussion of whether there was a political order prior to the Fall. And I think you'll find that interesting reading. I won't go over it for you. He says that Gordon Clark argues that there was no political order because he said, essential to politics is the idea of restraint and coercion. Whereas Kuyper said that there would be an administrative need for a political order before the Fall, even apart from coercion and sin. And Mao favors the Kuiperian approach and I favor Clark's approach for the reasons that we've discussed previously. I'm not convinced that you would have had to have regulations prior to the Fall at all that were administered, followed by the state. We're going to run out of time here if I don't step up the pace of this. Let me just make a few quick remarks about the remaining chapters. I've given you some idea of how Mao proceeds to present his case for Christian politics in Chapter two. Let me just point out some critical things in Chapter two, the one that we've just been looking at. He says that there could be government before the fall of man. And my argument would be that there is no civil government before the fall of man. Because government is precisely the use of sanctions when people won't follow regulations. The following of regulations is not what we consider social government. It's the backing of those regulations with sanctions that makes it civil government. There might have been a government before the Fall, that is a governing of interpersonal relationships, say by fathers of families or something like that. However, there would have been no civil government apart from civil enforcement of those regulations. Secondly, I think Mao's discussion of the image of God is theologically inadequate. I think it's interesting, but he doesn't go far enough in resolving that question. And then I've already opposed this question. Is the unfallen society at the time of creation, our ideal for politics in a fallen world. Is it appropriate to look at the unfallen world and draw conclusions about the fallen world's politics? In chapter three, Mao does have something of a criticism of capitalism's apologetic. Capitalism's apologetic. And I would just point out that what he presents as the apologetic for capitalism is not the strongest case or the strongest form of the argument that can be or has been presented for capitalism. And therefore he's criticizing a weaker opponent than he should. He really should take up capitalism in its better forms of argumentation. And I don't think it's necessary for there to be universal egoism in order for the restraints that capitalism insist upon simply for some avaricious people. He portrays capitalism as being predators upon universal egoism. And I'm not sure that that's an accurate premise. I don't think you have to make universal egoism essential to capitalism in order to put restraints on people. The idea is that, well, capitalists say everybody's selfish, and that's why the state should restrain, should not allow one group of people to take from another group of people, should protect private property. But there's a better way of presenting capitalism than that. And in chapter three, I think you'll begin to see also how Mao draws maximal conclusions from what you will consider minimal exegesis and some rather ambiguous generalities. That is, you would get a general model that he presents some ambiguous generalities and slogans, almost premises, and then he draws some very important maximal conclusions from it. In chapter four, as I've said, you find the church taken as a model for politics, the Church taken as a model for the state, and I think that's a mixing of apples and oranges. Also in chapter four, you have the insistence by Mao that our political stance must be vague and ambiguous. And then in on pages 78 to 80, Mao endorses the liberty ideal, the idea that we don't want to go out there and enforce morality just for the sake of enforcing morality, that we should simply enforce punishment against crimes, against the freedom and safety of individuals. As I've said on page 83, he says that there is no specific guidance to be offered, that we only have general guidance to bring to bear on our political situation. Well, those are the things I had in my notes to discuss for you. I'm sorry that we've had to hurry so much, but I do want to conclude this course on time, and therefore we'll leave it at that. Dojevaird and now Richard Mao. And when we come back, I'll want to say some things about dispensationalism and Culver and then get into the Puritan ideal for politics.