Two days ago for my QT, I was reading out of 1 Samuel 1. The part I'd like to draw attention to was verses 12 to 18. "As [Hannah] continued praying before the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips moved, and her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli took her to be a drunken woman" (vv. 1, 2). It struck me.
I said that a week ago I'd have posted a response to Piper. I haven't yet. (Obviously.) I started writing a response, but then didn't follow through because I was feeling convicted. I rushed to disagree with a brother in the faith (namely, John Piper), when I should have shown patience. I had written that I disagreed with Piper on when the authorities should use coercion to enforce biblical morality. As I was writing the follow-up post, I reflected more carefully on what Piper had written. I realized that I agreed with him. Like Eli, assuming that Hannah was a drunk, I assumed that Piper believed something foolish. I'm sorry for not serving you with more humility and graciousness. I will now elaborate.
Two weeks ago, I quoted Piper as saying, "[T]he Bible shows that we should not turn all of its commands into law. So [the] question boils down to, Well, which ones then? ... The way it works practically is that for the laws where we can get overwhelming consensus in the culture we're going to use coercion [(i.e., get the authorities to intervene)]." At first thought, I interpreted it as him saying that unless society seems to be going in that direction, we should not seek secular authority to enforce biblical morality on that issue. Which seems foolish. If that were the case, I would have asked whether William Wilberforce was in the wrong for going against the grain of society in trying to abolish slavery.
As I thought about it, I imagined in my mind a possible response the Piper could have given me: "I think that Wilberforce is as justified in his efforts against slavery, as I am in my attempts to raise awareness of the atrocity of (the attack on the glory of God in) abortion" (the bracketed bit is unnecessary, but it gives it a more Piper-esque tone). So he and I agree. The Church should point out errors in the worldview that the world around it is undertaking, and try to pursuade all that it is wrong, but never demand that it be enforced. I'm using the word "demand" here in a very specific way. The Church should strongly, persistently and convincingly argue that the state enforce an issue of biblical morality. However, the Church dare not expect that the government enforce the Church's morality based on her authority. The Church should work through democracy, not derail democracy and form some sort of theocracy.
--
On the issue of policy, but not related to my previous post, I offer two new resources that I've found. The first is a lecture given by Dr. Russell Moore on the essential doctrines the Church must think through and apply as prerequisites before engaging in shaping politics. For example, he intimated that it is essential the eschatology (doctrine of end times) of the Church be thought through thoroughly. That is to say, it is important to know whether the Bible says that the Kingdom of God is completely here, in which case, the Church should reign, claiming Christ's authority, or whether the Kingdom of God has now and not yet aspects to it (i.e., the Church is a taste of the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom won't be fully realized until Satan is finally defeated and the beatific vision [Re. 21-22] comes to be), in which case, the Church should be in the world (as Jesus was in the world) but not of the world. It's a good talk, although, it's not an easy lecture. I was writing thank you cards while listening to it and some of it went over my head.
Secondly, Southern had a debate on the application of the doctrine of the separation of Church and state. I haven't listened to any of it yet, but I am very much so looking forward to doing so. Hopefully it will give some good insights as to what morality is appropriate to bring into the public sphere. (E.g., should adultery every be suggested as something that the state should use its authority to prevent?)
I said that a week ago I'd have posted a response to Piper. I haven't yet. (Obviously.) I started writing a response, but then didn't follow through because I was feeling convicted. I rushed to disagree with a brother in the faith (namely, John Piper), when I should have shown patience. I had written that I disagreed with Piper on when the authorities should use coercion to enforce biblical morality. As I was writing the follow-up post, I reflected more carefully on what Piper had written. I realized that I agreed with him. Like Eli, assuming that Hannah was a drunk, I assumed that Piper believed something foolish. I'm sorry for not serving you with more humility and graciousness. I will now elaborate.
Two weeks ago, I quoted Piper as saying, "[T]he Bible shows that we should not turn all of its commands into law. So [the] question boils down to, Well, which ones then? ... The way it works practically is that for the laws where we can get overwhelming consensus in the culture we're going to use coercion [(i.e., get the authorities to intervene)]." At first thought, I interpreted it as him saying that unless society seems to be going in that direction, we should not seek secular authority to enforce biblical morality on that issue. Which seems foolish. If that were the case, I would have asked whether William Wilberforce was in the wrong for going against the grain of society in trying to abolish slavery.
As I thought about it, I imagined in my mind a possible response the Piper could have given me: "I think that Wilberforce is as justified in his efforts against slavery, as I am in my attempts to raise awareness of the atrocity of (the attack on the glory of God in) abortion" (the bracketed bit is unnecessary, but it gives it a more Piper-esque tone). So he and I agree. The Church should point out errors in the worldview that the world around it is undertaking, and try to pursuade all that it is wrong, but never demand that it be enforced. I'm using the word "demand" here in a very specific way. The Church should strongly, persistently and convincingly argue that the state enforce an issue of biblical morality. However, the Church dare not expect that the government enforce the Church's morality based on her authority. The Church should work through democracy, not derail democracy and form some sort of theocracy.
--
On the issue of policy, but not related to my previous post, I offer two new resources that I've found. The first is a lecture given by Dr. Russell Moore on the essential doctrines the Church must think through and apply as prerequisites before engaging in shaping politics. For example, he intimated that it is essential the eschatology (doctrine of end times) of the Church be thought through thoroughly. That is to say, it is important to know whether the Bible says that the Kingdom of God is completely here, in which case, the Church should reign, claiming Christ's authority, or whether the Kingdom of God has now and not yet aspects to it (i.e., the Church is a taste of the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom won't be fully realized until Satan is finally defeated and the beatific vision [Re. 21-22] comes to be), in which case, the Church should be in the world (as Jesus was in the world) but not of the world. It's a good talk, although, it's not an easy lecture. I was writing thank you cards while listening to it and some of it went over my head.
Secondly, Southern had a debate on the application of the doctrine of the separation of Church and state. I haven't listened to any of it yet, but I am very much so looking forward to doing so. Hopefully it will give some good insights as to what morality is appropriate to bring into the public sphere. (E.g., should adultery every be suggested as something that the state should use its authority to prevent?)
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment