RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I have been reading the Southern Presbyterians for 3 years, off and on. At one time I could quote many of Dabney's letters by memory. I have seen both in the Southern Presbyterians: 1) Spirituality of the Church; and 2) an intense regard for social righteousness.
It seems that many want to go back to (1) while disregarding (2).
I will try to examine several themes:
A. Does "spirituality of the church" imply passive acceptance of status quo morality, since "Christ's kingdom is not of this world?" Must the church remain silent on issues of social morality?
B. Apropos (A), is there a contradiction between (A) and Christian citizens, acting in their office and function in the secular sphere, applying the same morality (moral law, general equity, Republican Party Platform, whatever) in the "secular" sphere?
I would like to suggest, especially in light of the quotations below, that there is no contradiction.
James Henley Thornwell
Thornwell is often asserted as a proponent of "spirituality of the church," such being defined as keeping the Church out of social morality. Of course I, more ardently than any, strive for the distinction between Church and State, but this, and I think Thornwell would agree, does not imply a separation between morality--Reformed Christian morality--and the State.
Thus Thornwell could argue,
The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. 4 (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1881), pp. 552-553.
Thornwell earlier argued that
Now Thornwell ends with a hammer-blow that sounds Bahnsen-esque:
vol. 4, p. 556.
What was Thornwell's view on the Constitution?
vol. 4, p.549.
It gets better.
We venture respectfully to suggest, that it is not enough for a State which enjoys the light of Divine revelation to acknowledge in general terms the supremacy of God; it must also acknowledge the Supremacy of His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds...He is the ruler of the nations, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
vol. 4, p.551.
I have an essay by Sean Michael Lucas ("Southern Fried Kuyper") where he compares Kuyper and Dabney's views on Church-State relations. I will try to add that in tonight.
It seems that many want to go back to (1) while disregarding (2).
I will try to examine several themes:
A. Does "spirituality of the church" imply passive acceptance of status quo morality, since "Christ's kingdom is not of this world?" Must the church remain silent on issues of social morality?
B. Apropos (A), is there a contradiction between (A) and Christian citizens, acting in their office and function in the secular sphere, applying the same morality (moral law, general equity, Republican Party Platform, whatever) in the "secular" sphere?
I would like to suggest, especially in light of the quotations below, that there is no contradiction.
James Henley Thornwell
Thornwell is often asserted as a proponent of "spirituality of the church," such being defined as keeping the Church out of social morality. Of course I, more ardently than any, strive for the distinction between Church and State, but this, and I think Thornwell would agree, does not imply a separation between morality--Reformed Christian morality--and the State.
Thus Thornwell could argue,
But if by "accepting the Scriptures" it is meant that the State may itself believe them to be true, and regulate its own conduct and legislation in conformity with their teachings, the answer must be in the affirmative.
The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. 4 (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1881), pp. 552-553.
Thornwell earlier argued that
vol. 4, p. 550....all just government is the ordinance of God, and magistrates are his ministers who must answer to him for the execution of their trusts
Now Thornwell ends with a hammer-blow that sounds Bahnsen-esque:
...no law shall be passed by Congress...inconsistent with the will of God, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
vol. 4, p. 556.
What was Thornwell's view on the Constitution?
But gentlemen, we are constrained, in candour, to say that, in our humble judgment, the Constitution, admirable as it is in many respects, still labours under one capital defect. It is not distinctively Christian.
vol. 4, p.549.
It gets better.
We venture respectfully to suggest, that it is not enough for a State which enjoys the light of Divine revelation to acknowledge in general terms the supremacy of God; it must also acknowledge the Supremacy of His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds...He is the ruler of the nations, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
vol. 4, p.551.
I have an essay by Sean Michael Lucas ("Southern Fried Kuyper") where he compares Kuyper and Dabney's views on Church-State relations. I will try to add that in tonight.