"Long Live the Law" Article in CT with Some Thoughts

There is a great article in the March issue of Christianity Today (March 2009) entitled, "Long Live the Law." Uncharacteristic words for Christians right! In this context Neff compares the political philosophy of John Calvin and Dick Cheney as to the role of law and the government.

Calving argues that leaders are appointed by God and must live by God's standards. Neff makes the argument that "every human duty implies a corresponding liberty needed to fulfill that duty. And it is the duty of rulers to protect those liberties."

What I find interesting is the importance of the relating the religious duty within the political sphere. The idea that the Sabbath could only be kept where the law allowed/mandated people not to work is astounding. This profundity is not minor. As a believer considers the NT imperatives, one must recognize the need for a political institution to allow the free practice of these commands. Where a government does not allow the free practice to the NT commands, the defiance of the law is warranted.

This is not a new concept for many American believers since the prooftext of "obeying God rather than men" is often quoted (Acts 5:39). What is interesting is not just the response of individual believers that is warranted, but for the what that means about one's government. If one accepts Calvin/Luther's 2 Kingdom model of Church and State, then when a government does not allow the free practice of biblical commands it is not ordained of God as Calvin said. Thus, the government "practices blasphemous tryranny," which does place a responsibility for believers not merely to obey privately but perhaps publicly to take civil means to remove it. Samuel Rutherford, the Scottish theologian and close friend of my friend Will Lee :), argued for force as a means of people restoring the rights of the people.

In following the logic short of Rutherford, it seems to me that Christian involvement in the public square is incumbent any time the commands of Scripture are challenged in such a way that the free practice of is hindered.