Critique of Tim Keller's Center Church: Part 1, Introduction (Pg. 13-25)

INTRODUCTION

Pg. 13-25

I.  Overview.

The Introduction to Keller's book Center Church is divided into seven different sections with headers.  They are:

1.  SUCCESSFUL, FAITHFUL, OR FRUITFUL? (13-14)
2.  THE "SECRET" OF REDEEMER'S SUCCESS (14-16)
3.  HARDWARE, MIDDLEWARE, SOFTWARE (16-17)
4.  THEOLOGICAL VISION (17-19)
5.  WHY A WHOLE BOOK ON THEOLOGICAL VISION? (19-21)
6.  CENTER CHURCH (21-23)
7.  THE BALANCE OF THREE AXES (23-24)

1.  SUCCESSFUL, FAITHFUL, OR FRUITFUL? (PG. 13-14)
In the first section, Keller introduces us to his book with the observation that there are two criteria churches and ministers have traditionally used to evaluate ministries.  One way is to measure the success of a ministry through the numbers of people it reaches.  In this view, both the number of conversions and the size of the crowds reveal if a ministry is doing what it is supposed to be doing.  "In reaction to this emphasis on quantifiable success," says Keller, "many have countered that the only true criterion for ministers is faithfulness.  All that matters in this view is that a minister be sound in doctrine, godly in character, and faithful in preaching and in pastoring people."

Keller attempts to show the weakness of both of these views by themselves and then offers a third view for evaluating ministry:  fruitfulness.  Keller points out a few Bible verses about the meaning and significance of bearing fruit and then uses 1 Corinthians 3:9 to illustrate the "pastoral nurture of congregations as a form of gardening:"

The gardening metaphor shows that both success and faithfulness by themselves are insufficient criteria for evaluating ministry.  Gardeners must be faithful in their work, but they must also be skillful, or the garden will fail.  Yet in the end, the degree of the success of the garden (or the ministry) is determined by factors beyond the control of the gardener.  (pg. 13)

Keller concludes that the measurement of fruitfulness is needed to hold ministers accountable without the "crushing" and unrealistic expectations of large crowds and big buildings.

2.  THE SECRET OF REDEEMER'S SUCCESS (PG. 14-16)
In this section, Keller talks about his transition from Westminster Seminary to Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan.  Because of their early success in reaching people in a hard-to-reach place, he began offering conferences on Redeemer's principles of ministry for the purpose of sharing with others their everyday experience of gospel work in Manhattan.

Keller distinguishes between two different types of books that ordinarily get written for ministries.  The first type of book lays down a Biblical and theological foundation for ministry building and can be a regurgitation of what many pastors learned in seminary.  The second type of book can more or less be described as a self-help book for ministries who are trying to get themselves off the ground.  In either case, Keller explains why neither one by itself hits the target every time.  He articulates the difference between those two type of books and the type of book Center Church aims to be.

Keller recounts his initial frustration which came because more often than not what people were hoping to glean from him were the "secrets" to a successful ministry program (as is found in the second type of book).  They wanted to erect Redeemer's model in their own home towns and have it become just as successful.  Keller explains why such was impossible:

During these years of conferences, it became clear that the real "secret of Redeemer's fruitfulness did not lie in its ministry programs but in something that functioned at a deeper level.  What was important for observers to grasp was not so much the particular ministry expression but the way in which we arrived at the expressions we used at Redeemer.  We had thought long and hard about the character and implications of the gospel and then long and hard about the culture of New York City, about the sensibilities of both Christians and non-Christians in our midst, and about the emotional and intellectual landscape of the center city.  It was the character of that analysis and decision-making process rather than its specific products that was critical to the fruitfulness of our ministry in a global city center.  (pg. 15-16)

3.  HARDWARE, MIDDLEWARE, SOFTWARE (PG. 16-17)
Here Keller explains that most pastors just focus on their hardware (theology) and their software (practice).  There is, however, another aspect that gets overlooked.  In-between hardware and software is what he describes as middleware.  It is "the space where we reflect on our theology and our culture to understand how both of them can shape our ministry."  In other words, one should consider their theology plus their cultural setting in order to determine what ministry practices they should have.  This can be simplified by saying:

Theology + Culture = Ministry Forms

4.  THEOLOGICAL VISION (PG. 17-19)

In the section under this heading, Keller completely abandons the term "middleware" only to replace it with the term "theological vision."  As near as I can tell, one's theological vision is essentially the same thing as one's middleware.  According to Keller, "a theological vision is a vision for what you are going to do with your doctrine in a particular time and place . . . It is a faithful restatement of the gospel with rich implications for life, ministry, and mission in a type of culture at a moment in history."  In Keller's view, a lack of theological vision is one of the key reasons churches and ministries fail at being fruitful.  He insists that in order to be fruitful we must determine the way in which the gospel can best challenge the culture.

5.  WHY A WHOLE BOOK ON THEOLOGICAL VISION? (PG. 19-21)
Keller has written a book about theological vision because it became more and more important for him to plant churches that were unlike Redeemer Presbyterian Church in its particulars, but shared a similar theological vision.  He felt strongly that a solid theological vision needed to be articulated.

6.  CENTER CHURCH (PG. 21-23)
Keller identifies his personal theological vision as "Center Church" because the gospel is at its center, the center is the place of balance, it is shaped by and for urban and cultural centers, and the theological vision is at the center of ministry.  The Center Church theological vision can be best expressed in three basic commitments:

A.  Gospel.  Keller's theological vision emphasizes the gospel over other doctrines that tend to divide or distract us from what is really important.

B.  City.  Within the framework of a Center Church theological vision churches have to be able to balance loving, knowing, and reaching out to their local community with challenging and critiquing it at the same time.

C.  Movement.   This has to do with a church's relationship to its surroundings (the community, the church's history, the ecumenical church, and other ministries).

7.  THE BALANCE OF THREE AXES (23-24)
Imagine the Center Church theological vision's three basic commitments as three axes.  There's a gospel axis, a city axis, and a movement axis.

A.  Gospel Axis.  In the center of legalism (justification by works) and antinomianism ("we're saved, we can live how we want") is the real gospel.  A Center Church theological vision fixes on this center.

B.  City Axis.  A Center Church  theological vision does not stand in constant judgment of its surrounding culture, nor does it always accept the culture by adopting the culture's gods as its own.  The Center Church stands in balance, reaching out to culture and confronting it in love.

C.  Movement Axis.   Somewhere between a church that finds solace in structure, organization, tradition and authority and a church that revels in its fluidity and unity is the Center Church.

Keller's premise is that the more a church's theological vision conforms to the Center Church, the more fruitful it will be.

II.  What to like.
In the first section, Keller does a good job dispelling the notion that success is equivalent with godliness or rightness.  Like Keller, I, too, have been annoyed for too long by ministries and pastors being evaluated solely on their "success" and numbers.


III.  What not to like. 
Keller gives a brief description of fruitfulness by pointing to a few disconnected Bible verses, but he never defines fruitfulness.  This might sound like a petty critique, but the question, "What is fruitfulness?" is of utmost importance if one is using fruitfulness as a standard for evaluating ministries.  First, Keller references verses which, he infers, applies to professional ministers, not the whole body of Christ.  Second, even assuming that Keller does know what fruitfulness is, it is nonetheless irresponsible these days to throw around a significant theological term and expect everyone to be on the same page as to its meaning.  James Montgomery Boice's remarks in The Gospel of John are to the point:

At this point we should probably talk about the real meaning of fruitfulness, for if we fail to do that or if we define fruit wrongly, we are inevitably going to discourage some Christians, which we should not do.  Let me explain what I mean.  If we begin with a phrase like Paul's words of expectation in writing to the Romans - "that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles" (Rom. 1:13) - and if we therefore identify the fruit of the Christian life with converts to Christ, then we will discourage any who, for whatever reason, do not see many come to the Lord.  And we will discourage those who, because of sickness or old age or whatever unfavorable circumstances, are unable to do much and who are therefore made to feel they are useless.  (pg. 1172)

So what is fruitfulness?

Jesus says in John 15:1-11:

1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. (ESV)

Jesus is the vine.  We are the branches.  But the branch is dead if it does not "abide" in the vine (15:4-6).  Jesus uses the word "abide" 11 times in John 15.  What does it mean to abide in him?  Jesus does not leave us guessing.  "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love" (15:10).  Our abiding in Him, our fruitfulness, is conditioned upon our obeying God's commands.  Fruitfulness is a life lived in obedience to the whole counsel and word of God (Eph. 5:9). It is the obedience to God's law.

We learn this in Galatians 5:19-23 where we see that the fruits of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control - Gal. 5:22-23) are are held up in comparison to the works of the flesh (sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these - Gal. 5:19-21), all of which are acts strictly forbidden in God's law. By contrast, the fruits of the Spirit are all acts that "against such things there is no law" (Gal. 5:23). In other words, sin marks the man in the flesh and obedience to God's word is the mark of the man in the Spirit.

This should be sufficient in helping to define fruitfulness for now.  I would like to prove this point even further, but time will not permit me to do so here.  For the time being, suffice it to say that one cannot understand fruitfulness apart from obedience to God.  I wish Keller would have pointed this out or clarified in some way what fruitfulness is.  The fact that he does not do so is curious.

Even more curious, though, is this: faithfulness is a much broader term than fruitfulness because anyone can be faithful to anything.  Biblically speaking, however, faithfulness to God on the part of the believer also refers to obedience to God's law.  According to Stuart Sacks in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, faithfulness is "more than momentary assent to the truth of God.  It is commitment to that truth, and it manifests itself in continued obedience" (vol. II; pg. 765).  Therefore, Christians are to be fruitful, but the way in which this is achieved is through our faithfulness to the totality of God's word.

Jesus says that "no good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit" (Luke 6:43).  That is to say, those who are faithful to God's word (good trees) will not bear bad fruit or be unfruitful.  In fact, Jesus identifies who those good trees are a few verses later when he compares those who obey His words to the one who builds his home on the solid foundation (Luke 6:47-48).  It follows that those who are faithful are those who are fruitful.  Keller asserts:

Those who claim that "what is required is faithfulness" are largely right, but this mind-set can take too much pressure off church leaders.  It does not lead them to ask hard questions when faithful ministries bear little fruit. (pg. 14)

It becomes increasingly clear that what Keller means by faithfulness and fruitfulness is not the same as the Biblical understandings of these terms.  It's important for readers to realize that in denouncing "success" and "faithfulness," when Keller speaks of fruitfulness he is referring to a balanced mix of both success and faithfulness, that is, faithfulness to God and at least some success in the eyes of the world (ie, number of conversions, learning, etc; though he stresses that there should not be huge expectations for the number of lives changed).

Hence, I offer the Keller Formula for Fruitfulness:

The Keller Formula for Fruitfulness

Faithfulness + Worldly Success = Fruitfulness

Keller rejects faithfulness as the sole standard for evaluating a ministry for fruitfulness.  In Biblical terms, as we have seen, fruitfulness is faithfulness.  They are the two sides of God's sanctification coin, which must be earned by the Christian's exertion (not to be confused with God's salvation coin which He gives for free).  Where Keller errs is in his insistence that ministers must be "skillful" in order to be "fruitful."  He is critical of ministers who evangelize but "there is little or no converting" (pg. 13). In fact, his appeal to the gardening metaphor in 1 Corinthians 3:9 is detrimental to his argument. The full context actually says:

6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor.9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. (1 Cor. 3:6-9)

Keller admits that in God's field some ministers plant, some water, and some reap. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that some ministers may not see conversions if they are the ones planting the seeds while other ministers who are "reapers" will see more conversions? Does that mean the seed-planting minister is less faithful or less fruitful? Not at all, for "they will each be rewarded according to their own labor" (1 Cor. 3:8).  Paul repeats this same message at the end of his letter. "Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain" (1 Cor. 15:58).

Not all labor leads to the same number of conversions, but our faithfulness to God's law determines the extent of our reward.  When we are working for God, we are assured that our labor is not in vain.  No one knew this better than Paul who, although may not have been the most "skillful" speaker (2 Cor. 10:10), was faithful to do God's work and was blessed (Acts 20:35).

Hence, in contrast to Keller's formula, I offer the Biblical Formula for Fruitfulness:

The Biblical Formula for Fruitfulness

Faithfulness = Fruitfulness = Success in God's Eyes

IV.  Memorable Quote. 

Preaching is compelling to young secular adults not if preachers use video clips from their favorite movies and dress informally and sound sophisticated, but if the preachers understand their hearts and culture so well that listeners feel the force of the sermon's reasoning, even if in the end they don't agree with it.  (pg. 15)

V.  Conclusion. 
There may be more here to pick apart but since I have not read yet read Center Church in its entirety and am merely reviewing this book as I work my way through it I am going to try to be patient.  My critiques of the major themes in this book will surely unfold as Keller unpacks his version of these ideas in the proceeding chapters.

I have no doubt Keller has written many things in these pages I will agree with that will become useful to me just as I am sure there are many faults in these pages.  I have no strong bias toward or against Keller and intend to critique this book as fairly and honestly as I know how.

Theonomy and Pauline Theology Critique

This post serves to critique Reggie Kidd's article Theonomy and Pauline Theology.

Honestly, I believe this article sorely misrepresents theonomy.  I cannot tell if it was done intentionally or unintentionally, but what Kidd essentially does here is build a straw man and then tear it down. 

In the Introduction, for instance, the only attempt to define theonomy is done by referencing Richard Pratt who vehemently opposes theonomy in the book cited.  But should theonomy be defined by those who oppose it?  

Also, in the section of the article called Paul’s Use of the Law, Kidd states:

Greg Bahnsen, one of the most prominent theonomists, has claimed that Paul's negative pronouncements on the law are aimed at those who abuse the law by attempting "to utilize the works of the law as a basis for saving merit" (Bahnsen 1985, 183). Yet however true these statements are, there is another situational sense in which the law has ended which Bahnsen fails to account for. The law has also ended as a barrier between Jew and Gentile.

So he agrees with Greg Bahnsen’s words but objects on the basis that Bahnsen did not go further to address his concerns.  In other words, the attack is not against what Bahnsen says but against what Bahnsen does not say . . . in this one isolated quote.  Perhaps if Kidd had done a little more research, he would have found Bahnsen’s earlier work where he already addressed this very issue at length.  In Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Bahnsen states:

The ceremonial observations no longer apply, but their meaning and intention have been eternally validated.  The earlier sacrificial ritual was a foreshadow pointing to Christ (Heb. 10:1), and no repetition of a mere shadow can amount to the substantial reality!  That which is the foundation of the new economy, in which the outward performance of the ceremonial ritual is not observed, is the obedience of Christ (cf. Heb. 10:8 f.).  His obedience makes it no longer necessary for us to obey the ceremonial law in the way which the saints living in the period ofexpectation did.  Ephesians 2:14-16 says that Christ has put the principle of commandments contained in ordinances “out of gear.”³  Christ has broken down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles of which the dividing wall in the temple was the symbol.  It should be quite clear that the law which represents enmity and separation between Jews and Gentiles is the ceremonial law, for the moral law does not distinguish between these groups (all men are responsible to the moral law and are condemned under it: Rom. 1-3).  (pg. 207-208)

After seeing that Bahnsen did not “fail to account for” the law ending as a barrier between Jews and Gentiles, I was left wondering if Kidd really disagrees with Bahnsen on this point, since their two positions do not seem that different. 

Kidd states in the Introduction, “the penal sanctions of the Mosaic law, according to theonomists, are still binding today.”  Then, near the end, the point of Kidd’s article begins to emerge:

Both theonomists and other reformed scholars believe that the moral law continues into the present age and the ceremonial law has been abrogated by the coming of Christ, since He has fulfilled those aspects of the law in His priestly ministry. The point of discussion is over how the judicial law should be applied to the present age. It is important to realize that the Mosaic law "was accommodated to the people of God in their particular redemptive-historical setting" (Pratt 1990, 345).

 . . .

 For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).

Dennis Johnson has noted that "in the Deuteronomy contexts this formula, whenever it appears, refers to the execution of those deeds 'worthy of death': idolatry, contempt for judges, false witness, persistent rebellion towards parents, adultery, and kidnapping" (Barker 1990, 181). These crimes were to be punished by purging the offender from the covenant community through his execution. Johnson continues, "Paul applies the same terminology to the new covenant community's judging/purging act of excommunication-- a judgment that is both more severe (since it is 'handing this man over to Satan,' an anticipation of the final judgment), and more gracious (since it envisions a saving outcome to the temporal exercise of church discipline, which may bring about repentance that will lead to rescue from eternal judgment)" (Barker 1990, 181-182). Therefore, it may be safely said that the proper application of those capital offenses of the Mosaic law are properly applied in the church today as excommunication.

Yes!  This is very true.  Dennis Johnson correctly points out the church’s responsibility to “purge the evil person” by way of excommunication.  What I do reject, however, is the false dichotomy erected between this position and that of theonomists.  Does Kidd think theonomists want pastors to stone even their guiltiest congregants?  Responding to Dennis Johnson’s Reformed Critique, Bahnsen has already given an Informed Response in Westminster Seminary on Penology:

In his essay, Johnson later observes Paul’s use of the expulsion language found in some Old Testament penal passages, “Put away the wicked from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13).  Johnson notes that here excommunication is the ecclesiastical expression of that objective.  But is this in any way contrary to what one would expect based upon a theonomic perspective on ethics, though?  Not at all; it rather is exactly what the position would entail.  The church – the covenant community – is unquestionably supposed to seek to remove wickedness from its midst (as the law requires), and the manner in which that is accomplished within the church is excommunication.  Those observations tell us nothing of Paul’s views (positively or negatively) about whether, or the way in which, the civil state should seek the objective of putting away evil from its midst.  Johnson recognizes that it does “not necessarily” follow from this passage that excommunication has replaced the Old Testament civil sanction, and he is correct. 

His further comment that the Old Covenant community had a political order with “authority to purge the community” through the use of capital punishment is not relevant to any argument against theonomic ethics… (pg. 126-127)

What exactly is the difference, then, between the view given by Kidd and that espoused by Bahnsen and other theonomists?  When it comes to 1 Corinthians 5, I cannot see any light between the theonomist view and that of this article or, for that matter, my own view. 

It is my conclusion that in a fair article the author would have done enough research on both sides of this issue that he would not have to take the anti-theonomy side’s word for it.  With respect, Kidd’s bias against theonomy seems to stem largely from his ignorance on the subject.  It is doubtful that, in reality, Kidd and Bahnsen would disagree on much at all.

Kidd states in the Conclusion:

As we walk in the Spirit, we fulfill the law.  This does not mean that the Mosaic law no longer applies to the Christian as a rule of life.  Rather, it means that the law can no longer condemn us (Rom. 8:1) because Christ has satisfied the demands of the law in His life and paid for our sins on the cross, and He has sent us the Holy Spirit, by whom we are empowered to fulfill the law (Rom. 8:2-4).

As before, I see nothing here with which to disagree nor anything that is fundamentally opposed to theonomic doctrine. 

Love is Law

Love is not a bunch of ooey-gooey feelings.  And the definition of love is not abstract.  Matthew 22:36-40 says:

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

This passage should have a very profound impact on how we think of love.  This does not say that loving God and loving your neighbor are the only two laws, or that these are somehow greater in value than other laws of God.  It sums up all the other laws by saying you should love God and love your neighbor.  In other words, love means being obedient to God's law.  If you want to love God you have to keep His Sabbath Day holy and not worship any other Gods.  If you want to love your neighbor you have to refrain from murdering and lying to him.

If I cheat on my wife, I am not loving her.  If I steal from my neighbor, I am not loving him.  If I take the Lord's name in vain I am not loving God.  

Jesus equated love and obedience to God's laws when he said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).  The Apostle John echoes this by saying, "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments (1 John 2:3).

Finally, we see the Apostle Paul say pretty much the same thing in Romans 13:9-10:

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Thus, if we want to love our neighbor we can only do so by fulfilling the law.  That's what it means when it says that "love is the fulfilling of the law."  The Bible is clear.  The laws of God tell us how to love God and others.  The definition of love is concrete.  Obey God.

The Libertarian View of Marriage is not Biblical

I recently argued with a friend about marriage.  He says he is tired of people arguing over gay marriage.  To him, the real argument should be the state's having a role in marriage at all.  In short, he is a libertarian and truly believes that the state has no business being involved in the institution of marriage.  I have heard more than one friend make this argument before, so I decided to write about it tonight.

The libertarian argument is a cop-out.  It is uncool, even for Christians, to speak against gay marriage so they compromise in speaking against the government (which is always cool).  The libertarian argument has many flaws, though.

In the Bible, and in God's eyes today, marriage begins when two people enter into covenant with each other.  A covenant is a legal relationship between two parties, each with specific roles to fulfill. In the Bible, for instance, children and parents had a duty to each other;  children to obey their parents (Exod. 20:12) and parents to provide for and educate their children (Deut. 6:6-9; 11:18-21). Children and parents continued in this covenant relationship until the children got married. The concept of “leave and cleave” comes from Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This verse shows the proper termination of the covenant between children and parents (leaving) and the binding of a new covenant between “man” and “wife” (cleaving). This newer covenant is similar to the older covenant, in that, both man and wife still have roles to execute faithfully, but the new covenant is better than the old one because it is permanent. 

As we can see, God is the author of marriage, not the state and not the church. However, when a man and wife are married, He decrees from heaven that it is so and, therefore, expects His earthly institutions (the family, church, and state) to recognize and protect, not just each particular marriage covenant but the institution of marriage in general. Church and state are not in charge of making the couple married, only God can see to that. They are merely responsible for validating on earth what God has already validated in heaven. As Jesus prayed, “let your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10).  Marriage is a societal institution, so it involves God's ordained earthly institutions; the family, church, and state.  In Bible times, as it often is today, the families decided on a contract, the priest officiated the ceremony, and agents of the state were involved in changing the wife's name and making the covenant legally binding. The husband's role was to provide for and love his wife, spiritually leading his family to live in accordance with God's laws. The wife was to love him and submit to his Godly leading.  A brief study on marriage in the Bible will reveal that the state played a role, albeit a minor one, in marriage.  

Another thing I noticed about the libertarian view of marriage is that Christians separate their personal views of Scripture from their public policy view. One is personally against gay marriage, but as a matter of public policy okay with having gay and any other kind of redefined marriage in society it if it means that the state (civil government) is removed from recognizing the institution of marriage (a societal institution).  This raises two questions:   

First, how much research have they done in understanding the relationship between a sin (such as homosexuality) and God's wrath on society when such sin is allowed to persist in public policy?  I suspect that a lot of Christians do not support the libertarian position because they think that gay marriage will be bad for society (family, church, the culture at large) since the Bible says as much.  When a society reaches a certain level of moral depravity, God focuses his wrath less on the individual and more on the society as a whole (Hos. 4:14).  When the state stops acting in God's favor, God stops acting in favor of the state.  God ends up punishing, not just the particular people who sin, but the whole nation falls.  People in favor of same-sex marriage are at war with God, where no negotiations or compromise will be possible.  Christian libertarians say they are not in favor of same-sex marriage, yet their position insists on its open existence (and any other kind of marriage people can conceive).  

Second, where in Scripture do they see that public policy can be separated from God's policy?  I understand the desire to limit the reach of an ever-growing state.  In a day when the state has grown so big and overstepped so many bounds it is too much of a temptation to remove it from every aspect of our lives.  But the Bible does give some jurisdiction to the state (law enforcement, death penalty, and, yes, marriage).  In fact, Romans 13:3-4 states that government officials are supposed to be God's servants, terrorizing those who sin and rewarding those who do good.  Leaders of the state are supposed to work for God just as much as church leaders do.  That should be every Christian's personal belief as well as their public policy. 

Biblical ethics were the basis for much of the foundation of American policy for a long time.  The libertarian position suppresses God to one's personal life so that He does not have any impact in the totality of life.  If you read Deuteronomy 6:4-9 you will see that God's people were commanded to pass God's law down to their children.  This was not personal, quiet morality since the doorposts of the house (family morality) and the gates of the city (political life) were also to be governed by God's law (Deut. 6:9).  A brief reading of Deuteronomy 28 reveals the blessings for a nation that obeys these commandments and the curses for disobedience, a passage that George Washington placed his hand on when he was sworn into office because he believed it presently applies to all nations.  

That our personal beliefs in God's law should also be the basis for public policy is not just an Old Testament argument.  Jesus said we should give to Caesar what is rightfully his, but that we must also give God what is His (Matt. 22:21).  Many scholars have warned that we must never give to Caesar what is God's.  Since marriage is a God-ordained institution, on what basis would libertarians argue that it is good to remove God's view of marriage out of public policy (Caesar)?   Answer: What libertarians really want is anarchy in marriage, allowing anything from gay marriage to incest to pedophilia to technosexuality (people are already asking for it).  They follow the Marquis de Sade, a sadistic masochist who was hostile to everyone including himself who once said, "The rule of law is inferior to that of anarchy."  Surely the libertarian position begs for God's judgment.

A study of the first few chapters of Judges makes it apparent that pluralism, the belief that many different faiths should be tolerated in society as if society were religiously neutral, is a great evil in God's sight.  God will be against us if we tolerate anti-Christian practices in our midst.   Doesn't Jesus command us to disciple the nations (Matt. 28:19)?  We are not at liberty to restrict the Great Commission to only the personal and familial level.  Indeed, it is all of society in all the world that must be discipled, including modern public policy.

In every age throughout church history the belief persisted that society must be publicly Christian, the civil laws should reflect Biblical laws, and that pagan practices must not be allowed to practice openly.  Christianity is supposed to be at war with culture, and it is a war to the death (Psalm 139:19-22).  By tolerating compromise and pluralism, we lose the one sword we have to fight with, the intolerant Word of God.  We should stand on God's Word at all times during our fight with the world.   We should keep it sharpened.

Making Ground

I used to believe that theology is static, that the great doctrines established by the early church and the Protestant Reformation is all that there was and ever would be and all that would ever be needed.  I would have been the first to admit that a few great men have arisen since the reformation to rearticulate the old doctrines for a new age, but I would have been absolutely adamant  that no new ground was ever actually gained or, at  the very least, only a little.  For someone to stand up and say that they have a new idea, a new doctrine, a new camp of theology, to say that they have found something new in the Bible that God wants us to understand, something that the great leaders of the past missed is to, I always believed, stand up and say that you are smarter and better than the Reformers and great theological giants of the past.  I believed this so strongly that I even threw out some original ideas of my own.

The Bible, however, is God's Word, truth itself.  Man is meant to pursue the truth, the meaning of God's Word, until Christ returns, but man is finite and so man's word is also finite, limited in its breadth and scope.    Due to our finite nature, we will never have arrived at completely understanding God's Word.  Therefore, it isn't that the Reformers were wrong.  The Reformers were spot on and may have laid some of the most significant pieces in the foundation.  But it is up to us to take that foundation and build on it.  Theology is meant to be built upon.  With the right foundation laid, with the correct presuppositions, this is possible.  Theology can grow.  Our current theology can deepen.  And new ground can be made.