Mixing up the Law and "the Law" [Archive]

View Full Version : Mixing up the Law and "the Law"

ctobola

19th March 2006, 06:36 PM

C.F.W. Walther

20th March 2006, 01:03 AM

A question for all of you members of ELCIC, ELCA and other "liberal" (whatever that means) Lutheran congregations:

I've watched with interest as the founder of Domino's Pizza has been developing a Roman Catholic "planned community" in Florida called Ave Maria. The town laws will be written to limit sales of pornography, birth control, etc. (Right now some of that is being negotiated, as a number of the proposals are probably unConstitutional.)

From a RC perspective, the Christian faith is tied up with lots of issues like the authority of the "Church," the historic episcopate and other law; so... I guess it makes sense to combine civil and religious government. (The RC organization did this for hundreds of years.)

Can this be done from a Lutheran perspective? Should it?

I've participated in some short-term intentional Lutheran communities, but nothing of the scope or authority that Ave Maria will have. I also know that there is an order of Lutheran "brothers" who live in community and serve the poor.

I guess, the underlying question is whether the law of God can or should be combined with civil law. Can a church/government that enforces the law also be effective in declaring forgiveness?

I'm not advocating "Lutheran Government," but I'd be interested in hearing other comments on the issue.

In Christ,

-Cloy

This smacks of the some fundementalist info I've been reading about. Ironicly I've read where the charismatic movement actually came from the RC church even though they seemed diametricly oposed.

"Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

KagomeShuko

20th March 2006, 02:07 AM

Radidio. . fundamentalist, that's the word I wanted when I read this.

I don't really think specifying a community works rather than if it would happen to be "a Lutheran community" on it's own.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

Ethan_Fetch

20th March 2006, 08:39 AM

I am not sure "Fundamentalist" is the word I'd apply but I could be wrong about that.

The idea that states can and should be Christian and that they should be our kind of Christian is, actually, Reformed.

Calvinist reconstructionists believe it as well and I wouldn't call them fundamentalist any more than I'd call a dyed in the wool Misouri or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran a fundamentalist.

But, you may be right that this Reformed idea that the church has a duty to transform the state and the culture is a legacy that many Fundies have appropriated.

I just tend to think of Christian Fundamentalism in terms of wooden literalism and dispensationalism and things like that.

Ironically, Baptists come from a position of very strong and distinct separation between church and state and yet this kind of thing has infected them tremendously.

So, I tend to think of it as Reformed but this whole idea of "Christendom" was certainly Catholic before that.

C.F.W. Walther

20th March 2006, 10:58 AM

Well if the article is read in it's entirity it goes into all those little fractions that are mentioned. The name isn't really important. It's what is happening and how it affects the Christian walk which makes it important. Everything doesn't have to be catagorized or pigeoned holed.

:yawn:

ctobola

20th March 2006, 04:03 PM

...snip...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
...snip...

This is great stuff, John. Thanks for sharing that info.

I've been wrestling with this issue and thinking about the "uses of the law."

Luther identified three...
The Mirror - to convict us of sin and show our need for a savior
The Lock - to bind evil in society. to keep civil order
The Ruler - to serve as a moral guide and compass (for Christians)

(Whether the Ruler is the same as the Mirror is a significan question within the Lutheran tradition. Luther himself seems to argue both at different times.)

The question here is how we distinguish between the civil use of the law and moral use.

I tend to think that mixing them up can lead to disaster. The most extreme case (although not Christian) of combining religious and civil law seems to be the Taliban's oppression in Afghanistan.

In the U.S., I'm really disturbed by fundmentalists who desperately try to prove that the founders of the nation were devout "Evangelical" Christians and (therefore) they intended to make America a theocracy.

By contrast, I think civil law needs to have very different focus -- finding a middle ground (somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism) where society can "function."

Of course, each person's definition of "function" will be different, depending on his/her political idealogy.

Thanks again for your response, John! You really provided some good insights. Hope you're feeling better.

In Christ,

-Cloy

C.F.W. Walther

20th March 2006, 07:01 PM

This is great stuff, John. Thanks for sharing that info.

I've been wrestling with this issue and thinking about the "uses of the law."

Luther identified three...
The Lock - to bind evil in society. to keep civil order
The Mirror - to convict us of sin and show our need for a savior
The Ruler - to serve as a moral guide and compass

(Whether the Ruler is the same as the Mirror is a significan question within the Lutheran tradition. Luther himself seems to argue both at different times.)

The question here is how we distinguish between the civil use of the law and moral use.

I tend to think that mixing them up can lead to disaster. The most extreme case (although not Christian) of combining religious and civil law seems to be the Taliban's oppression in Afghanistan.

In the U.S., I'm really disturbed by fundmentalists who desperately try to prove that the founders of the nation were devout "Evangelical" Christians and (therefore) they intended to make America a theocracy.

By contrast, I think civil law needs to have very different focus -- finding a middle group (somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism) where society can "function."

Of course, each person's definition of "function" will be different, depending on his/her political idealogy.

Thanks again for your response, John! You really provided some good insights. Hope you're feeling better.

In Christ,

-Cloy

I've seen the "law" presented a little different way but I'm sure the results are the same.

Curb--keeps you from running off the road. (or as you mentioned) "To keep civil order"
Mirror--shows us our sins
Ruler--how to guid your life

It's interesting to note that it is for sinners first.

You ask "how we distinguish between the civil use of the law and the moral use". Then you cited the Talibans use of religious law. Let me preface this with saying that law is not justice except in God's ten commandments. Civil law can be anything that is legislated into being at that time. Justice is supposedly a free agent and can also be "anything that is legislated at that particular time". So therefor justice is not relative. SO that explains what the Bible says in Romans 2:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=2&verse=15&version=9&context=verse) "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Here Paul was taking about the Gentiles that they knew (even with out being saved) what was right or wrong. Herein lies the "justice" and how it fits in with the law. How justice can not be legislated and how we know that justice is the right thing to do because even as sinners we recognized it according to Rom 2:15. Even unsaved know justice but they just tend to ignore it.

To me---justice and God's law are the same thing---

So where does this fit in with civil and moral law? It doesn't. Civil and moral law can be either mutually exclusive or one in the same depending on who's running the show. Our guildelines are to "render unto Ceasar what is Cesar and to God what is Gods'"

Just my 2 cents worth

Protoevangel

21st March 2006, 04:00 PM

A question for all of you members of ELCIC, ELCA and other "liberal" (whatever that means) Lutheran congregations:
Oops. I was about to give another opinion, but I see that you have already excluded me.

Sorry to bother.

C.F.W. Walther

21st March 2006, 04:09 PM

Oops. I was about to give another opinion, but I see that you have already excluded me.

Sorry to bother.

Since when are you bashfull? I'm conservative/confessional and I answered. They'll ban me if they don't want to hear from me, but at least I got my statement in :)

ctobola

21st March 2006, 06:13 PM

Oops. I was about to give another opinion, but I see that you have already excluded me.
Sorry to bother.

Dan,
I had limited this conversation because it probably provides more fertile dialogue opportunities for two-use-of-the-law "lefties" than three-use-of-the-law "righties"; but you're welcome to chime in... as long as you behave yourself. ;)

In Christ,

-Cloy

Protoevangel

21st March 2006, 08:09 PM

Since when are you bashfull? I'm conservative/confessional and I answered. They'll ban me if they don't want to hear from me, but at least I got my statement in :)
Well, Cloy specifically mentioned the thread was for the liberals. I would not appreciate a liberal comming in and spouting off in the confessional subforum, in a thread explicitly requesting confessionals to answer. So, I just posted to give ol' Cloy a hard time.

Protoevangel

21st March 2006, 08:50 PM

Dan,
I had limited this conversation because it probably provides more fertile dialogue opportunities for two-use-of-the-law "lefties" than three-use-of-the-law "righties"; but you're welcome to chime in... as long as you behave yourself.

In Christ,

-Cloy
Behave myself? I just knew you were going to figure out some way to exclude me! :D

But seriously,
"Can this be done from a Lutheran perspective? Should it?"
I would say, probably not. Could we have a Lutheran government? Sure, as long as the state was kept separate and distinct from the Church. However, we are already under a government. Could we make a "planned community" like the one you mention? I suppose it wouldn't be absolutely taboo to consider it, but it really sounds like the old Anabaptist separation movement, which runs absolutely counter to Lutheranism.

"I guess, the underlying question is whether the law of God can or should be combined with civil law."
I think that God's Law should be the basis of civil Law, because it is only by God's Law that we know anything of God's Will, which truly is the only good that exists. You mentioned the proper Civil use of God's Law above as the second use, or "The Lock".

I think the other part of your question, "Can a church/government that enforces the law also be effective in declaring forgiveness?" creates a false dichotomy. The Church and the government must always be kept separate and distinct, however, any Christian must support what they know is good and right, and any true Christian knows that God's Law is indeed good and right. Here is the clincher, the pastor cannot tell the government official how to govern, and the government official cannot tell the pastor how to handle Church matters. The Christian who is governing using God's Law as guide is not the same thing as the Church usurping the power of the left kingdom.

ctobola

23rd March 2006, 12:55 AM

...snip...
"Can this be done from a Lutheran perspective? Should it?"
...snip...
I suppose it wouldn't be absolutely taboo to consider it, but it really sounds like the old Anabaptist separation movement, which runs absolutely counter to Lutheranism.

Dan,

That's an interesting point and I never thought of it that way. There are a lot of anabaptist groups here in the Midwest, and dealing with them always generates some interesting stories.

On the other side of the coin, the seperation of church and state has long been a staple of theology in anabaptist tradition.

...snip...
"I guess, the underlying question is whether the law of God can or should be combined with civil law."
I think that God's Law should be the basis of civil Law, because it is only by God's Law that we know anything of God's Will, which truly is the only good that exists. You mentioned the proper Civil use of God's Law above as the second use, or "The Lock."

I going to have to re-read Luther to clarify if he looked at civil law as a manifestation of God's Law or simply as law.

Ultimately, this is where we will probably have to agree to disagree. I would argue that Law (capital L) only serves (in the religious sense) to convict us of sin and condemn us to death. Any attempt to reapply the Law to Christians only brings us back into condemnation.

I would argue that as people of God, we are no longer under the Law, but that God works in us to make us more Christlike. I think this is the basis of "I will write my Law on their hearts" (no longer an external obligation, but part of the process of God's work in us), Christ's words about the Law being summed up in loving God and loving your neighbor.

For me that resonates with St. Augustine's admonition to, "Love God and do as you please." As with a lot of great Christian thoughts, people misinterpret that as license to do anything that feels good. I see it as saying that if you love God, you will be tranformed into the image of Christ and "doing as you please" is also doing what pleases God.

(Our friend Sorem Kierkegaard ran into the same problem when he first articulated Christian existential thought. Lots of people took interpreted "live in this moment" as "eat drink and be merry..." His intent was clearly that we do only live in this moment, and so we should make the most of it by showing love for our neighbors. If I recall correctly he pointed to the Golden Rule as the clearest focus of what life "in this moment" should be about.)

My favorite statement of this is a quote by Etienne de GrelletI expect to pass through this life but once.
If, therefore there can be any kindness I can show or any good thing I can do
for any fellow being let me do it now...
Let me not defer it, or neglect it,
For I shall not pass this way again.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

-Cloy

Protoevangel

23rd March 2006, 05:28 PM

...snip...
On the other side of the coin, the seperation of church and state has long been a staple of theology in anabaptist tradition.
Refer to the Münster Rebellion; Thomas Muenzer and his followers; Melchior Hofmann and his followers, Balthasar Huebmaier's writings, etc. Long staple, but not exclusive. Even so, the way the modern anabaptists separate themselves into their own communities is more specifically what I was talking about with my comparison. They still have their laws, but their harshest punishment is banishment/shunning.

I going to have to re-read Luther to clarify if he looked at civil law as a manifestation of God's Law or simply as law.
Here is a start.

"God has appointed three social classes to which he has given the command not to let sins go unpunished. The first is that of the parents, who should maintain strict discipline in their house when ruling the domestics and the children. The second is the government, for the officers of the state bear the sword for the purpose of coercing the obstinate and remiss by means of their power of discipline. The third is that of the church, which governs by the Word. By this threefold authority God has protected the human race against the devil, the flesh, and the world, to the end that offenses may not increase but may be cut off. Parents are the children's tutors, as it were. Those who are grown up and are remiss the government curbs through the executioner. In the church those who are obstinate are excommunicated." LW3:279

While the Family, the Government, and the Church are all three independent and separate in scope, they all have a common duty. That duty comes from God, and cannot be divorced from God.

Ultimately, this is where we will probably have to agree to disagree. I would argue that Law (capital L) only serves (in the religious sense) to convict us of sin and condemn us to death. Any attempt to reapply the Law to Christians only brings us back into condemnation.
I clearly spoke of using the Law as a guide for civil Law (the first use of the Law, restraint), which is not the same thing as the curse of the Law which "only serves (in the religious sense) to convict us of sin and condemn us to death". We cannot forget the three uses of the Law, as well as the curse of the Law (the uses are the purposes of the Law - the curse is what violation of the Law does); all must be upheld and differentiated, or we risk degenerating our discussion into confusion and equivocation.

I would argue that as people of God, we are no longer under the Law, but that God works in us to make us more Christlike. I think this is the basis of "I will write my Law on their hearts" (no longer an external obligation, but part of the process of God's work in us), Christ's words about the Law being summed up in loving God and loving your neighbor.
We are no longer under the curse of the Law; it cannot convict us to Hell. On the other hand, even after we are regenerate, the old flesh still holds to us tightly, and we are therefore not without the Law. The requirement is not in any way lifted, but the curse is removed.
"For the old Adam, as an intractable, refractory ass, is still a part of them, which must be coerced to the obedience of Christ, not only by the teaching, admonition, force and threatening of the Law, but also oftentimes by the club of punishments and troubles, until the body of sin is entirely put off, and man is perfectly renewed in the resurrection, when he will need neither the preaching of the Law nor its threatenings and punishments, as also the Gospel any longer; these belong to this [mortal and] imperfect life. But as they will behold God face to face, so they will, through the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, do the will of God [the heavenly Father] with unmingled joy, voluntarily, unconstrained, without any hindrance, with entire purity and perfection, and will rejoice in it eternally." - SDFC (Thrd Use:24-25)

For me that resonates with St. Augustine's admonition to, "Love God and do as you please." As with a lot of great Christian thoughts, people misinterpret that as license to do anything that feels good. I see it as saying that if you love God, you will be tranformed into the image of Christ and "doing as you please" is also doing what pleases God.
Except for that intractable, refractory ass in each one of us, the old Adam. But true, for the regenerate, their good works are pleasing to God, not because of the works themselves, but because they are done in Faith.

(Our friend Sorem Kierkegaard ran into the same problem when he first articulated Christian existential thought. Lots of people took interpreted "live in this moment" as "eat drink and be merry..." His intent was clearly that we do only live in this moment, and so we should make the most of it by showing love for our neighbors. If I recall correctly he pointed to the Golden Rule as the clearest focus of what life "in this moment" should be about.)

My favorite statement of this is a quote by Etienne de Grellet

I expect to pass through this life but once.
If, therefore there can be any kindness I can show or any good thing I can do
for any fellow being let me do it now...
Let me not defer it, or neglect it,
For I shall not pass this way again.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

-Cloy
Wise words indeed. :wave: