 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Editorial
Alwyn Thomson
Comment:
Politics: serving God and doing good!
Ethel White
From
the Director: Cultivating the common ground
David W Porter
ECONI
Statement: Confidence in God
October 2002
Postbag: Letters to the Editor
Why
vote?
Alison Laird
Communities
of hope
Lord Alderdice
Transformation 2003: Killing for God?
View
from the south
Patrick Mitchel
Church
& state
Esmond
Birnie MLA
Taking
the plunge
John Kyle
Faith
in politics
Interview: Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP
Your
kingdom come
Heather Morrow
ECONI
Statement: Forum for Peace & Reconciliation
January 2003
Bible
study series: Faith in the future
David
W Porter
Through
a glass, darkly
Changing Women, Changing Worlds Conference
Review:
A night in November by Marie Jones
Noel
McCune
Book
Reviews
Alwyn Thomson
For
God and His Glory Alone:
Study 3: Reconciliation
For
God and His Glory Alone:
Study 4: Peace
TWO CHEERS FOR CONSTANTINE'S CHURCH AND STATE
HOW SHOULD CHURCH AND STATE RELATE and is it possible in any meaningful or rightful sense to talk of a Christian State? Most evangelicals in the UK would answer these questions in a manner radically different from the majority view of their predecessors. In particular, the whole concept of Christendom inaugurated by Constantine’s “conversion” of the Roman Empire seventeen centuries ago has generally been rejected. Christendom is seen not just as flawed in practice but also as a dangerous error in principle.
My contention is that this modern evangelical consensus needs reassessment. Whilst not denying that Constantine’s Christendom had grave flaws in its practice I doubt if we can dismiss the possibility that the modern State, like its Old Testament predecessor, does have some God-given role and duty to uphold certain standards of righteousness.
Contemporary evangelicalism tends to exclude such a possibility through adopting public theology’s equivalent of the mess of pottage: “principled pluralism”. The difficulty for principled pluralism is that no State can ever tolerate complete religious pluralism. Principled pluralism may not be sustainable in the long run. Either secularism or one of the non-Christian faiths will advance so as to destroy the level playing field or the Christians (if they take seriously the Gospel injunction about being salt and light) will upset the apple cart.
I do not think Scripture allows us the liberty to discard the idea of the State as “God’s servant to do you good” (Rom 13:4 NIV) and, indeed, as one who commends those who do right (1 Pet 2:14). Therefore, I give a qualified commendation of Constantine and Christendom though I accept there may be legitimate debate as to how to best apply Rom 13:1-7 in the early twenty first century.
The captivity
of the Church?
Martin Luther wrote of the Babylonian captivity of the pre-Reformation
Church. Today we have the view that Constantine’s “conversion”
of the Roman Empire to Christianity was a sort of captivity to idolatry
for the Church, a disaster which it took long to recover from, if indeed
it has ever fully recovered. It is certainly true that God and his Kingdom
on earth do not really need the state as some sort of prop (Jn
18:36). Indeed, too close association with the state apparatus was
sometimes positively harmful to the Church. Power really can corrupt and
absolute power can, as Lord Acton feared, corrupt absolutely. Once the
Church was linked to state power it did, on occasions, use such power
to persecute Christian minorities and/or representatives of other religions.
As European history developed and the modern nation states began to arise
then the Church could easily slip into the role of being the handmaiden
of this or that variety of nationalism. In short, some Christian commentators
have painted a picture of “…corruption coming into the once
pure bride of Christ and the Church being saddled with the wrong understanding
of church-state relations”.1
Northern Ireland
evangelicals on Church and State
I suspect
that the negative view of Constantine’s Christendom is also prevalent
amongst Northern Ireland evangelicals. This is in part a reaction to the
historical developments already summarised. There are also some explanations
peculiar to the Ulster and Irish situation. The conservativereformed view,
which in previous eras would have been prepared to take a stand on the
position that the state is God’s magistrate with a divinely mandated
role, seems, for all practical purposes, to have opted out of doing public
theology. “…we have now created the category of political protestants
in order to identify a viewpoint that is often unaware of Calvin, Knox
or Luther while claiming allegiance to the Reformation via support for
a collection of uniquely Northern Irish prejudices”.2
The conservative reformed viewpoint in Ireland was hitherto often tied
to the Orange approach and there now seems to be a reluctance to defend
the latter but also an unwillingness to present anything else.3
Other evangelicals have come to perceive the historical attachment between
Protestantism and the state of Northern Ireland (and political unionism)
as an ultimately regressive phenomenon and a source of the problems which
became pressing after 1969.4
Constantinian
flaws
Returning to the broader canvas, Constantine’s religious work was
indeed flawed. As Gibbon argued there appears to have been a fair degree
of political calculation in his conversion.5That
conversion was also confused and, as indicated by some aspects of his
subsequent behaviour, part of what was only a gradual turning away from
paganism.6 And, yes, the
practice of Christendom was deeply flawed.
It was not long before the Church was turning the instruments of state power against other Christians who were deemed to be unorthodox7as well as pagans and Jews and (in due course) Muslims. It is, “a melancholy truth…the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissentions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other, than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels”.8 Starting with the struggle against Arianism, and running through the Crusades, wars of religion were common throughout the period of Christendom. It was also the case that the official recognition of Christianity was accompanied by a good deal of nominalism (prior to Constantine’s conversion the Christian proportion of the Empire’s population has been estimated as under 10 per cent).9In the millennium following AD 300 European history was marked by further mass and flawed conversions.10 Even in those cases where it might reasonably be supposed that Christendom was practised by a population where the majority was Christian most commentators have focused on the limitations of what was produced (this was Marsden’s judgment on Puritan New England).11In fact, critics of Constantine often feel the Reformation simply confirmed the old, flawed model, “The Reformers replaced a Holy Roman Empire with a Holy Protestant Empire.”12 The early American Roger Williams (1604-83) who attempted to secure religious toleration in some of the American colonies summarised the critique of Christendom by saying that “Christianity fell asleep in Constantine’s bosom”.13
In praise of Constantine
And yet, for all of the above, God did, at the very least, permit Christendom
to develop and perhaps He did use it to accomplish his good purposes.
“In my opinion, however, it compares favourably with pre-Christian
paganism and with post-Christian degeneracy”.14
Between 300 and about 1800 AD most European states
gave at least some acknowledgment of God. Would the modern evangelical
critics of Constantine seriously suggest that things would have been better
if there had been a pagan state throughout this period? Would they, for
example, want to use a time machine to undo the work of, say, Alfred the
Great or Charlemagne to ensure that we could now return to uninhibited
Celtic or Teutonic paganism (with its accompanying savagery)? Certainly,
the period since 1800 has been characterised by both the detachment of
the state from Christian constraints alongside increased lawlessness.
In the twentieth century, even without counting the World Wars and the
lesser conflicts, the despotic or totalitarian State (which was also almost
always post- or anti-Christian) proved to be the greatest killer in history.
Up to 100 million people were liquidated in the persecutions of Hitler,
Stalin, Mao and the other tyrants.15
The dangerous
myth of the neutral State
The modern critics of Constantine and Christendom may well say that they
do not wish for an anti-Christian state, simply a neutral one. However,
is this at all possible? As with other observers I contend that this is
not a real option. For example, can there really be full equality for
and full expression of all religious beliefs and practices? Smith, a proponent
of principled pluralism, seemed to think there could be.16
Even the most liberal of Western democracies have
not tolerated Mormon polygamy, Islamic theocracy and sharia law or child
sacrifice.17
Principled pluralism, the idea of a neutral state as umpire holding the ring for competing faiths, is fundamentally flawed. It may, for example, represent an error in logic; an attempt to derive an “ought” from an “is”. It is a descriptive truth that there is a plurality of religions in all modern, Western societies but it is a mistake to further assume that this implies that this is also the way things should be. I doubt if such pluralism is desirable (Jn 14:6) or the ultimate objective for our societies (Phil 2:10- 11). Principled pluralism is in any case probably not a sustainable option. It operated for a short period in some late nineteenth-early twentieth century societies probably only because of the continued weight of inherited Christian moral practice. In more recent decades as that inheritance has been depleted and as the challenge from other faiths plus aggressive secularism has become more marked principled pluralism looks most likely to lurch to either authoritarianism or chaos.18
An example of atheist assertiveness was provided by R. Windemute’s 2001 Oxford Amnesty Lecture “a separation between law and religion is a defining principle of every liberal democracy. Without this, there can be no freedom of conscience and religion, for the beliefs of the religious majority will be imposed on others through the vehicle of law… Religious texts or doctrines must be excluded from legislative and judicial debates because, unlike secular laws, they rely on an inaccessible, extra-democratic source of authority that cannot be challenged… People worldwide will gradually be persuaded of the correctness of the ideals of liberal democracy… Partnership rights of same-sex couples are human rights, and will convince most people in the end”.19Christian exponents of principled pluralism often complain of what they deem to be the political triumphalism of some fellow Christians. It would seem to me that the alternative to Christian triumphalism is often the triumphalism of atheism. Unless the State is disciplined (however weakly) by some sort of acknowledgement of its subordinate position relative to God history suggests it will take upon itself the trappings of divinity. “The state is the march of God through the world”, wrote Hegel.20 The outworkings of Hegelianism in its most vicious forms, such as fascism and communism, as well as the apparently more benign welfare state attempting to deliver health, prosperity and welfare to all, imply a belief in a state verging on the omnipotent and omniscient.
Most tellingly, the “neutral” state is not compatible with the biblical emphasis on the lordship of Christ in all the spheres of life (Matt 5:17-18, Matt 28:18-20; Ps 2:7-9; Rev 1:5). Admittedly, there is the parable of the wheat and tares (Matt 13:24-30) which is something of a favourite for principled pluralists, but this is mainly telling us that until the end of time neither the Church nor society as a whole will consist entirely of Christians and this no more implies that the State should be religiously neutral than it implies that the Church should be!21Curiously, the proponents of principled pluralism argue for Christians to exercise their influence on political practice.22 There is a contradiction in this because if such Christians were “too” successful they would end up upsetting the supposed neutrality of the state and the foundations of principled pluralism.23
God’s minister
What then is the abiding truth in the notion of Christendom and Constantinian
Church and state? Rom
13:6 tells us that the state is to be God’s minister. In Heb
8:2 Christ is called a “minister” (leitourgos) of the sanctuary.
Significantly, Paul uses the same word in the context of Romans 13. The
key question is: what does this mean in practice? In working towards an
answer I am guided by the following principles: both Church and State
have delegated authorities under God; the State has its own sphere of
operation separate from that of the Church; the State cannot and should
not try to enforce change in individual religious belief (it can and should
set some limits on what sorts of religious practice can be tolerated);
the Church establishment principle is still valid; the State, as an agent
of God’s common grace, should seek to promote a sort of righteousness
though this is of a lower-level, civic (because “outward” rather
than “inward”) type.
A basic point is that the state should make some acknowledgment of Christ’s lordship. There can be (and has been) some debate on how this might be done (notably, in sixteenth and seventeenth century Scottish, English and Irish history in terms of the the covenanting principle).24
For countries with a written constitution there should be some clause in that document referring to Christ as the source of sovereignty (the constitutions of Canada, Australia, Germany and the Republic of Ireland already point in that direction and, perhaps, in the future the constitution of the USA could be similarly amended).25 In the UK context constitutional practice nods to the authority of Christ in the coronation oath of the monarch who is also head of the established church (significantly the oath, the monarchy and the establishment of the Anglican church are all likely to be contested in coming decades).
The Bible seems to establish that both Church and State have their own delegated authority and responsibility from God (Matt 22:21). It is probably notable that in Old Testament Israel there was some differentiation between the persons and offices running the Church and the State (Ex 18 and 22:28, Lev 8, 2 Chron 26:18, Ezra 7:24-25 and, for the New Testament view of the authority of the Church, see Matt 16:9, Matt 18:17 and Heb 5:4). As the Westminster Confession (Chapter 23, paragraph 3) put it, “Civil authorities may not take on themselves the ministering of God’s Word and the sacraments or the administrations of spiritual power”.26 I would therefore argue that we should indeed have such a “separation of the Church and State” though emphatically not a separation of the State from Christ.
With the limited exception of his cleansing(s) of the Temple (Jn 2:15, Mk 11:15) Christ eschewed the use of force during his first coming. He clearly discouraged the disciples from the use of the sword (Mk 14:47- 48). He seems to have inferred the same to Pilate (Jn 18:36). Given all this the State should not be engaged in enforcing membership of the Church or, in practice, any church in particular. Thus any such change away from current secular, liberal democratic practice should not come about by force and would require a national revival.27
Whatever reservations there may be about the practice of the Anglican Church or, indeed, the Church of Scotland since the 1688-89 settlement there should be an established church and this should be Reformed in doctrine. I accept the establishment principle as defended by Thomas Chalmers’ 1838 Lectures.28 The existence of such an established church, alongside the formal acknowledgment by the State of the sovereignty of God, would act as an appropriate and powerful witness to the truth. This is the right thing to do and, fundamentally, the kind one also. That is, such a State would be part of God’s provision of common grace. It would not contribute to the salvation of souls but it could be used to make this life less of a “small scale hell”.29 Interestingly Chalmers believed that in the absence of a strong established Church the Church would cease to be represented in areas which were not middle class. The twentieth century of Britain suggests that he had a point. Such a Church should not have any legal rights to proscribe or limit the religious beliefs of other Christian churches or faiths.30 However, in order to make its established position meaningful I would suggest that it receive part funding out of general taxation (Ezra 7:24, Is 49:23). This suggestion might seem controversial but the current practice through government grants to schools, Lottery funding for historic buildings, state aid for so-called “community relations” and tax covenants implies that some (though not all) Christian groups get funding ultimately derived from tax-payers.
The demarcation of roles between the Church and the State will always raise tricky questions. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 23, paragraph 3), for example, stated, “… the civil government does have authority and is obliged to assume the responsibility for: preserving unity and peace in the Church, maintaining the purity and completeness of God’s truth, stopping every form of sacrilege and heresy, preventing or reforming errors and abuses in worship and church discipline…”. It might appear hard to reconcile this very wide remit with any distinction of Church and State. There are, I think, three possibilities:
(1) This latter part of Chapter 23, paragraph 3 should be interpreted in the light of the preceding part of the paragraph (which did outline a principle of separation of roles) and, indeed, other parts of the Confession which emphasised freedom of conscience.31
(2) Notwithstanding whatever position may be adopted by some Presbyterians or Calvinists today, the Presbyterians of the 1640s were fundamentally averse to any separation of Church and State which permitted freedom of conscience. Perhaps they wrongly ascribed too many roles to the State.32 Milton complained, “new Presbyter is but old Priest writ large”.
(3) If the Church fails in its God-given role then maybe the least bad option is for the State to intervene to correct. (This does assume that the State would be capable of doing so which is also to assume that the State would be taking its own Christian ethos seriously.)33
I repeat, the State should not attempt to make people Christian by the sword (as if that were possible)34 but, as in the Old Testament, it does have the God-given role and duty to point to standards of righteousness and justice. As Calvin wrote, “We must hold on to the principle that magistrates are appointed by God for the protection of religion and of the public peace and decency, just as the earth has been ordained to produce food”.35 This does beg the question: how can the State perform such an exalted role?
Most fundamentally it should treat the Ten Commandments (along with the broader and more detailed Mosaic Laws as illustrative examples in application) as having continued validity for both Christians and non-Christians (Deut 4:6-8; 1 Kings 10:9; Prov 8:15; Ps 72 and 82). Of course there are problematic areas in doing this. Notably, the position from which we must start which is a society which has been thoroughly de-Christianised in its standards and practice for several generations (this has some bearing on how far we should apply the Mosaic sanctions).36
Conclusion: Aim
high again
Perhaps above all we need to get away from defeatism and or small ambitions.
Evangelicals, at least in the West, are now relatively small in numbers
(S. Hauerwas has put it in colourful terms, “God is killing mainline
Protestantism in America… we goddamn deserve it”) but, in the
grace of God, that could change. In any case, part of the reason for the
small influence of evangelicals on the political development of modern
Western society is that we have stopped thinking seriously about what
we are aiming for. Schaeffer put it this way, “The basic problem
of the Christians in this country in the last 80 or so years in regard
to society and in regard to government is that they have seen things in
bits and pieces instead of totals”.37
We currently work within a liberal and secular democratic system. Democracy
has certain strong points but also certain moral weaknesses. Evangelicals
should use this thing of the world whilst not being possessed by it (I
Cor 7:31). As Elliott puts it, “... the most basic issue today
with regard to civil government is whether nations and governments should
be self-consciously and explicitly Christian… If the answer is no,
and over a thousand years of Christendom was simply a colossal mistake
on the part of Christians, then Western Christians should continue adjusting
to the modern world, oppose certain moral evils as just one more special
interest group, and maybe try to carve out a secure niche for themselves
somewhere”.38 I
suspect most readers of this article feel the answer is indeed “no”
but I would strongly argue the contrary.
NOTES
1 D. A. Robertson, “Church and State: Good neighbours and good friends”, in C. Graham (ed.) (1993), Crown Him Lord of All,Knox, Edinburgh, p.40. (Back to text)
2 T. McKearney (2001), “Ulster Unionism”, Other View, Winter, pp.14-15. He is arguing that those of reformed background should be republicans. Where I would agree with McKearney is in the extent to which many modern Protestants in Northern Ireland are largely unaware of the reformed tradition on the role of the State. (Back to text)
3 There were always a few exceptions to this conservative-reformed/ Orange linkage; see N.Wilson (1997), “Covenanters and the Orange Order”, Lion & Lamb, Summer, pp.10-14, for a representative of the Covenanter approach. See also SPRING (1999), Jesus is Lord: A Christian Critique of Pluralism, Paper no. 2, Society for the Promotion of Reformation in Government, Dunadry. Presbyterian Church in Ireland (1994), Presbyterian Principles and Political Witness, Publication Department of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Belfast, whilst providing a summary of the issues around the Troubles does not address the relationship of Church and State. (Back to text)
4 “It is also wrong to argue that Northern Ireland should be shaped by the particular ethos of Protestantism. The truth is that a Protestant state is not a Christian state - whatever that might be”, A. Thomson (undated), The Fractured Family, ECONI, Belfast, p.26. See, also, ECONI (1988), For God and His Glory Alone, Evangelical Contribution on Northern Ireland, Belfast. (Back to text)
5 After two and a quarter centuries the “stately style” (Churchill’s description) of Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire((1995), Penguin, Harmondsworth) is still monumental. Although Gibbon strove to be fair by being driven by the evidence he seems to have been poorly disposed to Constantine because he viewed the latter as a destroyer of the original, humanist virtues of the old Roman Republic. For a contrasting, modern viewpoint, see J.J. Norwich (1988), Byzantium The Early Centuries, Penguin, Harmondsworth. (Back to text)
6 The delay in his baptism until his death bed was not untypical of the period. For at least some time Constantine seems to have regarded the Christian God as primus inter pares amidst a selection of pagan deities. His Toleration Decree spoke of “… whatsoever Divinity dwells in heaven”, Norwich, op. cit., p.45. (Back to text)
7 Of course, some of the dissident groups were unorthodox. This was the crucial period for the formulating of Trinitarian Christianity (a process in which Constantine himself played a sometimes positive role). None of this is to deny that Augustine and others like him went too far in using, “compel them to come in...” (Lk 14:23), to justify State repression. (Back to text)
8 Gibbon, op cit., Chapter XVI. However, since around 1800 the balance of terror against Christians has come from clearly non-Christian sources. (Back to text)
9 Gibbon, op. cit., Chapter XV, agreed with Origen that the proportion was low and perhaps about 5 per cent. (Back to text)
10 For example, of the Russians in 988 and of the Saxons in 772-804. (Back to text)
11 G. Marsden, “America’s “Christian” origins”, in M. Noll, N.O. Hatch and G.M. Marsden (eds.) (1983), The Search for Christian America, Crossway, Wheaton Il. (Back to text)
12 D. Porter (1996), “Protestantism - Negotiating the Future”, Lion & Lamb, September, pp.3-5. (Back to text)
13 But for a thorough critique of Williams see S.C. Perks (1998), A Defence of the Christian State: The Case against Principled Pluralism and the Christian Alternative,Kuyper Foundation, Taunton. (Back to text)
14 H.O.J. Brown, in S.S. Smith (ed.) (1989), God and Politics: Four Views on The Reformation of Civil Government,Presbyterian and Reformed, Philipsburg, p.131. I would be careful about pursuing this argument; of trying to read out God’s purposes from the way history has actually developed. There is the danger of the possibly fallacious argument that because things are a certain way that is also the way they should be. (Back to text)
15 P. Johnson (1992), Modern Times, Phoenix, London, p.788. (Back to text)
16 S.S. Smith (1989), “The principled pluralist response to national confessionalism”, in, Smith, op.cit., p.216. (Back to text)
17 The principled pluralist G.J. Spykman concedes that you cannot always tolerate the intolerant (in Smith, op. cit., p.270). (Back to text)
18 J. Coffey (1997, January), “How should evangelicals think about politics? Roger Williams and the case for principled pluralism”, Evangelical Quarterly, vol. LXIX, no. 1, p.56, concedes that it is a problem of principled pluralism when there is a diversity of markedly different moral theories within a society. For example, I assume that all principled pluralists would insist that the state should enforce the law against murder. That begs the question: how is murder to be defined? Should we, for example, retreat to the pre-Constantinian Roman practice where infanticide was regarded as acceptable or move “forward” to a brave new world with widespread euthanasia and abortion? (Back to text)
19 “A fight for equal love rights”, (2002, March 8), Times Higher Education Supplement, p.8. (Back to text)
20 K. Popper (1999), The Open Society and its Enemies, Routledge, London, vol. II, p.31. (Back to text)
21 See Bahnsen, in Smith, op. cit., pp.26-27. (Back to text)
22 See G.J. Spykman, “The principled pluralist position”, in S.S. Smith (ed.) (1989), op. cit., pp.78-99. (Back to text)
23 Coffey, op.cit., pp.39-62, seems to envisage a principled pluralist secular state and yet at the same time is open to Christianly-inspired pieces of legislation being introduced on a case-by-case basis. This looks like trying to have one’s cake and eat it. (Back to text)
24 See W. Edgar, “The national confessional position”, in Smith (ed.), op. cit., pp.178-97. (Back to text)
25 For examples of constitutional statements on the ultimate sovereignty of God see J. Rivers, “Disestablishment and the Church of England”, in M. Schluter (ed.) (2000), Christianity in a Changing World, Marshall Pickering, London, pp.62-80. For various views on the amendment of the US constitution see Edgar, op. cit., and G. De Mar in Smith (ed.), op. cit., p.201. (Back to text)
26 D.T. Temple and P. Robinson (1990), The Westminster Confession of Faith An Authentic Modern Version, Burning Bush Publications, Lisburn. (Back to text)
27 Perks, op. cit., p.169. (Back to text)
28 Chalmers’ Lectures on the National Establishment of Religion. Although Chalmers stressed the maintenance of a reformed, protestant established Church he did not regard such as incompatible with the political emancipation of catholics (see R.F.G. Holmes (1980), Thomas Chalmers and Ireland A Bicentenary Lecture, The Presbyterian Historical Society of Ireland, Belfast. (Back to text)
29 A phrase of Augustine’s, I think. (Back to text)
30 Though the Christian State as much as the contemporary liberal democratic one will always face the dilemma of defining the limit at which religious practice becomes too gross to tolerate (e.g. child abuse or sacrifice). (Back to text)
31 This option was favoured by the Scottish commentator Shaw who was writing in the 1840s (R. Shaw (1992), An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Christian Focus Publications, Fearn, pp.245-7). (Back to text)
32 This is the view of S.C. Perks (1995), “The Westminister Assembly and Church Discipline”, Christianity and Society, vol. V, no. 2, pp.12-17. (Back to text)
33 According to Shaw, op. cit., Chapter 23, paragraph 3 assumes that the civil magistrates are themselves Christians. (Back to text)
34 According to Rivers, op. cit., p.66, “Religious freedom is a fundamental principle of the state simply because the attempt to promote Christianity through the deprivation of external goods distorts the gospel and is counter-productive… Although it depends on a highly contentious understanding of truth and religious commitment it [i.e. the English Reformed approach and its subsequent development by Milton and Locke] still provides the most resilient defence of religious liberty”. According to G.Bahnsen, who was a leading theonomist until his death in the mid 1990s, “The law does not grant the state the right to enforce matters of conscience…” ((1984), Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Presbyterian and Reformed, Nutley NJ, p.427). (Back to text)
35 From Calvin’s commentary on I Timothy quoted by D.A. Robertson, op. cit., p.41. (Back to text)
36 This touches on the large debate about so- called “theonomy” (how far the detail of the Mosaic laws can and should be valid today). On this question see, for example, J.E. Birnie (1997), “Testing the foundation of Theonomy and Reconstruction”, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, vol.15, no.1, pp.8-26. (Back to text)
37 Quoted in D.A. Robertson, op. cit., p.39. (Back to text)
38 Elliott, in Smith, op. cit., p.182. (Back to text)
DR ESMOND BIRNIE is Ulster Unionist MLA for South Belfast.
 |
||
 |
 |
|