Again, bravo! I read Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America' shortly after I immigrated to this amazing country. I believe your statement "But civil society encompasses so much more: the church, civic organizations, philanthropic and charitable foundations, educational institutions, industry and trade organizations, the economic marketplace, arts and culture, and more; the whole warp and woof of social fabric is woven by the institutions of a free people. In America, it is free associations that bear the burden of cultivating and inculcating human morality and virtue." perfectly captures the essence of what he found to be unique in the American experience.
I agree we find ourselves in the paradox of John and Abigail Adams. If our people are larcenous, God help us, because our leaders come from among us, not from outer space.
I also see, alongside you, that conservatism is unmoored from libertarian principles. More and more, when I hear some right winger talk about communism, I feel it's projection of some kind.
Yet, I disagree with you that power and authority are not something to be sought, or that they are worthless in forming a people.
The Bible shows several instances of a ruler's positive, singular action leading directly to godliness on the part of the populace; see Ezra, Nineveh.
We should never imagine that those accounts are examples of grassroots change. The text doesn't leave that possibility.
Those are two positive examples. For the equally important negative examples, consider:
-for if thou doest what is evil, be afraid, for he bearest not the sword in vain.
-because a sentence is not executed speedily, man's heart is set to do evil.
Why seek power? When he became king of kings, Christ hallowed thrones. They're not unclean. We should take them when possible, by godly means. To fail to do so is deriliction of duty.
Therefore, I can't agree that woodenly libertarian principles are consistent with a godly Polis. In the Bible, a combination of personal humility along with willingness to punish are the model.
I don't think our current crop of Christian nationalists are wrong in principle. I think they're wrong in timing and maturity (a theme from James Jordan re: The kingdom of God). Who among this crop is wise? Who understands?
They're likely to be harsh. Likely to be racist. Likely to repudiate all the principles of the declaration of Independence.
We need men who understand the principles to seek these positions. Given how much we've squandered as Americans, I sometimes wonder if such a person will arise in China, India, or Africa instead. After all, isn't Africa sending missionaries to us these days?
"Yet, I disagree with you that power and authority are not something to be sought, or that they are worthless in forming a people." I don't think I argued either proposition. 1. What *kind* of power with what *kind* of limitations? The post-liberals want to uproot the guardrails and limitations. 2. Law is not the *primary* means of cultivating virtue, which is not the same thing as "worthless." 3. I do not believe that appealing to centralized power figures in Old Covenant Israel is illustrative or directly analogous to the role of magistrates in the New Covenant era. 4. The current crop is wrong in principle, not just timing and maturity. They want tyranny, so long as they're in charge. ;) I can't read it any other way. Cheers!
But... didn't just appeal to centralized power figures in Old Covenant Israel. I also appealed to... Nineveh. Decidedly NOT Israel. Decidedly NOT given the explicit Torah. Decidedly under common grace, or natural law, whatever you want to call it.
So, an appeal to the difference between Israel and modernity falls flat; it has no explanatory power for what you're trying to say.
As libertarian as I am, we have to deal with Paul's job description for magistrates in the New Covenant era. After Christ's ascension to the throne. Unbelieving magistrates... Romans... Bearing swords, punishing evildoers, etc. and all with God's imprimatur.
You've done an earnest job pointing out the straying lusts of the new illiberals, and I agree heartily.
But I don't believe you've established that our mutually beloved liberal world order can exist without federal headship, even strong federal headship.
I know, it's a paradox. A strong libertarian leader.
I guess the stumbling block for these conversations is in the word "strong", as used in epithets like "strongman", etc.
For me, strength is precisely in restraint where the bible forbids government involvement (which is just about everywhere), but zeal where the bible commands government involvement (a court system... a defensive, non-standing military... and not much else.)
I guess I don't understand why you think that I don't believe in magistrates, criminal law, and Romans 13. Because I do. And I fail to see how insisting on classical liberalism can possibly be read as entailing it. So you and I are having different conversations, I think. ;)
I can't find above where I said you didn't believe in those things. But, you do seem insistent that Christians eschew political power because of its corruptive nature.
I think this is the root of my quibble. Power, while abusable, is one of our kingly prerogatives. Eschewing it really isn't an option.
I love how you urge Christians to exercise their power in the spheres where God holds them more directly accountable (family, church, society) and don't get too wrapped around the axle where God knows full well we have little influence (e.g. in selection of our POTUS.) The world needs to hear that.
But, I'm just rooting for a sort of rhetoric which redeems power and urges its wise application, rather than its avoidance.
I appreciate what you're working on and pray it continues to bear fruit.
I think you have misunderstood. I absolutely do NOT eschew political power. I eschew unrestrained political power that disregards the bounds that God places on the magistrate--not to mention that our Constitution places on government. And in my estimation, the post-liberals want that kind of political power, the unrestrained kind--rewarding friends, punishing enemies, etc.
Again, bravo! I read Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America' shortly after I immigrated to this amazing country. I believe your statement "But civil society encompasses so much more: the church, civic organizations, philanthropic and charitable foundations, educational institutions, industry and trade organizations, the economic marketplace, arts and culture, and more; the whole warp and woof of social fabric is woven by the institutions of a free people. In America, it is free associations that bear the burden of cultivating and inculcating human morality and virtue." perfectly captures the essence of what he found to be unique in the American experience.
I agree we find ourselves in the paradox of John and Abigail Adams. If our people are larcenous, God help us, because our leaders come from among us, not from outer space.
I also see, alongside you, that conservatism is unmoored from libertarian principles. More and more, when I hear some right winger talk about communism, I feel it's projection of some kind.
Yet, I disagree with you that power and authority are not something to be sought, or that they are worthless in forming a people.
The Bible shows several instances of a ruler's positive, singular action leading directly to godliness on the part of the populace; see Ezra, Nineveh.
We should never imagine that those accounts are examples of grassroots change. The text doesn't leave that possibility.
Those are two positive examples. For the equally important negative examples, consider:
-for if thou doest what is evil, be afraid, for he bearest not the sword in vain.
-because a sentence is not executed speedily, man's heart is set to do evil.
Why seek power? When he became king of kings, Christ hallowed thrones. They're not unclean. We should take them when possible, by godly means. To fail to do so is deriliction of duty.
Therefore, I can't agree that woodenly libertarian principles are consistent with a godly Polis. In the Bible, a combination of personal humility along with willingness to punish are the model.
I don't think our current crop of Christian nationalists are wrong in principle. I think they're wrong in timing and maturity (a theme from James Jordan re: The kingdom of God). Who among this crop is wise? Who understands?
They're likely to be harsh. Likely to be racist. Likely to repudiate all the principles of the declaration of Independence.
We need men who understand the principles to seek these positions. Given how much we've squandered as Americans, I sometimes wonder if such a person will arise in China, India, or Africa instead. After all, isn't Africa sending missionaries to us these days?
"Yet, I disagree with you that power and authority are not something to be sought, or that they are worthless in forming a people." I don't think I argued either proposition. 1. What *kind* of power with what *kind* of limitations? The post-liberals want to uproot the guardrails and limitations. 2. Law is not the *primary* means of cultivating virtue, which is not the same thing as "worthless." 3. I do not believe that appealing to centralized power figures in Old Covenant Israel is illustrative or directly analogous to the role of magistrates in the New Covenant era. 4. The current crop is wrong in principle, not just timing and maturity. They want tyranny, so long as they're in charge. ;) I can't read it any other way. Cheers!
But... didn't just appeal to centralized power figures in Old Covenant Israel. I also appealed to... Nineveh. Decidedly NOT Israel. Decidedly NOT given the explicit Torah. Decidedly under common grace, or natural law, whatever you want to call it.
So, an appeal to the difference between Israel and modernity falls flat; it has no explanatory power for what you're trying to say.
As libertarian as I am, we have to deal with Paul's job description for magistrates in the New Covenant era. After Christ's ascension to the throne. Unbelieving magistrates... Romans... Bearing swords, punishing evildoers, etc. and all with God's imprimatur.
You've done an earnest job pointing out the straying lusts of the new illiberals, and I agree heartily.
But I don't believe you've established that our mutually beloved liberal world order can exist without federal headship, even strong federal headship.
I know, it's a paradox. A strong libertarian leader.
I guess the stumbling block for these conversations is in the word "strong", as used in epithets like "strongman", etc.
For me, strength is precisely in restraint where the bible forbids government involvement (which is just about everywhere), but zeal where the bible commands government involvement (a court system... a defensive, non-standing military... and not much else.)
I guess I don't understand why you think that I don't believe in magistrates, criminal law, and Romans 13. Because I do. And I fail to see how insisting on classical liberalism can possibly be read as entailing it. So you and I are having different conversations, I think. ;)
I can't find above where I said you didn't believe in those things. But, you do seem insistent that Christians eschew political power because of its corruptive nature.
I think this is the root of my quibble. Power, while abusable, is one of our kingly prerogatives. Eschewing it really isn't an option.
I love how you urge Christians to exercise their power in the spheres where God holds them more directly accountable (family, church, society) and don't get too wrapped around the axle where God knows full well we have little influence (e.g. in selection of our POTUS.) The world needs to hear that.
But, I'm just rooting for a sort of rhetoric which redeems power and urges its wise application, rather than its avoidance.
I appreciate what you're working on and pray it continues to bear fruit.
I think you have misunderstood. I absolutely do NOT eschew political power. I eschew unrestrained political power that disregards the bounds that God places on the magistrate--not to mention that our Constitution places on government. And in my estimation, the post-liberals want that kind of political power, the unrestrained kind--rewarding friends, punishing enemies, etc.
Bravo. Eloquent. Factual. Courageous.