Respondeo

Inventing Mary

On April 22, 2017

In Hermeneutics, Traditionalistic exegesis, typology

In 1950, the Catholic church declared the “Assumption of Mary” to be official doctrine. This is the doctrine that Mary, at the end of her life was taken into heaven. The Catholic Church believed it was confirming the faith of the Fathers.

The doctrine was, in part, based off a certain interpretation of Revelation 12. (I should add that this is certainly not the only passage behind this doctrine and there is also a complicated typology of Mary that has developed over the last 200o years) At the end of Revelation 11, John tells us that the ark of the covenant appeared in heaven. In chapter 12, a sign appears. We see a woman who bears a child and a dragon who chases her. It is not surprising that many identify this woman with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Many will also identify Mary with the ark, which is found in heaven at the end of chapter 11.

We need to discern between three different issues here: whether Mary can be referred to as an ark, whether the ark in revelation 12 is meant to refer to Mary, and finally whether the argument that the ark does picture Mary is proof of the doctrine of assumption.

Is the ark of the covenant a picture of Mary?

A number of church fathers said just that in various sermons. They saw that just as the ark carried the law, some manna and the staff of Aaron. They saw that Christ was the fulfillment of all these things and therefore they saw Mary as an ark, which carried Christ into the world.

I argue that we can picture Mary in terms of the ark. I’m not sure if this is necessarily the point of any particular scripture passage, but it is a wonderful word picture pointing to the significance of Mary. Mary is, after all, Theotokos or the God-bearer. She is a picture of the church, which also carries Christ, by virtue of the Spirit. When I say these things I do not intend to make her any less a sinner. David, an adulterer and a murderer, was permitted to be a picture of Christ. Abraham, an idolater, was given the gift of being the pre-eminent man of faith. So also Mary a woman, by nature under damnation, was, by grace, given the honor of carrying the Christ in her womb. We know from Leviticus 16 that the ark itself needed to be atoned for. So did Mary.

Is the ark Mary in Revelation 11: 19?

I’ve already tipped my hat toward my answer to this question. I would argue that the ark is not in reference to Mary. Let me begin by demonstrating the problem with seeing the ark as a reference to Mary internally. I will continue by demonstrating who I think the ark does refer to. Finally, I want to show that even though I disagree with this particular interpretation, it does get some things right.

The ark of the covenant appears in heaven at the moment the 24 elders are calling upon God to reveal his wrath against the nations and his vindication of those who fear him. When the ark appears, there is thunder and lightning suggesting that the appearance of the ark of the covenant has something to do with the coming of the wrath of God.

Then we have a scene change. We see a woman, who is struggling with the birth of a child. She bears the child and the child is caught up into heaven in v. 5. The dragon tries to destroy the women, even after the child is taken up, but God protects the women. He gives her wings to fly away from it in 12:13. Even the earth protects the woman.

There are a couple reasons why we shouldn’t see the ark as the woman in this passage. First of all, there is a clear break between the scene of chapter 11 and chapter 12. The two passages follow one another but they don’t necessarily have the same subject. This means that just because the woman is close in proximity, doesn’t mean that she should be identified with the ark. The 2nd thing to note is that the women never ascends into heaven. Rather it is the male child who ascends into heaven. The last thing we should wonder about is what the assumption of Mary has to do with the coming of the judgment of God? It seems strange that the entrance of Mary into heaven would be a catalyst for God’s judgment.

(I also wonder if Mary was still the ark after she had left the womb of Christ).

It is much better to see the coming of the ark of the covenant as a picture of Christ’s ascension. The male child (Christ) is the one that ascends into heaven in Chapter 12:5 and not the women. But if this were the only reason for understanding the ark as Christ, it would be very weak reasoning. This is because of (as I have already noted) the obvious change of pace between chapter 11 and chapter 12. They are telling different stories. These are stories that do follow one another, but they are visions that have a distinct message.

However, we can strengthen our reasoning through our understanding of how Jesus Christ functions as the ark of God throughout the New Testament.

When we think about the context of the appearance of the ark, we notice both a promise of wrath and of deliverance for the saints. Our minds are drawn to Romans 1:17, “For the righteousness of God is revealed.” The very next verse tells us that God reveals his wrath as well. We learn later in Romans that all this is revealed in Jesus Christ. Theologically, then, we should expect Jesus Christ to enter the room at a call for judgment and vindication. He is the one who absorbs the wrath of God for the sake of his saints and who brings judgment and the wicked.

Of course, we need to defend this with more than theology. We need to see that the ark functions in a similar way to Jesus Christ. On the day of the atonement, the priest sprinkled the covering of the ark with blood. God looked upon that cleansing blood and so was able to live dwell with his people. It is likely that John draws on that imagery in 1 John 2, when he calls Jesus a propitiation. This is the same word that the Septuagint (the Greek OT) uses for the mercy seat upon the ark. Just as Israel found mercy in the temple, so we find mercy in the Christ.

The book of Hebrews doesn’t use ark imagery, but it does use temple imagery for Christ. Hebrews tell us in Chapter 10:20, that Christ’s flesh is the veil. The veil had a similar function to the mercy seat. It was a covering for the people of God.

We could add to this the parallels between David bringing the ark into Jerusalem and the pregnant Mary visiting her cousin. They can be found at the end of this article. These are used in the article I referenced to defend Mary being the ark. However, they can be used just as easily for defending Christ as the ark.

All in all, I’m not sure how the appearance of the ark after an appeal to the justice of God, can be primarily about Mary. In the overall context of Revelation, the appearance of the ark is about the coming judgment on the harlot, the beast, and the dragon.

It should be noted, however, that there is a sense in which we can speak of the ark as Mary. We need to remember that symbols in scripture are often multivalent. It is not just the mercy seat that appears, but the ark of the covenant. Various authors have argued that the ark is a mini-picture of the cosmos, with the mercy seat as the throne room of God and the cosmos as the box that is underneath it. Since it is the ark of the covenant it can be understood as the new creation of God or the church of God. Colossians 3 tells us that our lives are hidden in the risen Messiah. The fact that the ark of the covenant is in heaven is a confirmation to us that we too are raised with him.

In this sense then, Mary as a type of the church of Christ, is also, with all the other saints assumed into heaven with Christ.

What about the doctrine?

Let us grant for a moment that the ark might refer to Mary in Revelation 11. Would this provide proof for the doctrine of the assumption of Mary? I don’t think so. Symbols don’t work that way, particularly in the book of revelation. The ark may symbolize Mary, but does that mean her flesh came to heaven? Perhaps we have a merely symbolic use of Mary. The women, who we assume is Mary, never enters heaven in the following chapter. What happened? This would suggest a symbolic use.

These stretchings of exegesis suggest that tradition has invented Mary, rather than honoring her as she is revealed in scripture. As the Belgic confession says, they (The Roman church, but we could add the Greek church as well) dishonor the saints by giving them these strange honors. Traditions that support such exegesis are worse than the autonomous protestant interpreter (at least you can argue with him). They are worse because they demand that all Christians submit themselves to this irrational exegesis.

Losing History

By James

On April 14, 2017

In Uncategorized

In a former post, I argued that we should hold to both a literary reading and a historical reading of Genesis 1. I argued against those who try to divide these two, either picking the literary reading or the historical reading. Further, when you do this to Genesis 1 it opens the door for people to do it with the gospels. That post is here.

Just today I saw a post on postbarthian.com which argued this very thing. They argued for the reality of the of the open tomb and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, the gospel accounts were literary (legend-like) accounts of that basic truth.

Again, I want to affirm both the literary and the historical nature of those parts of scripture. If we affirm literary, without the historical, we begin to argue over what precise amount of theological content can be affirmed from this literary account. If we affirm both, we have fullness.

How do we know it’s true?

By James

On April 11, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics, typology

I believe that we need to come to scripture as literature. We look for patterns, we look for motifs, and we look for allusions. In doing so, we reflect the way in which the apostles read the scripture. When Paul responds to the Galatians he argues from one of the patterns he has found. It is not an explicit pattern. Rather, he sees it through discerning the patterns of the text.

We won’t go into the full argument, but Paul sees a pattern in the lives of Isaac and Ishmael, as recorded in Genesis. Isaac is the son of freedom and promise. Ishmael is the son of slavery. By reading and re-reading Genesis, as well as studying the revelation of God in Christ, Paul has discerned this pattern in the scripture. We might call it a typology.

I believe this exegesis is repeatable. We need to discern the scriptures using Paul’s hermeneutic. This is not well received by some. They argue that this is a hermeneutical method that has no guards. There is no methodology. I have to admit that to some degree that this hermeneutic is subjective. It is inductive rather than deductive. However, there are guards against false interpretation.

There are two types of guards: Negative guards and positive guards. Negative guards are those which demonstrate deniability. Because this method is inductive, the positive guards do not necessarily demonstrate absolute truth. Instead, they demonstrate that the typology that we have seen is either strong or weak.

a. Negative guards:

Demonstrate Contradiction. The typology either contradicts another strong typology (The rock is explicitly used as an image of Yahweh or Christ. If one were to connect it to Gentiles this would be strange) or a contradiction of something that is revealed. (You could use typology to argue that Mary, mother of Christ, was sinless. This contradicts the message of the book of Romans, where this characteristic belongs to Christ exclusively.
Demonstrate a more thorough alternative: The books of the Bible build upon one another creating a complex whole. You could see the salvation of Christ’s blood in the scarlet thread of Rahab. You could also demonstrate how the story of the first few chapters of Joshua mirror the story of the Passover and how Christ’s death mimics that. (This overlaps with the first rule as well, where we might have opposing or contradictory typologies)
Demonstrate that an external source was used for the typology rather than an internal source: Is the interpreter using patterns from Greek philosophy or from modern science to structure his typology? There is some legitimacy to this, but we are no longer discussing meaning, but application. The scriptures have their own internal rules for understanding itself. It needs to be understood through its own internal structures.

b. Positive guards (The more of these you have the stronger your argument is)

Demonstrate patterns: Repeated patterns in scripture reveal typologies. When they align closely they strengthen your position. Breaks in the pattern can be revealing for what the text is trying to teach us.
Demonstrate repetition: When patterns are repeated often your argument is strengthened. However, repetition is not about patterns exclusively. The scriptures repeat concepts as well. For example, the idea of the Messiah is an important concept in scripture.
Demonstrate verbal allusion: If there is a word or phrase that is prominent in another part of scripture, there may be a connection to that part of scripture. Jesus breathes on his disciples in John 20, alluding to the God’s breath of life upon Adam. The same Greek word is used in the New Testament and the Old Testament.
Demonstrate a conceptual allusion: This is not as strong as a verbal allusion. If you can combine this with a verbal allusion or demonstrate a pattern, you will have a stronger argument.
Relative closeness: If you discern a pattern in the same book or in another book by the same writer, you have a stronger pattern than if you draw lines from that book to a similar pattern found in a book written a thousand years later.

Vanhoozer’s Quantum Leap

By James

On April 1, 2017

In Genesis, Hermeneutics

(Full disclosure, I believe that Genesis 1 is history. It is literary history but this doesn’t mean that it is not describing a situation, which we could recognize if we were there during the 6 days of Creation.)

Vanhoozer wants to argue for “theological literality.” He means that Genesis 1 should me read literarily as well as literally. We need to read Genesis 1 as literature teaching us theological truths about God. Augustine and Calvin read Genesis 1 in this way. They both looked at the text and not only read the actual words but found in those words something of deeper significance. They found the all-sovereign God, who has almighty power to create the world through his word.

Vanhoozer takes another step. This means that Creationists who are trying to read this passage literally, that is, emphasizing the fact that each part of the passage has a historical referent are looking at this passage the wrong way. They are not enjoying and dwelling in the literary nature of the text. They are treating the biblical statements as scientifically verifiable statements.

I agree. To an extent. We have a false dichotomy in our society today. Literal is set against literary. We forget that writing history is a literary venture. More importantly, we forget that the Bible is a type of literature. We need to re-discover the world of internal biblical symbolism. God is telling a story that is rich in detail and color. We need to see how the stories of the Bible develop, as well as discovering the themes that are embedded in those stories. When we do so it enriches our reading of the whole Bible. The Bible is not science, it is literature.

At the same time, Vanhoozer exercises the folly of modern theology. He thinks that he can jump from a literary hermeneutic to a denial of the historical nature of the days of Genesis. This is his quantum leap. He moves from a literary reading to the possibility fo denying a historical reading (a phenomenological reading). We can read Genesis 1 as a 6-day event but he argues that this is an unimportant doctrine. He values other interpretations as well, as long as they emphasize the literary nature of Genesis 1. The important doctrine is the doctrine of “creation out of nothing” and the “sovereignty of God.”

He believes that this hermeneutic will not affect the reading of the rest of scripture. Unfortunately, the historical details of Genesis 1 have just become a 3rd order doctrine. This won’t affect the rest of scripture? The conclusion I come to is that as long as one can find a literary explanation for the passage, the historical details are up for discussion. When we study the gospels, we can appreciate their high literary structure. Does this mean that their historical nature may be questioned?

We could imagine that Vanhoozer would say that the important thing in the gospels is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification. Therefore, we don’t need to worry if people deny that he was a Jew. We don’t need to worry whether Pontius Pilate was a real person. The 12 disciples of Jesus are symbolically significant. Whether he actually had 12 disciples? We don’t know.

Vanhoozer foolishly separates doctrine from history. He becomes just like the men he is arguing against. Creationists often deconstruct the text to one important element; scientifically verifiable facts. Vanhoozer deconstructs the text to his favorite element: “theological literality.” He loses the fullness of a text that is both historical and yet is designed by God in order to beautify the internal structure of the story of scripture. He fails to fully appreciate the theological literality of the Genesis text.

Lutheran exegesis

By James

On March 25, 2017

In Hermeneutics

The attributes of God the son are shared with the human nature continually and yet somehow the human nature remains ontologically human. A short example of hermeneutics gone wrong from a recent paper I wrote on confessional materiels in the Lutheran church. There is a failure here to realize that if a certain understanding of a passage leads you to strained reasoning about the natures of Christ, it might be better to go back and re-look at other possibilities for your exegesis.

Here is the segment:

The Lutheran case is much more subtle. There is much to commend about it. They are determined to the hold to the unity of the two persons of Christ. I appreciate their commitment to the term Theotokos, that is, Mary was the God-bearer. Further, I appreciate their commitment to the fact that the Son of God suffered in the flesh. This, of course, should be tempered by an understanding that this suffering is not ontological, but relational.

The great problem is in their understanding of the communicato idiomatum. The communicatio idiomatum is the sharing of the attributes of the persons with one another. In this way, the Son can exercise the omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence of God. They are careful, however, to say that this is limited. They reject that the human nature is present everywhere in the same way the divine nature is present. But they affirm shared attributes. God the Son shares his attributes with his human nature in a static, undefined way. Part of the source of this problem is that the Lutherans want a unity in the nature of Christ; that somehow the divine nature in the Son of God became human flesh. It would be better to say, the person of the Son of God took on human flesh.

They also misunderstand the reformed understanding of the communication idiomatum. The reformed do believe that the divine nature shares attributes with the human nature. This is, however, done through the Spirit. Thus attributes are given are given to the son at certain points during his life, so that he can discern the minds of men and be aware of the future, but they are not shared in a static continual sense.

The Lutheran understanding, though thankfully not changing the essence of the son, seems to affirm the static, continual sense of the communication idiomatum. In this way, the Lutherans do not leave room for a maturing Jesus. They also end up with an apparent contradiction.The attributes of God the son are shared with the human nature continually and yet somehow the human nature remains ontologically human.

The ultimate problem, however, lies with the source of this document. The Lutherans want to affirm the physical presence of Christ at the table because of his words, “This is my body.” If this were a necessary interpretation of that phrase, the Lutherans would be right to come to their convoluted understanding of the natures of Christ. We would have to affirm that there is something mysterious going on here. If, however, there were an alternate understanding of that text that did not lead to the strained reasoning they have in this passage, it might be better to take that understanding. This would lead to an understanding of the two natures that would be less prone to losing the real humanity Christ, even as he rules in heaven today. What goes on at the Lord’s Supper is still a mystery, of course. How does the Spirit cause us to ascend into the throne room of Christ? What does it mean that we eat of Christ’s flesh? With a spiritual understanding of “This is my body” we can admit this mystery, and further, the mystery of the incarnation, without losing sight of the full humanity of Christ.

Is Theology the Queen of the Sciences?

By James

On March 18, 2017

In Hermeneutics, The Basics

The answer to the question might seem obvious to a bible-believing Christian. Yes, theology is the Queen of the sciences. The Bible is authoritative over every area of life, therefore the theology, which comes from the bible, is also over every area of life. However, the question answer is not quite so simple. Does that mean theologians can start telling scientists how to do science?

One way to understand the question is to argue that the bible is authoritative over every area of life, but theology, a scientific discipline in its own right, should not be exalted over the others. We look at the question this way: The bible is over everything. The bible is the King. Every science is equally subject to the bible and equally authoritative in its own field. The representatives of the various sciences will have a conversation as equals.

I would disagree. I believe, as was argued in the beginning, that theology proceeds from scripture and therefore theology functions as the queen of the sciences. Theology is the study of foundations as revealed in scripture. These are foundations for every area of study. This does not mean there is no room for conversation between Theology and other disciplines. This is necessary because Theologians may get something wrong in its understanding of scripture and may be corrected through another disciple. Theology through discussing a matter with the Science of Archeology, for example, may receive a deeper understanding of scripture.

What about the problem of theologians, who think they can inform members of other disciplines how to their work? We need to make an important distinction here between the experts and the discipline itself. The discipline itself doesn’t claim to teach methodology to other disciplines. It only claims an understanding of the significance of other disciplines. It gives answers to the deepest questions that all other disciplines must answer in order exist. Further, like every other discipline, theology does not belong to a special group of people. It belongs to all people. There are those who can claim greater expertise or greater knowledge in theology, but every person will have a bit of the theologian in them. Individual persons may misuse the discipline for their own ends, arguing that their conclusions should have primacy. When theology is the queen of the sciences that does not make her courtiers (theologians), supreme lords over the other sciences.

Involved in Providence

By James

On March 11, 2017

In Uncategorized

A short excerpt from a paper I recently wrote on an article by Robert Jenson. Here is one way to think about how prayer works. Prayer is a means in the plan of redemption and it moves along the plan of redemption.

Christians, through prayer, really are involved in providence.

When we understand this within the immutability of God’s decree, we see that God brings all things to be through his good pleasure. As beings in time, we can be confident in the certainty of God’s immutability; that he will always remain faithful. At the same time, we can, as part of God’s immutable plan, be certain that our prayers are means that truly are significant in God bringing out his plan of redemption. We can trust this is true, because God is not before us temporally, but is before us as the eternal king. He is both the beginning and the end. This means we don’t need to be fatalists. As Christians, we are living, breathing, free means within the immutable plan of redemption.

Are Christians idealists?

By James

On March 4, 2017

In Hermeneutics, History

When people get down to the business of deciding what to do, a divide tends to reveal itself. This is the divide between the realist and the idealist. The hard-headed realist is ready to do what’s necessary for the sake of his friends and family. He will choose the pragmatic option. He hold to the dictum, “the ends justify the means.” The idealist appeals to high-minded principles. It would seem that Christians are idealists because Christians desire to see real justice and real mercy in the world around us. Are we really just fighting for our ideals though? Are we pursuing a false Utopia?

I would argue that idealism and realism come together in Christ. Christ exemplified the ideal kingdom, that is, the kingdom of perfect righteousness that people long for and at the same time he lived in the harsh realism of this world. Christ was real. He walked and ate and drank. Christ showed the world that the kingdom of righteousness was something that was real and that it was something that was exemplified in his very real life. Christian idealism is historical, which means that it is not based on an idea but on a person. As Christians, we are fighting for the justice and mercy of that kingdom.

As people, however, we all live in really messed up situations. Is High-minded idealism really the right option for these situations? How do we combine our idealism with realism so that it is actually successful? Once again, Christ is the one who shows us how to cross this impasse. We cross it through our willingness to suffer. Through suffering, Christ showed the world that somebody could live according to their ideals. Now Christ was not living according to ideals but to the words of his Father in heaven. In particular, Christ suffered through his patience. He was constant in his patience toward his disciples, who had not fully grasped their calling to live for the sake of the kingdom of God.

Christians are realists in so far as they are patient with their brothers and sisters in Christ, as well as all their neighbors, as these fail in living according to the love and mercy of the kingdom. Christians are idealists, not in that they serve an idea, but in that they serve a person who exemplified the virtues fo the kingdom of God. This does not mean there are no hard choices. It does mean that we are willing to suffer for making the better choice.

We have Direct Access to our Lord Jesus.

By James

On February 24, 2017

In Uncategorized

A little bit of exposition from Colossians 1:16:

Through Christ, God the Father has created everything. Paul emphasizes that through the words, “heaven and earth.” In other words, the whole universe. Also, “visible and invisible.” That means, angels too. Then he gives us a number of descriptors of things that are created through Christ. These are “thrones and authorities, principalities and powers.” These could be human kings and emperors, but they can also refer to angelic powers behind the thrones and authorities. Paul probably means to include both. The church, just like the Jews of Paul’s time, is always tempted to give too much value to these created authorities. The fact is, these were created through Jesus. These powers owe allegiance to Jesus.

We are told later on that, in particular, the principalities and powers have been conquered through Jesus’ death. Colossians 2:15, “Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it,” that is, in the cross.

There is something big going on here. In the time of the Old Testament, the world was under the guardianship of angels. In particular, we know that the law of the Old Covenant was administered by angels. Hebrews 2:2, Acts 7: 53 and Galatians 3: 19 all confirm this. We know from the visions of Daniel in Daniel 7-11 that other nations had their angelic powers (perhaps even demonic powers) as well. Now Jesus has come. He has lived under the law that had been established through these angels. And he has fulfilled that law. He broke the power of that law and supplanted the authority of the angels who administered it.

That means that there is no hierarchy between us and Jesus anymore. We, as sons of God, have outgrown our tutor, the law of the OT, according to Galatians four, and we directly serve our Saviour Jesus Christ. Colossians 2: 14 confirms this, “He has nailed it (the handwriting of the requirements that were against us) to the cross of Christ. We are no longer subjected to these authorities and powers, but we are directly subjected to Christ through his death and resurrection. As we are told in the very next verse, “he is the head of the church.” This means that these powers have no control over the world anymore, not even an intermediary power.

Do You Believe in Progress?

By James

On February 18, 2017

In Hermeneutics, History

Is there a movement to history? Is the history of man a smooth journey to happiness and flourishing? Or is it bound to end in failure? How does history work? It’s hard to talk about the philosophy of history without talking about Hegel. Hegel thought that history was the self-realization of the spirit. This self-realization was defined by the struggle between a thesis (let’s say the work of priests and rituals; it could be anything) an antithesis (Let’s say philosophy and writing). The struggle would result in synthesis, meaning the problems between those two groups had been solved.

His work gave birth to the discipline of philosophical history. Obviously, most of the people who listened to him didn’t believe that he had actually discovered the final truth. This was a discipline that tried to find principles for how history works. I want to explore some versions of philosophical history that are popular today or have been popular in the recent past. I want to suggest a Christian response with a Christian understanding of philosophical history. You might say, a Christian understanding of progress.

Popular understandings of progress.

While Hegel popularized idealist history, very few people have a similar understanding today. Idealist history focusses on the knowledge of spirit. philosophical history today is much more materialist. Materialist history focusses on the struggle between classes or between man and nature, not so much on ideas. It is good to know that there is a difference here, but it will not be important for the rest of our paper.

Many, maybe most, people today would unthinkingly hold to the “whig theory of history.” This is the idea that things will slowly and naturally progress throughout history. People will become more peaceful and open-minded. Innovations will continue to progress: slowly but surely raising the standard of living. New knowledge will be continually superseding old knowledge.

Contemporary activists, whether they fight for LGBT rights or women’s rights, hold to a similar understanding. They are, however, much more revolutionary in their methods. In the mind of these activists, the highest good is egalitarianism and the greatest enemy of the good life is exlusivism. They seem to believe that society will continually become more open to those that are different than themselves. We have seen huge strides against racism directed against African Americans; they want to see it again through their fight for other minorities.

Personal theories of progress

Like the egalitarians, Marx also saw revolution as a means toward the end of happiness. He argued for violent revolution. Marx saw the goal as the happy life of each person “working according to his ability and receiving according to his need.” In Marx’s mind, the thing that stood in the way was “property rights.”

It may initially seem funny to compare a libertarian like Rothbard with Marx. Rothbard is a defender of property-rights. But he himself sees a similarity in that he is fighting against the oppressive class. There is an oppressive class and an oppressed class. Rothbard is fighting against the old order of Europe Marx may be wrong on economic theory. He may be wrong on his use of the apparatus of the state in order to bring about revolution, but he sees the importance of revolution against the oppressing class. For Murray Rothbard, the ultimate goal is liberty, while the obstacle to that goal is the oppressor. The way forward is in continually standing against the tyrants of the day.

Christians and progress

In a way, Murray Rothbard comes the closest to what we might call a Christian view of progress. In the scriptures, there is a strong sense that we are moving toward liberty. The old order (in this case the order before Christ), is not necessarily evil, but it is something that we have grown out of. We can think of Paul in Galatians 4, speaking of the children of the Jerusalem above who were under a tutor at one point and now have grown up.

There is an evil old order as well. It lives alongside the other old order, which is the law. This is the the oppression of sin and death. It is the rule of what Augustine might call the libido dominandi, that is, the desire for power. That means that the desire to oppress men is in all of us. Christ brough about salvation by humbling the libido dominandi.

How does this apply politically? Christians understand that all men need to be delivered from that sin and death and that it begins with their own deliverance. Once delivered they need to keep putting to death their desire for power. Christ taught us how to attack that desire for power in ourselves and in others. Christ humbled himself. He took the same advice he gave his disciples in Matthew 18. He accounted himself as humble, just like a small child. Through humility, we undermine the structures of power by beginning with ourselves.

Christians disagree with Rothbard in two areas then. We disagree that there is an old order out there. That old order is in us. That is why revolutions will often lead to something worse than that which they were attacking in the first place. It follows that we also disagree with revolutions. Revolutions don’t deal with the desire for power that is in everybody.

Christians do believe in progress. Our goal is the freedom to practice the righteousness of Christ. The problem is our own complicity in enslaving others and enslaving ourselves. The means is the humility of Christ, which can only be accomplished by trusting in Christ. Christ is the only humble man and, as the one who has been resurrected and ascended to the right hand of God, he provides the means we have to fight against our own desire to control other people.