Spirituality of the Church and Social Morality

[RamistThomist]

I have been reading the Southern Presbyterians for 3 years, off and on. At one time I could quote many of Dabney's letters by memory. I have seen both in the Southern Presbyterians: 1) Spirituality of the Church; and 2) an intense regard for social righteousness.

It seems that many want to go back to (1) while disregarding (2).

I will try to examine several themes:
A. Does "spirituality of the church" imply passive acceptance of status quo morality, since "Christ's kingdom is not of this world?" Must the church remain silent on issues of social morality?

B. Apropos (A), is there a contradiction between (A) and Christian citizens, acting in their office and function in the secular sphere, applying the same morality (moral law, general equity, Republican Party Platform, whatever) in the "secular" sphere?

I would like to suggest, especially in light of the quotations below, that there is no contradiction.

James Henley Thornwell

Thornwell is often asserted as a proponent of "spirituality of the church," such being defined as keeping the Church out of social morality. Of course I, more ardently than any, strive for the distinction between Church and State, but this, and I think Thornwell would agree, does not imply a separation between morality--Reformed Christian morality--and the State.

Thus Thornwell could argue,

But if by "accepting the Scriptures" it is meant that the State may itself believe them to be true, and regulate its own conduct and legislation in conformity with their teachings, the answer must be in the affirmative.

The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. 4 (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1881), pp. 552-553.

Thornwell earlier argued that

...all just government is the ordinance of God, and magistrates are his ministers who must answer to him for the execution of their trusts

vol. 4, p. 550.

Now Thornwell ends with a hammer-blow that sounds Bahnsen-esque:

...no law shall be passed by Congress...inconsistent with the will of God, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

vol. 4, p. 556.

What was Thornwell's view on the Constitution?

But gentlemen, we are constrained, in candour, to say that, in our humble judgment, the Constitution, admirable as it is in many respects, still labours under one capital defect. It is not distinctively Christian.

vol. 4, p.549.

It gets better.

We venture respectfully to suggest, that it is not enough for a State which enjoys the light of Divine revelation to acknowledge in general terms the supremacy of God; it must also acknowledge the Supremacy of His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds...He is the ruler of the nations, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

vol. 4, p.551.

I have an essay by Sean Michael Lucas ("Southern Fried Kuyper") where he compares Kuyper and Dabney's views on Church-State relations. I will try to add that in tonight.

 

[RamistThomist]

Now Benjamin Morgan Palmer:

Palmer could forcefully articulate the "spirituality of the church" in the following:

The old conflict for the spirituality and independence of the Church is, to the amazement of many, renewed in our day and upon our own continent...Upon no subject is the mind of this assembly more clearly ascertained...than the non-secular and non-political character of the church of Jesus Christ.

Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer, p. 315.

But was this not the same Palmer who said the following, arguing for the normativity of the Christian ethic in socio-political matters?

Thus religion is truly the girdle which binds together the complicated interests of society...Blot religion from the soul of man and you have destroyed the cohesion of society; bury the sanctuary in ruin, and you have dashed to pieces the great magnet of earth...This bill of divorcement which men draw up between the first and second tables of the Decalogue...is the charter of that "filthy Antinomianism" which, in every age, has left its obscene touch upon the church of God.

Ibid., 110, 111.

Now someone could object that Palmer wrote the first statement after the War Between the States and the second one pre-dates the Late Unpleasantness, thus Palmer's "spirituality" argument reflects a chastened political ethic. But that doesn't affect the argument unless one can simultaneously show that Palmer underwent a change in his theology. And such does not appear to be the case.