the possibility of first principles

More thoughtful thoughts from Jameson, this time explaining some of the basics of what he's working through politically.

I don't love politics, but I think he's a little too pessimistic on some points.

Am I being true to my faith, and trying to build a consistent Christian worldview? Or am I simply picking and choosing what I want to believe?

I feel that the only way to deal with this question is to break down some common assumptions with which Christians are often burdened. The first is that there is such a thing as a Christian worldview. I simply know of no comprehensive view of the world that has ever been shared by the majority of Christians.

I'm not sure how this begins to deal with the question, really. To ask, "Am I trying to build a consistent Christian worldview," then dismiss such a project by saying, "There is no such perfectly formed worldview out there," seems to me analogous to asking, "Am I trying to play by the rules of football?" and then claiming that this is impossible because no football game one can remember has ever been played start to finish without any penalties.

I suppose Jameson may be interacting with Van Til's language here, but I don't know that it's fair to characterize his (or his disciples') view as implying an overrealized eschatology in which Christians have been given a comprehensive world- and life-view, ready made, and have failed only to apply it as comprehensively as it deserved (taking exceptions, or some such). The assumption that that is the notion behind talk of a "Christian worldview" is evident:

This fact is symptomatic of a deeper truth: we do not arrive at our understanding of the world through a predefined system of learning. We learn about the world largely by accident, through our interactions with whatever lies in our limited sphere of existence.

First, "by accident" always makes my little Calvinist nose twitch. It's a key issue: is the way we learn a function of randomly defined limits on our perspective, or is there a governing will behind our individual situations? And does this degrade the notion that our knowledge, though necessarily limited, can be true? I think it might.

More importantly, though, is the problem that this appears to deny that the facts we take in do come to us interpreted, even if our interpretations don't necessarily live up to that definitive interpretation. Hence the following:

The hope of constructing a thoroughly Christian worldview presupposes the ability to evaluate everything from a God's-eye perspective, which we do not have. It will not do to appeal to those sources, such as the Bible or the pope, which we hold to be authoritative, since there is still the problem of interpretation. As tempting as it is to dismiss all interpretations we don't agree with as heretical, experience shows that this kind of dismissal rests on a great deal of presumption.

I'd say, rather, that the hope of constructing a thoroughly Christian worldview presupposes only that there is in fact a God's-eye perspective, not that we can ever share it (which, again, Van Til would treat as the most delusional presumption possible). This hope would rest on, again, the existence of that perspective and the promise that God is actively intervening to promote a worldview among His people that is more in line with it - not in its comprehensiveness, but in its character. We certainly can't dismiss any interpretation that disagrees with ours as heretical, but there is a line somewhere with just about any issue. Where is that ever to be drawn, if our attempts to think through these issues lack a Christian teleology?

Then comes the question of "first principles":

A second related assumption is even more basic: we are tempted to assume that we can at least agree on first principles when it comes to something like politics. This is false. It is by no means obvious, even in principle, how to treat politics in relation to faith. Should we be concerned with politics only insofar as it allows us to be devout in this brief existence, until we finally leave this world behind and go to heaven? Or is our task in politics to enact God's will on earth? Perhaps our task to find some middle ground, in which we do our best to enact God's will but trust that most of the time we will probably have to be patient, waiting for God to act on his own. Or maybe we just shouldn't be involved in politics at all! This is by no means a settled question, and if we cannot even settle on a starting point for political discussion we can hardly expect to agree on most of our conclusions.

I don't know that I would be so hasty to make this denial. Is it not fair to say that "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [Jesus]" might function as a first principle of Christian political thought, whatever one then does with it? That is to say, aren't all the possibilities listed in that paragraph somewhat overlapping, and don't they in some way hold that particular principle in common? It seems that seeking to make politics allow us private, devout lives in this temporary state would be one way to try to "enact God's will on earth," as would avoiding involvement altogether. Either way, we're trying to work out the implications of the fact that it is Jesus who is really King - and I don't think it's unfair to say that any "Christian" view of politics (or anything else) which flat-out denies that fact really is heretical, even entirely un-Christian.

And I think Jameson goes on to affirm this nicely:

I do think faith is to be all-encompassing. God's sphere of influence is everything, and even if we can't evaluate everything from a God's-eye view, we can at least be conscious that our Father does see all things. We may not arrive at a comprehensive worldview, but we can inch our way toward a greater understanding of the world that has been given to us. If as little children we must enter the kingdom of heaven, we ought to start here on earth to fumble around as little children do, trusting that our Father will teach us how to thrive. If we know at least that the second greatest commandment is "Love your neighbor as yourself," politics should be one of our greater concerns as Christians. Politics, after all, is fundamentally about that critical question: "And who is my neighbor?"

But isn't this precisely what he's just denied is possible - the assertion of a first principle that all Christians ought to be able to agree on? If it is such a principle, then we've probably all signed on to it, regardless of how we go on to apply it, and the result is an attitude of seeking to grow in grace and in the knowledge of God in our political thinking and action. That's precisely what I, demanding that Christian political thought conform to a Christian worldview, would ask - increasing conformity to a perfect standard that does exist, to which our access is indeed limited, but not thereby false. Our interpretations cannot be identified with God's, but I think they can and should be judged on their conformity to what we know of the divine standard, and I think we have good reason to believe that they will, over the generations, come to conform increasingly to that standard. I think that having these (again) first principles in mind - there is a God, and we are not Him - help to assuage much of the worry Jameson has over the thought of trying to construct a specifically Christian political philosophy.

I'll pass over most of the rest of what he brings up (for already-much-diminished brevity's sake), moving to Jameson's final paragraph:

Christians will continue to disagree for very good reasons about what our political philosophy should be. But I am very sincere in my belief that Christians ought to hold to the principles of individual freedom from coercion and minimal arbitrariness in government. This is not a direct revelation from God, nor did I deduce this belief from scripture. It is the simply the product of my reading, thinking, and, believe it or not, praying. I offer it up simply as my own belief, and I hope that others will consider it or at least be challenged by it.

"...nor did I deduce this belief from scripture" - but why not? I think he certainly could have. Read the Old Testament with basic political questions in mind and a careful eye for the implications of God's law for Israel, and you'll find pretty stringent limitations on the power of the state over individuals. At the very center of the Law, in fact, is included an affirmation of the lawfulness of private property, and case studies show God's response to arbitrariness on the part of rulers.

The simple fact that any Christian thinker ought to acknowledge is that any political philosophy that is worth implementing is inevitably so precisely because and to the extent that it does accord with God's will and is consistent with the founding principles of the Creator-creature distinction, divine providence, and Christ's sovereignty - unless there is not a living God who made heaven and earth, whose Son upholds the universe by the word of his power. To deny this theoretically is to deny Christianity. To deny it practically is to be inconsistent with Christianity. To implement it consistently - well, that's hard, and no one should say it isn't. But it should be our goal, and consciously so, more and more, as God leads His people into all truth.