Errors at the base of his political theology.

So far, Stephen Wolfe’s new work on political theology has not been convincing, to my eyes, as it rests much of its argument on a set of two presuppositions I cannot in good conscience countenance: on the presumption that Scriptural basis can be done without and on a definition of civil government unsupported by anything more than assertion (so far).

I’ll be quick, because I could write 200K words on the first topic alone. And I should note that these are not by any means my only substantial differences with the work so far.

Presumption One

Wolfe (he has co-authors, but I’ll be using Wolfe’s name for convenience) approaches the topic without a solid foundation. He plainly states, in his introduction, that he intends to prove the basics of his political theology from nature and reason, with Scripture and ‘theology’ coming in only later. This procedure, however, leaves his arguments to be founded on mere assertion. He proffers presumptions and definitions, but because they are founded on natural reason, they have only that source’s authority: diddly-squat.

Wait, aren’t nature and reason a reliable source? Well, yes and no.

Yes, they are reliable in their fields. Reason can be relied upon to connect facts together, establishing that ‘If A, then B.’ It has absolutely no capacity to assert B without A, however, and therefore cannot be its own foundation. Logic proves from premises; it cannot provide premises. Nature, meanwhile, is a reliable (though not infallible source) for certain sorts of premises and facts (nature, here, meaning human perception, sensory and spiritual). In metaphysical matters, matters unavoidably theological, in ethics (ditto), in all areas where ‘There is no God’ bears weight, nature is an immensely unreliable source (Rom. 1:18-25), unreliable even for the believer because God forbids us to rely on it (Prov. 3:5).

What this means for Wolfe’s arguments is that ‘nature and reason’ are both insufficient to support his asserted definitions and premises, as they (1) premises and (2) metaphysical, moral, and thoroughly reliant on the rulership of God (being involved with authority (Rom. 13:1). Thus, he can make his foundational assertions only in the hopes that whoever he’s talking to consents to agree. What makes this worse is that he’s abandoning the sure and reliable source of foundational premises which we do have: Scripture. This gets him in trouble.

Presumption Two

Briefly, this problem with Wolfe’s arguments rests in the spoken and unspoken definitions of politics which he proffers. The unspoken, inherent in how he uses the word, is that ‘politics’ is the work of civil magistrates (civil government), of what they do, what they ought to do, and how the citizens react. The spoken, quoted from Althusius, is that “Politics is the art of associating men for the purpose of establishing, cultivating, and conserving social life among them” (15-16). Thus, Wolfe, as he shows elsewhere, conceives of the civil government as being an encompassing ruler who ought to do what is necessary, within its permitted powers, to achieve “Public virtue[,] the absolute end of the political art” (16).

Conversely, Scripture gives us an image of civil government whose job is to deal with those who are inflicting or have inflicted lasting violence to life (whether in the person, in freedom, or in property). The institution thus given authority has a very limited duty and role; it has no right to step beyond that. It is not responsible for public virtue; it is responsible entirely for virtue-and-righteousness in its particular field, with the rest of life being left to its proper authorities (voluntary association, the church, and the family, with the last being the greatest).

And why should I prefer my position over Wolfe’s? Because, while Wolfe’s has his own authority and that of those who agree with him, I’m founded in Scripture, an authority much greater, an authority actually binding (all human authority over the conscience is advisory, save God inspires the speaker, and the smallest binding authority utterly outmatches the greatest advisory authority).

Wolfe’s position also strikes me as right next door to statism, of a sort the Reformers historically struggled with. They as much as we were part of the mindset of their day, and they lived in the Early Modern era, in the birth of the modern state, a birth they benefited much from, by God’s grace, as seen in the actions of Frederick the Wise (of Wittenburg) and Henry VIII (of England).

Conclusion

So far, I’m immensely disappointed. My impression from the first 20 pages is of men who, though intelligent, have intentionally partitioned their thought, breaking the connection between different parts of reality and refusing to apply the full measure of God to the full scope of life.

Note: At time of publishing I’ve finished the book, and my impression has not changed.

God bless.