Can Intrusion Ethics Maintain Moral Absolutes?

I want to take intrusion ethics to task. I am disturbed by the popularity of men like Hart, Kline, Lee Irons, and essentially most of the Modern Reformation staff. I fear that their attack on normative ethics, particularly its Reformed expression (I have documented where the RTS faculty accused Bahnsen of being too Puritan, but we won't go there) will have a sharp backlash in the next generation.

First, I will outline the necessity for "a moral absolute." To play fair, in critiquing Kline I will not refer to Bahnsen or Gentry. Rather, I will quote a third party, yet one critical of Bahnsen. Secondly, I will outline, in briefest terms but I think a fair one, Klinenianism's argument. Thirdly, by way of conclusion, I will show how Intrusionism fails to meet the moral absolute criteria.

The nature of moral absolutes
Norman Geisler states, defending and defining moral absolutes,

1. An objective moral duty--a duty for all persons
2. An eternal obligation--a duty for all times.
3. a universal obligation--a duty for all places

( Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 501)

Kline's Morality
Meredith Kline writes, "It will only be with the frank acknowledgement that ordinary ethical requirements were suspended and the ethical principles of the last judgment intruded that the divine promises and commands to Israel concerning the Canaanites come into their own" ( Structure of Biblical Authority, 163).

Now, before I attempt the checkmate, I will add a few sub-premises. I understand the tri-partite division of the law. I don't think those divisions are as easy and smooth as Reformed people want them to be, but I will go along for the moment. I understand that people will try to rescue Kline by asserting that God's moral law is the natural law which isn't limited to the Mosaic law (okay, fine. We will get to that in a second).

Checkmate
~1. Intrusion ethics denies that God's revealed law is applicable to all people. In fact, it most certainly is not. You often hear Klineans remark, "Israel was a type and the law doesn't apply to those outside the covenant with whom it was made (that is Irons' specific argument).
~2. Intrusion ethics by its very definition denies premise 2. If ethics (justice) intrudes, then it most specifically does not apply.
~3. Premise 3 is a corollary to premise 1. If it doesn't apply to all peoples, then it doesn't apply to all places.

It appears then, given the above premises of Intrusion Ethics, why there is no reason to call God's law culturally relative. And if God's law is culturally relative, and if God's law is a reflection of his character, then God is a relativist!

But what about the natural moral law written on the heart? On one level I agree with it. But is it different in substance than the revealed moral law? If it is, and it differs with its commands at the same time in history (which would necessarily be the case since on the Klinean premise 3 it is conceivable that two different legitimate commands would be given at the same time), then we have a logical contradiction. But if both these laws are given by God, and there is a contradiction, then we have contradictory norms within the Godhead. But it is impossible to have contradictory norms within the Godhead. Therefore, God's natural moral law does not contradict the Mosaic law.

Nihilism or the Nazarene

CS Lewis made a chilling observation:

If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family – anything you like – at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrast weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.

A good example of this is the movie culture. It has become extremely banal. If you have the stomach, walk down the aisles of the "New Releases" at the movie rental place. We come to expect the sexual aspect--and that's bad enough--but many of these new movies are engaging in horror and gore that is unthinkable.

It is "Fight Club" versus "Narnia." Fight Club is the paramount movie of the postmodern age. There is no meaning--only brutality.

It is as Carl Henry said, "We will either have Nihilism or the Nazarene."

Refutation of Moral Relativism: Dialogues with an Absolutist

This book is typical Peter Kreeft: it couldn't be boring if it tried. The book gives ten or so arguments, for and against, moral relativism. The moral absolutist is played by a Muslim. The relativist by a liberal feminist.

THE ARGUMENTS
Ben Isa argues that relativism is the most serious crisis to civilisation. He documents from history that all civilizations have presupposed some absolute moral code. Any civilization that operated on relativism, he argues, commits suicide.

The key arguments, that I have found most persuasive:
1) relativism has an absolutist premise in it: it argues that it is *good* to be relativist and *bad* to be absolutist. These are normative, absolutist judgments which are not consistent with the relativist claim.

2) The notion of progress demands an absolutist standard. If there is no absolute standard, and values are relative, how can a society make progress? To what is it progressing?

3) If relativism is true, then we must condemn men like Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, and abolitionists--people who are usually championed by relativists (I would have chosen different examples, but that's beside the point). They are known as cultural prophets, calling the evils of a society to account. But do you see the problem? If a society is the source and norm for values, and a society determines what is right and wrong (like slavery and the oppression of women), then who is the prophet to blame them? All of the cultural prophets have assumed a moral law to which society must be judged. This moral law, obviously, is absolutist.

4) Kreeft's arguments from the history of philosophy were quite impressive.

EVALUATION
Pros: the book was extremely well-written. It was very insightful and covered the standard arguments used in the debates. Some pages were so good one had to stand and applaud.

Cons: his choice of a Muslim will no doubt bother some readers. I, personally, would have chosen a different hero. True, Islamic morals are absolute, but if consistent, they look a lot different than biblical revelation. 2) Kreeft sold the farm on evolution. He masterfully refuted it and then in the next paragraph affirmed it. I know what he is getting at but this is a poor way to phrase it.

I recommend this book.

10 Theses Toward an Evangelical Political Theology

I am taking these from J. Budziszewski's Evangelicals in the Public Square, pp 23ff. JB is a Roman Catholic Natural Law theorist--that is his background. These are his theses; I am witholding comment for a while.

The Evangelical Dilemma

1. God is the true sovereign; he ordained allhuman government fo rthe good of man, whom he made in his own image.

2. Although God originally chose only one nation, he desires ultimately to draw all nations in the light of his Word.

3. He disciplines the nations according to their deeds.

4. He also disciplines their rulers.

5. In general, disobedeince to human government is disobedience to God; indeed, government deserves not only respect but honor.

6. But there are exceptions: Any government edict that contradicts the commands of God must be disobeyed.

7. The just purposes of human government include the commendation of good, the punishment of evil, the maintance of peace, and the protection of the oppressed.

8. In pursuance of these purposes, God authorizes human government to use force on his behalf and in grave cases even to take life, though never delibeartely take the life of the innocent.

9. Yet human government cannot fully or permanently redress wrong, because it cannot uproot sin from the human heart; this van be done only be the saving grace of God through Jesus Christ.

10. MOrever, the community of redemption is not the state but the church. No matter how much respect is due the state, the church is never to be identified with it.

Problems with the above theses

A. Granted that all human government is ordained by God, it does not follow that God requires the continuance of the present regime or magistrates; we are told neither how rulers should be chosen nor what forms of government are preferable.

B. Granted that God disciplines the nations and rulers, SCripture explicitly denies that all good is reward or that all ill is punishment; only prophets can with certainty discern God's mind in unfolding events.

C. Granted that government edicts that contradict God's must be disobeyed, we are not instructed as to whether an unjust government may be resisted.

D. Granted that the just purposes of government include the commendation of good, punishment of evil, maintanece of peace, and protection of the oppressed, whether government may systematically pursue additonal purposes is not spelled out.

Review of Russell Moore's *The Kingdom of Christ*

Carl Henry launched an Evangelical Renaissance and gave intellectual credibility for Evangelical social endeavors. Russell Moore continues that legacy.

Moore argues that Evangelicalism, for having all the right theology, has failed to put that into practice (Here he is following Carl Henry's *Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism*). He critiques both Reformed and Dispensational thinkers (the reviewer is Reformed). Moore argues for the Kingdom of Christ as a legitimate fulcrum for making social and political moves without losing the need for personal regeneration. Dispensational thinkers, argues Moore, make kingdom preaching irrelevant because it preaches an earthly, future kingdom which has no relevance to the Church. Covenant theologians, on the other hand, preach a kingdom that is *now* but when pressed, end up with a spiritual, heavenly kingdom--which again has no relevance for the church.

Moore argues to the contrary that the Kingdom is now, has earthly ramifications, and presently finds its culmination in Christ. Kingdom language, for Moore, is warfare language. He follows much of Kuyper in arguing that Christ claims are binding on the whole order. He follows Ridderbos in positing a "cosmic" redemption. If sin is cosmic in its reach, so is redemption. Well said.

While it may be true that Moore skews the discussion in favor of progressive dispensationalism, he does give credit to more biblical forms of amillennialism. He rightly notes that recent amillennialists, A. Hoekema and Vern Poythress, stress an "earthiness" about the future state that is sadly lacking in traditional amillennialism. This has important ramifications for current kingdom activity: our present endeavors for the kingdom are of eternal significance, for the "glory of kings" will enter the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22-27). This world is not a timebomb waiting to go off.

Criticisms and Personal Comments:
1. Moore comes from a premillennial background. He rightly critiques Amillennialism as being neo-platonic. His interpretation of Isaiah 65:20 ends most discussions of amillennialism. However, it is not clear how his interpretation of Isaiah 65:20 actually proves historical premillennialism and not postmillennialism?

2. He critiques theonomy when he should actually be critiquing Gary North.

3. The book is endnoted, not footnoted. The actual text is less than 200 pages. I read it in about a day.

Conclusion:
This book promises much and leaves the reader wrestling with tough issues. The current reviewer is excited that Southern Baptists are getting involved with "kingdom issues" in a way that does not denigrate either the gospel or modern culture. One hopes that many conservative Presbyterians will take note. Aside from a few doctrinal criticisms, the current reviewer recommends this book without qualifications.