{"id":1164,"date":"2025-07-24T20:27:30","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T19:27:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/?page_id=1164"},"modified":"2025-08-16T22:47:23","modified_gmt":"2025-08-16T21:47:23","slug":"the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/","title":{"rendered":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/a><\/a>7 The Philosophy of Christian Involvement<\/h1>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.1 Overview and Prerequisites<\/h2>\n

The aim of this chapter is to build a case for a revival of the position that champions active political and wider cultural involvement, attempting to prove not just the divine prerogative of our involvement, but what the governing principles of our involvement should be.\u00a0 We then examine what is the locus of the problem for Christians: the role and interpretation of Romans 13.\u00a0 We asserted at the beginning of our study that unless philosophy is transformative, it has failed in its purpose and so this section is not an addendum to our study of epistemological self-consciousness but a central part of it.\u00a0 We have already learnt that arguments as epistemologically self-conscious Christians must<\/em> be done on a scriptural basis at every<\/em> step:<\/p>\n

\u201c[Christian Philosophy] must always be based on an accurate interpretation of the teaching of the Scriptures.\u00a0 For some\u2026there is a danger they may derive their knowledge more from [secular, unbelieving] philosophy than from a careful study of the Scriptures.\u00a0 They tend to extract just a certain number of great principles from the Bible and from there on they more or less forget the Bible and work the application out for themselves\u2026 True theology should always be based upon a careful and accurate exegesis and exposition and understanding of the Scriptures\u2026we do not derive any theological principle from one scriptural statement only.\u201d\u200a[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Thus, we are in complete agreement with the sense<\/em>\u200a\u200a<\/em>[2]<\/a> of what Lloyd-Jones asserts, disputes of praxis need to be resolved by exegeting the objective text of scripture rather than just preferring one version of subjectivity over another and then tagging on a few scriptures we used to validate our argument otherwise constructed from outside of scripture.<\/p>\n

This is the governing principle for the simple reason that these matters at hand are needing to be settled because they are serious enough and are recognized as just not matters of preference where we accept Christian freedom and liberty which would admit of a range of positions.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 We are assuming that the questions before us are of the type that can, to a large degree, be settled.\u00a0 The issues are foundational where we should be able to arrive at what is the scriptural position that is arguably binding in its essentials on all believers.\u00a0 They are not trivial issues of individual conscience (though we will recognize the important place of conscience) but admit of both philosophical and theological reflection and study.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.2 The Imperative for a Political Ethic<\/h2>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.2.1 Is Political Involvement Legitimate?<\/h3>\n

A question that could be in some minds and which concerned me greatly a few years ago as I became frustrated with what I considered insipid evangelical theology regarding our political and cultural positions, is whether it is right for Christians to be involved at all<\/em> in the wider cultural or political processes.\u00a0 Are we not rather to be engaged in loading up the \u201c[Noah\u2019s] Ark of the Church\u201d before we are removed either by the Rapture or the Second Coming?\u00a0 A famous radio preacher during the 1940s put it this way \u201cyou do not polish brass on a sinking ship\u201d<\/em>\u200a[4]<\/a> and he spoke for two generations of Fundamentalists.<\/p>\n

Thankfully, I believe it is straightforward to answer this question biblically as the apostle Paul had to write very early on in the life of the church\u00a0 to prevent people leaving their employment to wait for the coming of the Lord,[5]<\/sup><\/a> despite that the Second Coming was considered imminent even by himself.[6]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 For even while having this eschatological conviction, he at times insisted both that believer\u2019s should work and on his political and civil rights as a Roman citizen.[7]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 He had no problem addressing Agrippa in a political context and eventually appealing to Caesar to prevent his undoubted martyrdom at the hands of the Jews.[8]<\/a> That is, we do not cease to have rights, a political relationship and a responsibility to our nation because we have joined the kingdom of God.\u00a0 Lloyd-Jones summarized it this way, \u201cour citizenship is in heaven does not mean we do not stop being citizens [on earth] in contrast to various movements within the church.\u00a0 Thus, we should [remain] involved in politics.\u201d<\/em>\u200a<\/em>[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

One of the biggest problems in some \u201cChristian\u201d countries during the 20th<\/sup> century which had almost continual revival for fifty to sixty years is the prevalence of economic, social, and moral corruption in their societies.\u00a0 In some countries of Central and South Africa now which now have over 90% Christian populations, they are known for their mass poverty, corruption, and a lack of basic infrastructure despite being some of the richest countries in terms of their natural resources.\u00a0 However, far more dramatically and with much more polemical force for our purposes here, Cope vividly describes how the most \u201cChristianized\u201d city in the US (the most \u201cChristianized\u201d nation in the world) failed to show any difference in many of the basic social indices that would make it a \u201cgood\u201d place to live\u200a[10]<\/a> in direct contradiction to the regenerating narrative of the evangelical churches.<\/p>\n

In my view, and I believe it to be self-evident, this demonstrates a total failure of this form of \u201crevivalism\u201d to reform their societies by failing to reform the political and social dimensions of society.[11]<\/a>\u00a0 Our political philosophy is a \u201cfake\u201d gospel if it does not change the social and political character of the nations in which it is applied.\u00a0 Without such a political philosophy, we are just surrendering cultural real estate to secularism and humanism and failing in our primary objective of \u201cdiscipling all nations.\u201d<\/em>\u200a<\/em>[12]<\/a>\u00a0 Thus, what is argued in this chapter is a rejection in principle of any withdrawal from the marketplace as advocated in some Christian convocations in lieu of reflections on the Trump era\u200a[13]<\/a> and the building of the case for an informed, increased involvement and commitment to see reform in the political realm.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.2.2 One Further Possibility – Political Neutrality<\/h3>\n

It must be recognized that there has been a flurry of thought, scholarly and otherwise, in Christian circles on this issue triggered by the \u201cTrump Problem.\u201d\u200a[14]<\/a>\u00a0 In one relatively recent convocation on political theology in which I was an invited participant, the discussion proper began by presenting an argument based on cultural relativism, the thrust of which was that our reading of scripture is never neutral but colored by our cultural glasses.\u00a0 The application of this was then that politically, we had been unable to see that we had fallen in love with democracy\u200a[15]<\/a> and our way of doing things to the degree we had entered an inappropriate \u201csyncretism\u201d<\/em> of our understanding of scripture with the understanding of the political arena and, consequently, had incorrectly formed alliances or loyalties with particular politicians or parties.[16]<\/a>\u00a0 Our closeness to particular ideologies\u200a[17]<\/a> had meant we were no longer capable of understanding God\u2019s perspective and articulating a Christian political philosophy.\u00a0 The rest of the discussion was to present a \u201ccorrected\u201d political theology that would restore to us this function.<\/p>\n

In brief, the principal feature of the position being advocated was a type of political agnosticism and detachment from the workings of the political world.\u00a0 That is, God is indifferent to our political systems, and we should be too other than to trust He puts in the leaders He<\/em> wants to fulfil His Kingdom purposes.[18]<\/a>\u00a0 Now, despite its initial plausibility to us an argument, we must always remember that philosophically any<\/em> argument based on asserting relativism and insurmountable cultural prejudice must exempt itself<\/em> from its own analysis to have anything coherent to say because otherwise, it too becomes just another culturally conditioned narrative, nothing more than a possibility in the sea of competing possibilities; as the meme goes, the argument \u201call judgments are relative\u201d<\/em> is rightly footnoted \u201cexcept<\/em> this one.\u201d<\/p>\n

The very fact I am asserting we are suffering from cultural prejudice and zero objectivity in reading scripture is asserting that I can stand outside of that prejudice and culture and make that assertion.\u00a0 If that is the case, then I have just refuted my own argument which is my point about relativism above, the presenter proceeding to give us a political theology on their own analysis will be just as full of inescapable presuppositions and cultural prejudice; granted, they will be different ones but present, nevertheless.\u00a0 Thus, I believe such an argument (the details of which I examined in far more detail here\u200a[19]<\/a>\u200a), is an illegitimate and a retrograde step; the church has never improved a society by withdrawing from it but when it was fully engaged in it.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.2.3 The Lack of a Shared Cultural Reference<\/h3>\n

The principal qualification for Epistemological Self-Consciousness to be important in this reformation results because of the collapse of a shared value base of Judeo-Christian origin in our wider culture, even if it was grudgingly maintained.[21]<\/a>\u00a0 Indeed, at the present time, the very negation<\/em> of those standards is considered praiseworthy and righteous.[22]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Similarly, recent history has witnessed some watersheds in Christian culture that mandate a re-examination of Christian political philosophy.\u00a0 First, the polarizing influence of the Trump presidency demonstrated the antithetical and incoherent positions that were held by Christians regarding his first term as president.\u00a0 Second, the political tyranny of the COVID-era policies and the almost universal capitulation of the churches to what we will argue was the illegitimate use of authority by the national and international governments.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.2.4 The Importance of Our History<\/h3>\n

A shocking discovery for many is that this is not the first time in Christian history that this subject has taken on an elevated importance:<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the most foolish aspects of modern life is the tendency to assume that all that has happened in the past is quite irrelevant and unimportant and that nobody knew anything until this present generation came.\u201d\u200a[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Thus, this means a good look at Christian history to understand the different views of the Christian understanding of and involvement in the political process.\u00a0 We would all benefit from a good history lesson and learn from our past.\u00a0 We are not called to make an idol of the past or to canonize tradition, and we are called to \u201cforget those things [the excrement of religion] behind us\u201d<\/em>\u200a[24]<\/a><\/sup> but that is something very different from ignoring the lessons of our history.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.3 The Role of Epistemological Self-Consciousness and Two Basic Principles<\/h2>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.3.1 Are We Called to Defend Truth?<\/h3>\n

Another strong statement during the convocation was made that as a matter of principle, \u201cwe are not called to defend truth but relationships.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 This takes some unpacking to counter its undoubted intuitive appeal and surface profundity; it has the distinctively pragmatic, postmodern, and Rortian flavor \u2014 we are to value the subjective relations and operations rather than being concerned about grasping that elusive nettle of \u201ctruth\u201d and \u201cbeing right.\u201d\u200a[25]<\/a>\u00a0 Certainly, we can all accept that truth might be progressive for us and as a pluralistic form of life we do not need total agreement amongst ourselves to value each other\u2019s views and perspectives.\u00a0 In that respect, we can \u201cdefend\u201d our relationships from unnecessary angst, particularly from those outside.\u00a0 However, in the name of epistemological self-consciousness, I am constrained to immediately question the proposition that we are not called primarily to defend \u201ctruth\u201d in preference to \u201crelationships,\u201d even more so when the leader of our religion claimed the title of \u201cThe Truth.\u201d\u200a[26]<\/a><\/p>\n

As with many things postmodern it is difficult to locate precisely what is meant by \u201crelationships\u201d here, but our early fathers of the faith really had to work hard in sorting out our basic theology in the midst of both internal schism and external philosophy.\u00a0 Perhaps more compelling from a pure exegetical perspective, our New Testament pattern demonstrates a radical stand for \u201c(T)ruth\u201d in the ministries of Jesus and Paul, and explosive confrontations to wit.\u00a0 Thus, despite being a painful and sometimes explosive process, the results of say the Council of Chalcedon or the Council of Nicaea are still with us.\u00a0 This is even more the case with the forensic logic of Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, and Calvin in challenging papal dogma with scriptural precedent that began the Reformation.\u00a0 The strength that came from taking a position and then defending it was of benefit to not just the Church but the entire social and economic order.\u00a0 The Reformation broke the hold of Aristotelian metaphysics and made possible the scientific revolution.[27]<\/a>\u00a0 In this sense, epistemological self-consciousness is a recovery of what has been lost, rather than some radically novel innovation.<\/p>\n

In summary then, although there are matters of subjective preference over which we do not divide there is solid, objective ground on which most evangelical Christians should stand if they are thinking clearly.\u00a0 The testimony of scripture for us is<\/em> normative, we are called to be intelligently \u201cdogmatic\u201d in the face of challenge.\u00a0 If we are not defending truth, then apologetics is redundant, and our faith is arbitrary.\u00a0 However, we have argued in our previous sections that Christianity is objectively<\/em> defendable and presentable in such a way the unbeliever understands<\/em> the challenge intellectually that is given to them.\u00a0 Only the spirit of God saves<\/em> people, but Peter addresses us that we should be ready to give an apologia<\/em>.\u00a0 An apologia<\/em> is not simply a testimony, but a reasoned<\/em> defense of our faith; a defense by which we defend the truth.[28]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Thus, this must also include a defense of a set of political principles.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.3.2 The Response of Epistemological Self-Consciousness in Brief<\/h3>\n

Thus, regarding our project, both as issues of philosophy, theology, and methodology, we should be promoting political involvement of believers at every level of the political state to restrain the evil direction in which our political states are going.[29]<\/a>\u00a0 We might formally agree that under certain<\/em> sets of circumstances, partnership with politics is a form of idolatry, for it is<\/em> God that raises up those He chooses and casts down others\u200a[30]<\/a> and who are we to question God?\u200a[31]<\/a>\u00a0 However, that does not<\/em> mean that partnership with politics is always<\/em> idolatry or that we should always<\/em> accept powerlessness rather than influence if we are not to make immediate nonsense of \u201cmaking disciples of all nations\u201d<\/em> and the \u201ckingdom coming on Earth as it is in heaven.\u201d<\/em>\u200a<\/em>[32]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Again, this would seem self-evident that the kingdom does not come independent of the political realm, you cannot have kingdom standards in social and political matters without those who can understand and implement them in positions of power and influence.[33]<\/a>\u00a0 In other words, the argument needs to be had not only about the legitimacy of certain principles but also in the details of working them out.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.3.3 The Domains of Study<\/h3>\n

Thus, epistemological self-consciousness warrants a strong, positive statement of Scriptural principles.\u00a0 There is a lot of theological and philosophical complexity in such an important subject, so it requires us to cover a lot of philosophical ground by considering at a most basic level what the bible tells us:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. About the relationship of ourselves as individual<\/em> members of the body of Christ (the church) to the political state.<\/li>\n
  2. Of the relationship of the institution<\/em> of The Church to the institution<\/em> of the political state.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    When we get those basics right, we can establish the necessary principles to both answer the questions and evaluate to what degree what was presented to us is scriptural, complete, and defensible.\u00a0 The evaluation is only ever against scripture and scripture alone.[35]<\/a><\/p>\n

    <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.3.4 Our Civic Responsibility\u2014Recovering It Through Dominion Theology<\/h3>\n

    For those of us who are children of the Reformers, the sacred-secular distinction should<\/em> be an untenable dichotomy that we should not accept, because it is certainly not a biblical one\u2014there is no<\/em> secular for the believer.\u00a0 If we do not argue on such a basis, we have already surrendered the ground to the secular-humanist opponents of Christianity.\u00a0 As we have argued repeatedly through this work, our position should be rather at its foundation<\/em> a distinctively Christian<\/em> one perhaps captured perfectly by Abraham Kuyper in an 1880 speech as he opened the university which he had founded:<\/p>\n

    \u201cThere is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: \u2018Mine!\u2019\u201d\u200a[36]<\/a><\/p>\n

    For Kuyper, there was no sacred or secular; all<\/em> was sacred:<\/p>\n

    \u201cWhatever man may stand, whatever he may do, to whatever he may apply his hand – in agriculture, in commerce, and in industry, or his mind, in the world of art, and science – he is, in whatsoever it may be, constantly standing before the face of God. He is employed in the service of his God. He has strictly to obey his God. And above all, he has to aim at the glory of his God.\u201d\u200a[37]<\/a><\/p>\n

    This emphasis is also found in J Gresham Machen who like Kuyper, was concerned with the whole of culture and the transformational power of the gospel.\u00a0 Machen was the founder of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929 after the split with Princeton caused by the removal of the commitment to orthodox Christian theology as a requirement for ministers to graduate from the Seminary.\u00a0 He was a passionate believer in the reformation of all <\/em>culture by ensuring there could be Christian education at all levels rather than a centralized, State-controlled education.[38]<\/a>\u00a0 This was his first-hand response to the noted anti-intellectualism, obscurantism, and narrow evangelistic focus of the emerging Fundamentalist movement of the time.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Unlike the Fundamentalists, Machen had not just defended scripture, but the entire<\/em> Christian worldview, against Liberalism and was concerned with the regeneration of all<\/em> of culture.[39]<\/a>\u00a0 That is, despite this nominal thematic agreement with Fundamentalism regarding the status of scripture, Machen was really the precursor of the modern Dominion Theology movement whose central theological distinctive was to become the entire reformation of culture.[40]<\/a>\u00a0 It is a theological position that has no reticence in taking political positions based on his understanding of the implications<\/em> of scripture.\u00a0 Machen was aggressive in his statement of the need to battle in the realm of intellectual ideas, believing correctly, that it was ideas which would come to dominate the political direction of a nation:<\/p>\n

    \u201cWe may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion.\u201d\u200a[41]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Thus, through some noted professors of WTS such as Cornelius Van Til and a second generation of students such as Greg Bahnsen (both of whom should be familiar names from earlier in this work), his cultural philosophy became foundational for the Presbyterian Dominion Theology movement that emerged into public view in the early 1970s with Rushdoony\u2019s Institutes of Biblical Law<\/em>.[42]<\/a>\u00a0 Within five years, by the time Rushdoony sponsored the publication of Bahnsen\u2019s Theonomy<\/em>,[43]<\/a> it had begun to assert itself strongly as a controversial school of Reformed theology.<\/em>\u00a0 However, as we noted previously, it is only controversial to those who have forgotten that theonomy was central to the Reformed position and was the dominant influence in the Puritan confessions.[44]<\/a>\u00a0 The intellectual climate of Christian thought had become so dominated by the import of the autonomous<\/em> mindset of non-Christian philosophy that it ceased to be authentically Christian.\u00a0 Our work is, in many ways, a restatement of these principles in a novel context.<\/p>\n

    <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.3.5 The Theonomic Imperative<\/h3>\n

    Thus, in vanilla Reformed social theory, theonomy (the \u201cLaw of God\u201d) is contrasted with \u201cautonomy\u201d (being the law to myself).\u00a0 Cope captures something for us that must be fundamental to our political philosophy:<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe law given to Moses [is] to disciple the newly free nation of Israel. God begins to speak for himself and gives clear<\/em>, concise<\/em>, and very specific<\/em> instruction for how to achieve justice in a community.\u201d\u200a[45]<\/sup><\/a> (Emphasis added).<\/p>\n

    We will all stand before the judgment seats of both the Father and the Son to give account according to the moral and social principles of this same Law.\u00a0 Though we may have cultural idiosyncrasies, and we may need to probe beneath the application to find the principle, God\u2019s Word is not rendered null and void by our culture.\u00a0 Again, Cope clarifies this for us whilst fully admitting our responsibility for establishing the application of the Law in our culture:<\/p>\n

    \u201cRemember that the truths of the Bible are told primarily in story form.\u00a0 We study the history and the context, but we will never be in the same circumstances as Moses and Israel, so their application will not necessarily work for us.\u00a0 The principles<\/em>, however, are God\u2019s truth and are applicable in new and dynamic ways in any age, any set of circumstances in any nation.\u201d\u200a[46]<\/sup><\/a> (Emphasis added).<\/p>\n

    Importantly, for the postmodern apologist, those \u201cnew and dynamic ways\u201d<\/em> do not extend to contradicting the explicit outworking of those principles in the nation of Israel that are given, as the Apostle Paul tells us, \u201cfor teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training.\u201d<\/em>\u200a<\/em>[47]<\/a>\u00a0 Now, and this is my main philosophical point, you cannot be \u201ccorrected or reproved\u201d<\/em> in just any type of fashion, there must be objective<\/em> standards of correction or reproof.\u00a0 It can only be just<\/em> if it applies equally to all in morally equivalent circumstances.[48]<\/a>\u00a0 It is God who defines the \u201cmorally significant\u201d components of our reasoning through His Law\u2014polygamy becomes no more acceptable to us, even if it is culturally normal for us.\u00a0 To argue otherwise, is simply the Christian form of cultural relativism and needs to be dismissed as such.<\/p>\n

    To take a much more politically significant specific example, we can consider the social gospel movement, even the more \u201cevangelical\u201d version of it associated with evangelicals such as Ron Sider.\u00a0 It is often stated by apologists for that movement that God \u201ctold us \u2018Not to steal\u2019\u201d<\/em> but \u201cdid not define \u2018stealing\u2019 for us.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 This is an outright fallacy, we have chapter upon chapter within Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and the restatement in Deuteronomy, that establishes the principle of private property, your right to it and that stealing is the illegitimate violation of those property rights.\u00a0 It further gives a penal code and authorizes the punishment of thieves; but equally, not all theft is treated as criminal, there are extenuating circumstances, but all<\/em> theft is defined as sin and retribution is always<\/em> made.[49]<\/a>\u00a0 As Cope argues, they are \u201cdynamic\u201d in the sense we do not talk about boundary markers and oxen when we talk about property rights, but it will apply to our cars and tax systems.\u00a0 This is not to deny that there are not places of ambiguity or of great challenge as to how we are to understand and apply God\u2019s Word, but it becomes very clear whether our cultural practices measure up to His Law or not in many cases because of the fruit that they bear.<\/p>\n

    <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.4 Theocracy or Representative Government<\/h2>\n

    Some vocal critics of Dominion Theology argued it was urging the creation of a theocracy, where society is subject to the direct rule of the Creator.[50]<\/a>\u00a0 However, such a view is a puerile distortion of the position and scripture itself mandates a theocracy only<\/em> for the nation of Israel.[51]<\/a>\u00a0 It is of note that even for the ancient Israelites, the LORD instructed them to choose the wise amongst them to \u201cgovern themselves\u201d with the Law giving clear instructions for representative government and what we would call \u201cchecks and balances\u201d:<\/p>\n

    \u201cyou shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these <\/em>over them as <\/em>leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.\u00a0 Let them judge the people at all times; and let it be that every major dispute they will bring to you, but every minor dispute they themselves will judge.\u201d\u2009[52]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    This, of course, is the precise reason why the American Founders adopted the model of representative government they did.[53]<\/a>\u00a0 In practical terms, this side of omniscience, there are limits to what statecraft can accomplish.\u00a0 Politics is not messianic, or Jesus would have perhaps started a political party or conquered the Roman Empire.[54]<\/a>\u00a0 We must make a clear distinction between what an individual Christian as a member of the state can do and what the church as an institution<\/em> can do.\u00a0 The individual<\/em> Christian can be a politician, and the church should be clear in its statement of principles over a political matter:<\/p>\n

    \u201c[T]he church keeps to the realm of principles and not detailed programmes.\u00a0 She does not, as it were, enter into the arena either through preaching politics, or by sitting in the House of Lords.<\/p>\n

    [T]he business of the individual members of the church to work out these principles, in detail<\/em>, for every aspect of life.\u00a0 Christians must not confine their Christianity to their own personal lives and piety and their own acts of worship.\u00a0 Christianity takes up the whole person.\u00a0 If men and women really believe the gospel, it must govern the whole of their outlook and thinking.\u201d\u200a[55]<\/sup><\/a> (Emphasis added).<\/p>\n

    There are thus some principles of involvement emerging here, not for theocracy but for participation and representative government: [NL 1-2]<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Church<\/em> is not to be involved in the details of a political programme but is to teach principles.<\/li>\n
    2. The individual Christian is at liberty to be involved to whatever depth is necessary to ensure that the \u201cpowers that be\u201d are \u201cinfluenced in the right direction. It is their duty to do this, and they must not abdicate from their responsibility.\u201d\u200a[56]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 [\/NL 1-2]<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      So, in summary, we can accept with Lloyd-Jones and with Cope that a \u201cperfect\u201d society is not possible on Earth but that does not mean we cannot have the expectation of a better one more in line with the principles of the kingdom this side of any return of the Lord; we can accept that a complete reformation is only possible with the personal presence of Jesus, yet it is<\/em> possible for us to be His government now because that is what He<\/em> tells us in the \u2018Great Commission\u2019:<\/p>\n

      Then Jesus came up and said to them, \u201cAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. \u00a0Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.\u201d<\/p>\n

      The imperative verb here is the making disciples<\/em> rather than the teaching or the baptizing; the discipling or Christianizing <\/em>of our society, or our reformation, salting, or whatever word we want to use, is what is commanded and expected.[57]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.5 Understanding Romans 13<\/h2>\n

      <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.5.1 Overview<\/h3>\n

      Few passages of scripture have created as much controversy as Romans 13 owing to the chronic lack of understanding of it in the modern Christian consciousness despite there being substantive studies available.\u00a0 During the COVID lockdowns, an uncritical use of the passage was made to justify the unconditional surrender of religious freedom and civil liberty by the vast majority of Christian leaders.\u00a0 Unfortunately, this demonstrates a complete ignorance of the passage and demonizes all those over the centuries who found within the scriptures a mandate for social reform, civil disobedience, and political revolution.\u00a0 It would indeed be perverse to rebuke a Luther, the abolitionist movement on both sides of the Atlantic, the American Independence movement or the Apartheid activists within the South African church\u200a for a refusal to submit to the governing authorities.[58]<\/a><\/p>\n

      However, Romans 13 does require interpretation and contextualization to counter what some have argued is the plain sense of the text.\u00a0 That said, it is not my intention to do a verse-by-verse exegesis as this has been authoritatively and competently completed by Lloyd-Jones, taking him 162 pages which we cannot afford here.[59]<\/a>\u00a0 That said, I incorporate most of his arguments in the following section and modify them as necessary with my own revisions as we draw conclusions from our present context.\u00a0 The early Christians needed the apostolic input of Romans 13, 1 Tim 2 and in 1 Peter 2 because the believers needed to know how to respond to pagan rulers who were often extremely hostile to the point of persecution and execution.[60]<\/a><\/p>\n

      We will only consider Romans 13 extensively in this section because it is the locus of most discussion amongst believers regarding the relationship of the individual Christian to the state and of the institution of the Church to the State.\u00a0 1 Peter 2 is very much a recapitulation of the Pauline teaching, we know Peter clearly took direction from Paul and considered his works scriptural (2 Pe 3:15) and we only mention it here in passing as this is a good reason to highlight this specific feature of Peter\u2019s view.\u00a0 1 Tim 2 has the primary subject of intercession for those in authority that the social conditions of effective evangelism might be possible and will not be considered further here other than to emphasize such intercession was expected by Paul to create those conditions.\u00a0 We are not to hide in our Christian ghettoes watching the reign of the antichrist and waiting for the Rapture.<\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.5.2 The Context of Romans 13<\/h3>\n

      It must be remembered that this section does not exist in isolation from the sections around it.\u00a0 This is important because some commentators seem to think it is an intrusion or clumsy insertion of thought. Yet this is a new subsection in the section that began with chapter 12\u2014the application of the doctrine laid down in the first eight chapters.[61]<\/a>\u00a0 The great emphasis of chapter 12 is that of \u201cliving peaceably with other people.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 Chapter 13 is thus perfectly in position, \u201c[Government enables us] to live peaceably with one another, to maintain order, to avoid disorder.\u201d<\/em>\u200a\u200a[62]<\/a>\u00a0 The \u201cvengeance of God\u201d<\/em> mentioned in 12 would then arguably be part of the function of the State and its laws.\u00a0 So, the first great conclusion we can draw from Romans 13 is the legitimacy of the State in principle<\/em> as against those who reject all the institutions of men as fallen and illegitimate.[63]<\/a>\u00a0 God has instituted it that the conditions of social peace might exist for the benefit of all:<\/p>\n

      \u201cI urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone– 2<\/sup> for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3<\/sup> This is good, and pleases God our Savior.\u201d\u200a[64]<\/a><\/p>\n

      However, and I believe this is where many formulations regarding our rights, relationships and responsibilities are at their weakest, is that based on this foundational principle, it then becomes much too easy to give the State much too much<\/em> authority over the church and the individual believer, to the degree that all the believer is entitled to is a weak, passive resistance, or martyrdom.\u00a0 In contrast, we will find as we work through the chapter that there is a justification for a Christian taking part in a revolution to overthrow a corrupt government.<\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.5.3 Obedience and Submission are Different Concepts<\/h3>\n

      So, let us consider the first verse of Romans 13:<\/p>\n

      \u201cLet every person be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from God and those that exist are appointed by God.\u00a0 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Thus, it is straightforward to understand why many teach an unconditional obedience to the State.\u00a0 This is reinforced by some commentators who note that the term translated \u201cbe subject\u201d was originally a military term meaning \u201cto rank under\u201d but this is one of those occasions where we need to understand the semantics of the word have moved far beyond its original meaning as witnessed in the Greek literature of that era of what the Bible is an integral part.\u00a0 By overstressing the etymology, extremely severe interpretations of this passage that would admit no conditions for civil disobedience.\u00a0 As Lloyd-Jones explains, there are three other Greek words in common use during that period would convey far more strongly the concept of \u201cobedience\u201d if that was what Paul had wanted to communicate.\u00a0 We must understand that \u201cbe subject to\u201d does not<\/em> simply mean \u201cbe obedient to\u201d though the Greek verb in the middle voice was sometimes used with this meaning.[65]<\/a><\/p>\n

      Thus, continuing our analysis, subjection<\/em> implies a reasoned<\/em> choice.\u00a0 For example, Eph. 5:21 states \u201csubmitting<\/em> yourselves one to another in the fear of God\u201d<\/em> and it should also be clear that in this case there is clearly a logical difference between subjection and obedience.\u00a0 Both parties cannot simultaneously obey<\/em> one another if a difference arises but they can respectfully resolve their differences by having a mental posture or attitude of submission<\/em>.\u00a0 To not recognize this is to make this and other examples\u200a[66]<\/a> of the usage of the word logically contradictory.\u00a0 Thus, Lloyd-Jones argues the context demands \u201cmaking room for\u201d<\/em> or \u201cpreferring out of respect\u201d<\/em> as appropriate renderings.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.5.4 The Boundaries of Christian Resistance<\/h3>\n

      So, a minister of the State demands respect unconditionally only with regards to respect for their office and conversely, the ruler must<\/em> behave in an honorable and just manner before the people because that is the terms of their ordination before God, \u201cHe means the powers that are governing [well] and maintaining law and order.<\/em>\u201d\u200a[67]<\/a>\u00a0 Thus, it is pointedly not<\/em> proven that every occupant of the office \u201chas been ordained by God\u201d<\/em> and thus we are not morally obligated to immediately obey them if they are not<\/em> governing well.\u00a0 Particularly, we need to ask what we are to do with rulers who abuse their position or are tyrannical.\u00a0 We need only think of Nero using burning Christians coated in tar to light his feasts or of a Hitler orchestrating the Holocaust.<\/p>\n

      This can be made clearer by an analogy.\u00a0 If our nation was attacked or was in imminent danger of being attacked, most of us would consider it perfectly just to sign-up to fight if we were asked to, in addition to whatever diplomatic response there might be.\u00a0 We might even end up fighting for our nation and killing people of another nation to preserve our freedom.\u00a0 We would consider this \u201cself-defense\u201d and it seems a concept well-founded in the Hebrew scripture.\u00a0 There was no scriptural mandate for a standing Army in Israel but there were certainly borders and there were arrangements made for tribes to join with one another for national defense and settling disputes militarily if diplomacy failed.[68]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      Thus, we should at least be able to ask the question, if those that attack us just happen to be members of our own nation and those in authority over us, should we not too have a right to self-defense?\u00a0 The logic of the Second Amendment of the American Constitution was based on just that type of reasoning.\u00a0 The colonists and settlers had come from nations all over the Old World where the monarchs and priests systematically oppressed the people and, in some eras, the people were systematically tortured and killed in the most brutal and public fashion often at the behest of the papal hegemony that used the army of the Holy Roman Emperor.[69]<\/a>\u00a0 They came in search of religious freedom and political liberty.\u00a0 This is why Lloyd-Jones, who was something of an expert on the Puritanism of the early colonists, was able to write:<\/p>\n

      \u201cSurely, as Christians, we are entitled to argue that if a state, a king, an emperor, a governor, a dictator or anybody else becomes tyrannical, then this state is violating the law of its own being and constitution as laid down in Romans 13:2.\u201d\u200a[70]<\/a><\/p>\n

      That is, the State was instituted, as 1Tim 2:2 states, to ensure \u201cwe may lead a peaceful (tranquil) and quiet life in all godliness and dignity\u201d<\/em> (NET). Thus, he continues:<\/p>\n

      \u201cThe moment\u2026the State turns itself into a master and into a tyrant, it is disobeying the Law of God that brought it into being and it must itself be punished; and the form the punishment takes is that the government is thrown out<\/em> and replaced by one that is prepared to abide by the teaching of Romans 13:1-7\u201d\u200a[71]<\/sup><\/a> (Emphasis added).<\/p>\n

      This statement begs the question, \u201cwhat does \u2018thrown out\u2019 mean?\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 Are we permitted to fight, with arms (as the American founders felt it necessary to mandate) to evict a tyrannical government?\u00a0 We have already seen the inadequacy of the unconditional submission position and we can see that our options are much greater than simply a passive resistance, but just what are<\/em> the limits of our resistance.<\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.5.5 Christians can be Revolutionaries<\/h3>\n

      The \u201cjust war\u201d<\/em> is defined as an extension of the duty of a magistrate to \u201crestrain evil\u201d<\/em> and it is exactly this moral imperative to \u201crestrain evil\u201d<\/em> that allows \u201c[a Christian] to take part in a rebellion to change your government.\u201d<\/em>\u200a<\/em>[72]<\/a>\u00a0 Whether that evil is internal or external to a nation, it is not an option for us to ignore it.\u00a0 Such an action is the \u201clast resort\u201d as is going to war; but as it was necessary to go to war against a Hitler, a Mussolini, or a Stalin, for the purposes of restraining their evil, so it is necessary to resist the evil of our own leaders.<\/p>\n

      Indeed, this is not unusual in the history of the protestant church and was a feature of the movement around puritan Oliver Cromwell (the English Civil War) that spawned egalitarian groups such as the Levellers and the Diggers who prefigured many of the policies which became associated with the later labor and trade union movements.[73]<\/a>\u00a0 Christians were very active in these movements and the Workers Educational Association (WEA), a Christian wing of the Working Men\u2019s Club movement (that was founded to promote literacy amongst working people) still exists in the UK today in accord with its original mission, whilst the WMCs are rather tatty, low-end social clubs.<\/p>\n

      Now, it is also important to recognize that there are degrees of resistance between non-resistance and a full-blown rebellion that we can exercise.\u00a0 We start with dialogue and our elected representatives, but we cannot allow ourselves to be neutered when our representatives cease to represent us.\u00a0 We can protest, we can boycott, and we can take collective action both as individuals and as collections of congregations to try and ensure social or political change; though with congregational action there are specific issues which we do need to consider if we are not to confuse the individual and church institutional positions in relation to government.\u00a0 However, in cases where oppressive government tyranny is directed at the congregation as a whole,<\/em> e.g., in the banning of public worship (as happened during COVID), the congregation should be able to respond collectively.<\/p>\n

      Now, I hope it is understood that I am not asserting we are immediately revolutionaries, it is just we need to understand we can<\/em> be in the extreme.\u00a0 We can agree as Lloyd-Jones puts it \u201cChristians should always be the best citizens in the country\u201d<\/em> and \u201cgood and peaceable\u201d<\/em>\u200a[74]<\/a><\/sup> in their basic attitudes.\u00a0 We have an ethical obligation to be the best citizens we can be and<\/em> to be the most cooperative with the authorities over us as we can morally be.\u00a0 Even Stalin began to lessen the persecution of Christians because of the reputation for them being the best workers.[75]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Christians, by default, are<\/em> on the side of law and order because they understand that sin has produced lawlessness among men and that lawlessness needs the sword of the State to restrain it; this is also why Paul makes the statement it is an \u201cissue of conscience\u201d<\/em> (v5) that we submit and even to pay taxes<\/em> to ensure the smooth operation of the State.\u00a0 However, Lloyd-Jones strongly and immediately qualifies this general orientation to the State after establishing it as a basic principle with this statement:<\/p>\n

      \u201c[T]here is a limit beyond which it [the submission to the State and its enactments] is not true.\u00a0 It is quite clear in the scriptures that if the State should ever come between me and my relationship to God<\/em>, then I must<\/em> not obey it.\u201d\u200a[76]<\/sup><\/a> (Emphasis added).<\/p>\n

      During the COVID-19 pandemic we have just suffered, this limit was undeniably violated throughout Europe as congregations were prohibited from congregational worship and our almost universal failure to resist has cost us enormous space in the public sphere.\u00a0 Where there was or is substantive resistance, as was the case with the River Church in Tampa, Florida and in some of the other US states where governors rejected federal mandates, the contrast could not be greater\u2014they had full liberty to meet for worship, and citizens can trade freely with one another rather than lose their businesses and become reliant on federal welfare.\u00a0 This is also why the book of Acts provides the narratives for us of the conflict between the early church and the \u201cauthorities\u201d that we might know there is no unconditional moral mandate to obey our governing authorities.[77]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

      <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a>7.6 Final Words<\/h2>\n

      In this chapter we have sketched how we apply the basic principles of epistemological self-consciousness to our political philosophy, specifically we established the principle of involvement and that it should be an involvement that is not passive or neutral.\u00a0 We asserted that it is an anomalous distinctive of 20th<\/sup> century evangelicalism to separate from wider political and cultural involvement.\u00a0 The Reformed Church has had a history of political involvement since the days of Luther and Calvin, through to modern figures such as Machen and revivalists such as Finney.<\/p>\n

      We noted that for as long as there has been a Christian church, there has been political opposition to it as witnessed in the biblical narratives of Acts in which there are recorded accounts of conflict.\u00a0 We then dealt specifically with the contemporary difficult issue of Romans 13 noting that because the biblical narratives record conflicts with the authorities for us, a simple, surface reading of Romans 13 is insufficient.\u00a0 We also rejected that the correct Christian position was one of agnosticism to the political environment, 1Tim 2 implies prayer for a social environment conducive to the preaching of the gospel which is correlative to a pluralistic political context.<\/p>\n

      We considered in some detail the account of Romans 13 provided by the finest evangelical expositor of the 20th<\/sup> century, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones.\u00a0 He drew the distinction between \u201chonor,\u201d \u201csubmission\u201d and \u201cobedience\u201d in considering the original Greek syntax and semantics of the passage.\u00a0 His central posit was that a State invalidates itself when it behaves in a tyrannical manner and when it intrudes into matters over which it has no jurisdiction, particularly in matters of religious practice and liberty.\u00a0 Only when the State is the minister of God to bring order and punish moral evil, is obedience to the State required.\u00a0 We found that Lloyd-Jones even argued for revolutionary activity by believers was permissible as the act of ejecting an immoral or tyrannical State that had delegitimized itself. \u00a0He argued further that the individual Christian is perfectly at liberty to be involved to any degree in political activity but the domain of the institution of the church was separate to the political institutions, its role was to be the moral guardian that would speak into these institutions rather than to be directly involved in the institutions of government, e.g., bishops sitting in the House of Lords.<\/p>\n

      We broadly agreed with his position but noted that he was writing during a time when the Judeo-Christian position was broadly accepted in all major political parties.\u00a0 Our qualification was that this is no longer the case, and the Church needed to expose the morally degenerate nature of \u201csecular\u201d politics and to support those parties which support ethical positions more in line with the gospel.\u00a0 This implied a greater level of involvement of the institution of the church in political life and its explicit support of parties or policies.\u00a0 We maintain with Lloyd-George that the Church as an institution was not to argue for a theocracy which was reserved for Ancient Israel alone, but it was to argue for a theonomical political position, seeing the principles of jurisprudence and government as immutable principles.\u00a0 God, in His Law, not only provides us with Commandments as top-level principles but works out the application in detail in the succeeding narratives.<\/p>\n

      In general, then, we were to defend Truth rather than to cede to postmodern subjectivity or cultural relativism, noting that the Reformation and Councils of the Church established these as prerequisites for culture. \u00a0A strong view of Truth also ushered in the scientific revolution.\u00a0 We concluded that we cannot have kingdom standards in social and political matters without those who can understand and implement them in positions of power and influence.\u00a0 In other words, the argument needs to be had not only about the legitimacy of certain principles but also in the details of working them out.[78]<\/a><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      [1]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans,<\/em> 16\u201317.<\/p>\n

      [2]<\/a> Whilst Lloyd-Jones maintains a strong distinction between philosophy and theology which we have argued against, he does so in a way we can clearly understand with a clear rhetorical sense; I have supplied the understood sense with my amplifications in the square brackets.\u00a0 As Calvin tells us, our aim is a philosophy<\/em> constructed from scripture, whilst most describe his works as works of theology.\u00a0 In the Institutes<\/em> Calvin frequently uses the Latin and French equivalent words for \u201cphilosophy\u201d in both positive and negative senses, drawing a similar distinction as Lloyd-Jones does in rhetorical passages, often prefixing it with \u201cprofane.\u201d\u00a0 The Latin \u201cprofane\u201d explicitly carried the sense of \u201coutside [pro-] or before the temple [-phane],\u201d of heretical and godless thought.\u00a0 He clearly talks about \u201cconstructing a Christian philosophy\u201d<\/em> (Institutes, <\/em>loc. 550) close to the head of the work.\u00a0 This is the sense in which this thesis has argued that philosophy should be conceived in this manner.\u00a0 Thus, I have no problem with the contextual interchange of the words \u201ctheology\u201d or \u201cphilosophy,\u201d and it is a practice I shall follow occasionally in this chapter.<\/p>\n

      [3]<\/a> This is discussed in magisterial fashion in Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Chapter 14,<\/em> see 1 Cor 1:12; Rom 14, 1\u201323.\u00a0 His multi-volume commentary on Romans was one of the notable achievements of 20th<\/sup> century Christian scholarship.\u00a0 A website that preserves his legacy is found at https:\/\/www.mljtrust.org\/<\/a> .<\/p>\n

      [4]<\/a> Quoted in Rushdoony, God\u2019s Plan for Victory,<\/em> loc.175.<\/p>\n

      [5]<\/a> 1 and 2 Thessalonians.\u00a0 The injunction \u201cif one does not work, one does not eat\u201d<\/em> was made in the eschatological context within these letters.<\/p>\n

      [6]<\/a> 1 Cor 7, 26\u2009ff.<\/p>\n

      [7]<\/a> Acts 22:25; Acts 16:37.<\/p>\n

      [8]<\/a> Paul was certainly prepared to die for the gospel (and he did) but seems to have had a much bigger problem with rank injustice amongst those that considered themselves just and civilized (Acts 25:16).\u00a0 Additionally, like Jesus, he took the greatest exception to hypocrisy, particularly the religious hypocrisy (Acts 23:3) of \u201cthe Jews.\u201d<\/em> \u00a0Like the Johannine use of the term, \u201cthe Jews\u201d<\/em> here refers to the Jewish authorities which were an unhealthy political-religious hybrid, and it is not used as an ethnic slur.\u00a0 The authorities were the chief adversaries of both Jesus and Paul in their ministries.<\/p>\n

      [9]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Exposition of Chapter 13, 17.<\/p>\n

      [10]<\/a> Cope, Old Testament Template, 21\u201327.<\/p>\n

      [11]<\/a> \u201cRevivalism\u201d in the modern sense is a term most associated with the ministry of Charles Finney (1792\u20131875).\u00a0 However, as noted earlier in the thesis and expanded upon in my Dominion,<\/em> I demonstrate how he was extremely active in the political, educational, and wider cultural spheres.\u00a0 He did not limit himself to \u201cspiritual matters\u201d<\/em> as was to become the habit of some of his imitators in the evangelical and Fundamentalist movements of the 19th<\/sup> \/ 20th<\/sup> century, most of whom believed any such engagement was a \u201cdistraction\u201d from the real task of saving souls.<\/p>\n

      [12]<\/a> Matt 28:19\u201320 (NAS).<\/p>\n

      [13]<\/a> Brown, Evangelicals at the Crossroads<\/em>.\u00a0 Brown distils the issues down exceptionally well here, he has an earned doctorate (and it shows), as well as a substantial standing in the evangelical world.<\/p>\n

      [14]<\/a> For my extended use of this term, see Macneil, Politics,<\/em> Appendix A.<\/p>\n

      [15]<\/a> In Macneil, Politics,<\/em> I discuss how the argument was made that democracy or republicanism is no more God-ordained than say, despotism or some other form of totalitarianism.\u00a0 Even the Nazis could be commended for \u201ckeeping order\u201d<\/em> if the alternative was violent anarchy.\u00a0 We might<\/em> be prepared to countenance the last proposition, but we should remember the Nazis were voted in,<\/em> but then they made very sure they could not get voted out.<\/em><\/p>\n

      [16]<\/a> In this case, \u201cTrump.\u201d<\/p>\n

      [17]<\/a> In this case, Republicanism and\/or political conservatism.<\/p>\n

      [18]<\/a> This \u201cKingdom\u201d language might seem a strange idiom to those outside of modern charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity.\u00a0 In brief, Jesus = King, dom = His domain, which includes the church but also his providential rule as \u201cKing of kings, Lord of lords\u201d<\/em> (Dan 2:37; Rev. 19:16, (NAS)) which is explicitly dealing with the civil and political authorities.<\/p>\n

      [19]<\/a> Macneil, Politics,<\/em> \u00a7\u20092.<\/p>\n

      [20]<\/a> As I also argued in Macneil, Dominion Theology,<\/em> \u00a7\u20093\u2009ff.<\/p>\n

      [21]<\/a> I would say it arguably existed through to the mid-1980s, perhaps to the end of the Thatcher era in the UK (which itself finally petered out after a long, slow decline in 1990.)\u00a0 The \u201csexual revolution\u201d<\/em> that began in the second half of the 1980s on the Left (when I was a member of various far-Left groups and witnessed it firsthand) legitimized (culturally, at least) cultural ideologies with violently anti-Christian premises, which were a wedge to evict the ghost of Christianity from the public square.<\/p>\n

      However, even during the subsequent Blair era in the UK (both Labor leaders John Smith and Tony Blair were active members of the Christian Socialist Movement), certain moral matters were \u201cbanned\u201d (unofficially) from journalist\u2019s questions despite being newly \u201cfashionable\u201d for the radical (or liberal) Left.\u00a0 A journalist who referred directly to the homosexuality of certain Cabinet members would no longer be \u201cinvited\u201d to briefings.\u00a0 The US situation is more complex in regard of \u201cshared values,\u201d but it should be noted that Barack Obama publicly defended marriage was for heterosexuals as late as 2008 to get the black evangelical vote.<\/p>\n

      [22]<\/a> See for example, my blog, Censorship\u2014The New Normal; <\/em>Troughton, Cancelling Christians. <\/em>[Online] Available at: https:\/\/thecritic.co.uk\/cancelling-christianity\/<\/a><\/p>\n

      [23]<\/a> DMLJ, Romans 13<\/em>, 135.<\/p>\n

      [24]<\/a> Paul refers to \u201cdung\u201d<\/em> in his famous \u201cforgetting the past and pressing to the future\u201d<\/em> passage of Philippians 3 which contextually, dealt with his previous life in Judaism.\u00a0 The word he specifically uses in 3:8 was what we would call a \u201cswear word,\u201d it was only used in vulgar conversation.<\/p>\n

      [25]<\/a> One of Rorty\u2019s famous quips was \u201ctake care of freedom and truth will take care of itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

      [26]<\/a> John 14:6 (NET):\u00a0 Jesus replied, \u201cI am the way, and the truth, and the life. \u00a0No one comes to the Father except through me.\u201d<\/p>\n

      [27]<\/a> The lack of progress in science was a notable feature of the medieval period until the Reformation, despite major advances in other areas of culture (progress in medicine was perhaps the exception).\u00a0 This issue is examined comprehensively in Butler, Philosophy.<\/em><\/p>\n

      [28]<\/a> \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1: defense; as a legal technical term, a speech in defense of oneself reply, verbal defense <\/em>(2Tim 4:16); BDAG emphasizes this is a speech<\/em> in defense, it is a reasoned, rather than inspirational or preached.<\/p>\n

      [29]<\/a> This position, I believe, represents an orthodox Christian perspective.\u00a0 Granted, some might see our moral condition as the most enlightened or advanced that it has ever been and that our governments served with distinction in keeping us safe during COVID whilst simultaneously respecting law, life, and liberty.<\/p>\n

      [30]<\/a> Dan 4:17 (NET); Rom 9:17 (NAS).<\/p>\n

      [31]<\/a> See Romans 9.\u00a0 In my view, the chapters 9, 10, and 11 of Romans contain some of the most complex and challenging logic of the Christian scriptures.<\/p>\n

      [32]<\/a> Mat 28,18\u201320; Mat 6:10 (NAS).<\/p>\n

      [33]<\/a> Some mystical iterations of Christian belief might dare to assert this as I touch on in Dominion<\/em>.\u00a0 This is normally rooted in a controlling catastrophic pessimism regarding the human condition.\u00a0 In certain Gnostic heresies this might also be the case, imported into this view was the Platonic conception of the inferiority, even the evil character of the physical.<\/p>\n

      [34]<\/a> We are all members of the body of Christ, what Luther called the \u201cpriesthood of all believers.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 However, this is conceptually and practically distinct from those who work full time in<\/em> The Church as a ministerial calling.\u00a0 We tend to be very loose in our use of the term \u201cchurch,\u201d see Cope, Old Testament Template,<\/em> 103\u201312.<\/p>\n

      [35]<\/a> Care should be taken here not to misinterpret this as to say any source of theology outside scripture is illegitimate, otherwise all the philosopher or theologian could do was to copy out scripture.\u00a0 It is rather that the rooting and grounding of our philosophy is in scripture and hermeneutically in scripture as a whole.<\/p>\n

      [36]<\/a> Kuyper, \u201cSphere Sovereignty,\u201d 488.<\/p>\n

      [37]<\/a> Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 45.<\/p>\n

      [38]<\/a> Machen, Education<\/em>.\u00a0 This was a collection of his speeches and essays, as well as an account of the founding principles of Westminster.<\/p>\n

      [39]<\/a> Machen, Christianity and Liberalism,<\/em> 1\u201313.\u00a0 This introductory section is invaluable reading as a restatement of a Christian conception of culture and immediately engages with the necessity of warfare in the cultural realm and specifically with socialistic political philosophies.\u00a0 It must be remembered Machen had witnessed the Russian revolution a mere five years to publishing this work and the greatest intellectuals of America like John Dewey who were laying the foundations of the \u201cProgressive\u201d movement which was to incubate American socialism. \u00a0It is arguable that the baby has just<\/em> been born, it is only in the Trump era that American politicians in the mainstream<\/em> Democratic Party and in the mainstream<\/em> media, were happy to campaign under the banner of \u201csocialism,\u201d despite Marxism, in the guise of \u201ccritical theory,\u201d having been well established in the academy since the 1960s.<\/p>\n

      His \u2018Christianity and Culture\u2019 address, which is the first part of this collection, was originally entitled \u2018The Scientific Preparation of the Minister\u2019<\/em> and was delivered on Sep.20, 1912 at the opening of the 101st<\/sup> session of Princeton Theological Seminary.\u00a0 This at once shows how basic in his thinking was his concern to engage and transform all<\/em> of culture and how this eventually motivated him to break with Princeton and found Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).<\/p>\n

      [40]<\/a> When Machen founded WTS, his first professor of Apologetics (who was to remain over 40 years in that post) was Cornelius Van Til whose work featured predominantly in earlier chapters of this book.\u00a0 Rousas Rushdoony (who had written the earliest summary of Van Til, By What Standard?)<\/em> was the man most responsible for developing the perspective in a sociological direction which became known as \u201cdominion theology\u201d or \u201cChristian Reconstructionism,\u201d see Macneil, Dominion,<\/em> \u00a7\u00a7\u20094.5\u20135.4.<\/p>\n

      [41]<\/a> Machen, Christianity, Culture, and Liberalism, 6.<\/p>\n

      [42]<\/a> Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law.<\/p>\n

      [43]<\/a> Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics.<\/p>\n

      [44]<\/a> It was rather the position, arguably of Augustine and given its systematic expression by Calvin.\u00a0 It was developed by his successor Beza, by Bullinger, our own John Knox and then the Puritan movement of the 1640s, from which modern Reformed theology owes most.<\/p>\n

      [45]<\/a> Cope, God and Political Justice, loc. 231<\/p>\n

      [46]<\/a> Cope, Old Testament Template, 62<\/p>\n

      [47]<\/a> 2 Tim 3:16, (NAS).<\/p>\n

      [48]<\/a> Even Sartre accepted this piece of moral reasoning.\u00a0 He framed it in terms of a man having to choose between fighting in the Spanish civil war and taking care of his sick mother.\u00a0 Whatever he chose, he would choose for all men<\/em>.\u00a0 It is a misnomer to think existentialism equates with a lack of binding or universal ethics.\u00a0 One of Plantinga\u2019s earliest papers (1958) discusses Existentialism and Ethics.<\/em><\/p>\n

      [49]<\/a> That is, there is a civic sanction associated with it.\u00a0 One example in scripture is associated with the stealing of a small amount of fruit; restitution is made but there is no further punishment.\u00a0 In other cases, there is a fine, compensation and restitution.\u00a0 It is an oft neglected feature of the Law code in the Hebrew scriptures that it encourages intelligent discrimination of the nature of a misdemeanor or a crime.<\/p>\n

      [50]<\/a> \u201cThe Righteous Revolution\u2014Could there be a theocracy in America\u2019s future?\u201d,<\/em> http:\/\/prosocs.tripod.com\/riterev.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      [51]<\/a> On a practical note, we would do well to seek such a society, but it would be introduced based on consensus, not imposition.\u00a0 It is of note that George Washington, the first American president, made such a proclamation based on consensus of the Congress.<\/p>\n

      [52]<\/a> Exodus 18:21\u201322 (NAU)<\/p>\n

      [53]<\/a> This story is vividly told in Barton & Barton American Story<\/em> which is notable for its use and enumeration of primary sources.\u00a0 The scholarly standard for early American religious thought is Noll, America\u2019s God.<\/em><\/p>\n

      [54]<\/a> One stream of Jewish messianic thought had precisely this expectation, one which was evident even in his disciples (Acts 1:6).\u00a0 There was great disillusionment with Jesus for his political \u201cweakness\u201d; after welcoming him into Jerusalem, they were happy to shout \u201ccrucify him\u201d a week later.<\/p>\n

      [55]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13,<\/em> 159.<\/p>\n

      [56]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Roman 13,<\/em> 159.<\/p>\n

      [57]<\/a> The NET Bible exegetical note is informative here:\u00a0 \u201c\u2018Go\u2026baptize\u2026teach\u2019 are participles modifying the imperative verb \u201cmake disciples.\u201d According to ExSyn<\/em>* 645 the first participle (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, poreuthentes,<\/em> \u2018Go\u2019) fits the typical structural pattern for the attendant circumstance participle (aorist participle preceding aorist main verb, with the mood of the main verb usually imperative or indicative) and thus picks up the mood (imperative in this case) from the main verb (\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5, matheteusate<\/em>,<\/em> \u2018make disciples\u2019).\u201d\u00a0 *Here they are referring to Wallace, Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament<\/em>.<\/p>\n

      [58]<\/a> In the dying days of apartheid, it was common for government ministers to quote Romans 13 to the dissident church centered around Archbishop Tutu.<\/p>\n

      [59]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans\u2014Exposition of Chapter 13, 1\u2013162.<\/p>\n

      [60]<\/a> I deal with this passage more fully in, https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/should-i-obey-my-government-civil-disobedience-in-the-covid-era\/<\/a> .<\/p>\n

      [61]<\/a> Chapters 9, 10, and 11 form a self-contained pericope on the problem of the Jews and their relationship to the gospel.\u00a0 There are still important principles in these passages, but the chapters are strongly focused on the Jews.<\/p>\n

      [62]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13,<\/em> 2.<\/p>\n

      [63]<\/a> This was one of Calvin\u2019s strongest criticisms of the Anabaptist post-Reformation movement (sometimes called the \u2018Radical Reformation\u2019) which became progressively to reject all forms of human authority.\u00a0 The seeds of messianic Nazism and Communism are sometimes argued to have originated in their theology which justified violence against all non-believers (where the non-believer was widely conceived)\u2014they were celebrated by the DDR (particularly Thomas M\u00fcntzer) in the 20th<\/sup> century for the attempt to create a commune in Munster in 1534.\u00a0 However, the experience of Munster moderated their politics such that the Amish, Mennonites, even Quakers and Baptists all lay claim to some kind of heritage from the Anabaptists.\u00a0 In an important sense, all these groups were<\/em> social radicals but became committed to a demonstration<\/em> rather than an imposition<\/em> of Christianity.\u00a0 See Verduin, Reformers<\/em> for a historical review from within the Reformed community but with sufficient chronological distance to present a well-balanced view.<\/p>\n

      [64]<\/a> 1 Tim 2:1 (NAS).<\/p>\n

      [65]<\/a> To emphasize our main point here regarding the semantics of the word, BDAG the academic \u201cstandard\u201d reference work for the Greek language of this period, does not offer the meaning \u201cobey,\u201d listing only the passive and active voice.\u00a0 Vine\u2019s Expository dictionary (another standard work) lists \u201cobey\u201d as a possible but minor inflection in the passive or middle voice, noting the military origin of the word.\u00a0 The Strong\u2019s number is 5293 and Strong lists \u201cobey\u201d as a possibility for the middle voice.\u00a0 Pertinently, the \u201cmiddle\u201d voice (often reflexive in nuance) was dying out during this period of the Greek language adding to the improbability this was the sense intended.<\/p>\n

      [66]<\/a> Col 3:18; 1Pe 3:1, 5.<\/p>\n

      [67]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13<\/em>, 23.<\/p>\n

      [68]<\/a> Deut. 20:10ff.; Josh 4:12; Num 32:6\u201325.<\/p>\n

      [69]<\/a> The \u201cHoly Roman Emperor\u201d was a title bequeathed by the Pope on one of the monarchs of Europe once the Papacy had established its domination (c.600AD).\u00a0 This then made that monarch\u2019s military resources available to the Pope for dealing with \u201cheresy\u201d in any nation rebelling against his authority.\u00a0 The monarchs were normally feuding with one another as well as trying to weaken the authority of the Pope over their nations. \u00a0This was why some of the Monarchs were sympathetic to the proto reformers such as Wycliffe and Huss who vigorously asserted the political autonomy of nations and the superiority of the civil authorities over the Church within the national boundaries.<\/p>\n

      [70]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13,<\/em> 46; Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans.<\/em><\/p>\n

      [71]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13,<\/em> 46.<\/p>\n

      [72]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13,<\/em> 69.<\/p>\n

      [73]<\/a> The history around these groups and their relationship to Cromwell is contested history and all did not go well, but there was a strong element of novel Christian political thinking in all these groups.<\/p>\n

      [74]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13,<\/em> 51.<\/p>\n

      [75]<\/a> This is a well-known paradox, even in today\u2019s Russia, where specific Christian ministries have access to and favor with the highest levels of the Russian government (I personally know of two) because of their reputation for honor and ethical conduct. Similarly, in some Islamic countries, Christians have access to TV-stations because they are honorable and pay their bills on time.<\/p>\n

      [76]<\/a> Lloyd-Jones, Romans 13<\/em>, 52.<\/p>\n

      [77]<\/a> Some might object that it was the religious authorities they came into conflict with, but Roman history does tell us that the Romans were shrewd enough to allow a degree of autonomy to their colonies in the sense they could keep their own civil law if they recognized the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. \u00a0In the Donatist controversy in the early church of North Africa, this was as simple as throwing some incense on the fire once a year.\u00a0 We can glean this from the gospels and Acts where the governors would rather, that the Jews \u201cjudge according to their law\u201d<\/em> (Acts 18:15; Acts 24:6) than get involved in such civil disputes.\u00a0 It was why Pilate was just plain reluctant to get involved in the trial of Jesus and refused to judge as justice demanded but rather in accord with what he perceived as public opinion.<\/p>\n

      [78]<\/a> There is far more to be said on the details of this involvement, see Macneil, Politics.<\/em><\/p>\n

      \n
      \n
      \nThe Transcendental Argument for God (TAG)<\/a>\n<\/div>\n
      \nFinal Conclusion<\/a>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      7 The Philosophy of Christian Involvement 7.1 Overview and Prerequisites The aim of this chapter is to build a case for a revival of the position that champions active political and wider cultural involvement, attempting to prove not just the divine prerogative of our involvement, but what the governing principles of our involvement should be.\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1176,"parent":1136,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1164","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\r\nThe Philosophy of Christian Involvement - Planet M Blog<\/title>\r\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\r\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - Planet M Blog\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Planet M Blog\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-16T21:47:23+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Frontmatter.jpg\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1400\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2336\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"47 minutes\" \/>\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - Planet M Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/07\\\/Frontmatter.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-24T19:27:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-16T21:47:23+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/07\\\/Frontmatter.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/07\\\/Frontmatter.jpg\",\"width\":1400,\"height\":2336,\"caption\":\"EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY \u2014 EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Planet Macneil Blog\",\"description\":\"The blog of Dr Michael P\u00f2l Macneil PhD\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/78d80b09bb7f5dca3e2779fb6a2c2d33\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":[\"Person\",\"Organization\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/78d80b09bb7f5dca3e2779fb6a2c2d33\",\"name\":\"Michael Macneil\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Michael Macneil\"},\"logo\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g\"},\"description\":\"I write software and am studying part-time for a PhD in philosophy. I have an MSc in Electronic Engineering and an MA in Studies in Philosophy and Religion. I am a Microsoft Certified Professional with an MCSD. I have a teaching qualification in Physics and like most things science. Otherwise I like classic VWs, watching Rodney Howard-Browne, playing guitar and making computer music.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/planetmacneil.org\\\/blog\"]}]}<\/script>\r\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - Planet M Blog","description":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - Planet M Blog","og_description":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS","og_url":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/","og_site_name":"Planet M Blog","article_modified_time":"2025-08-16T21:47:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1400,"height":2336,"url":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Frontmatter.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Estimated reading time":"47 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/","url":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/","name":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - Planet M Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Frontmatter.jpg","datePublished":"2025-07-24T19:27:30+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-16T21:47:23+00:00","description":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement - EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Frontmatter.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Frontmatter.jpg","width":1400,"height":2336,"caption":"EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/the-philosophy-of-christian-involvement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY \u2014 EPISTEMOLOGICAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS","item":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/the-foundations-of-philosophy-epistemological-self-consciousness\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"The Philosophy of Christian Involvement"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/","name":"Planet Macneil Blog","description":"The blog of Dr Michael P\u00f2l Macneil PhD","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/78d80b09bb7f5dca3e2779fb6a2c2d33"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/78d80b09bb7f5dca3e2779fb6a2c2d33","name":"Michael Macneil","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g","caption":"Michael Macneil"},"logo":{"@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8c23bafa3d0e8438466d9d51dd2b843fab8754f428006edc6c50c8d9b66d9fa1?s=96&r=g"},"description":"I write software and am studying part-time for a PhD in philosophy. I have an MSc in Electronic Engineering and an MA in Studies in Philosophy and Religion. I am a Microsoft Certified Professional with an MCSD. I have a teaching qualification in Physics and like most things science. Otherwise I like classic VWs, watching Rodney Howard-Browne, playing guitar and making computer music.","sameAs":["https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog"]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1164\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1136"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1176"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetmacneil.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}