Meredith Kline: On Covenants, Cow, and Cog. Part 1 of 3

Meredith Kline: On Covenants, Cow, and Cog. Part 1 of 3.

Meredith Kline is another big name in the in-house Evangelical discussion about the nature of the Covenant of Works (Cow) and the Covenant of Grace (Cog).

Kline, a brilliant theologian who taught at Gordon-Conwell and Westminster Seminary, has passed on. Please don’t take any of these comments as intending disrespect for a departed brother. That we continue to wrestle with his ideas is the testimony to his vast depth and intellectual resources. To not think about these things would be the offense.

I’ve always had mixed feelings on Kline as on the one hand, it’s hard to find really sharp Christians to read that choose to speak on things that are very interesting, so I appreciate his scholarship, but on the other, he had a peculiar talent for making reasonably clear things unduly complicated, and in this finding ways to find things in the text that probably weren’t there.

On his defenses of the Cow against those in the last century or so that were prone to blend the Covenants in one direction or the other I applaud his rectitude, as he was fighting with no mean theologians, but titans. The “Blenders” had a few different options for attack on traditional Covenantal interpretations of theology, first by saying that all Covenants are really Cogs, so that even those that seem to be Cows are really gracious, and then those that say that there really are no Cogs, because even those that seem to be gracious include some measure of works for their parties, so though grace is necessary, it is not sufficient.

(It gets very confusing trying to keep track of the parties and the spiraling opinions but I’ll try to explain some of the positions in later blogs, as best I can, on the nature of our Covenant. It’s enough to say that some of the key modern players are N.T. Wright, John Murray, Ray Sutton, Michael Horton, Douglas Wilson, R.C. Sproul, Daniel Fuller, Mark Karlberg, and O. Palmer Robertson. Even the present Pope has found his way clear to weigh in on this one in “Many religions-One Covenant”, Pope Benedict XVI. The reason that though we might have heard the names here and there, we rarely understand what the argument is about is that some of the writers have an amazing talent for not communicating their positions clearly.)

Kline’s willingness to press his own personal views sometimes to the exclusion of a traditional Confessional Orthodoxy is viewed today as cheeky and bold but for my taste a bit too spicy. There was an ongoing battle between he and Greg Bahnsen on the issue of “Theonomy”, which could be widely defined as the view that the Moral law of God is the proper basis for human ethics. We could take the point of discussion as being whether or not God’s moral law is the continuing basis for our personal ethics, our social behavior, and by extension, for our good Civil law. That issue and Kline’s work on it in regard to the Westminster Confession will fill in the remainder of this article.

I’m not a Chalcedon fan (Reconstructionist), for many reasons, but the way Kline decided to handle the discussion lacked both respect for the long standing tradition of a specifically Christian Civics and an obvious lack of Christian charity for Bahnsen and the others he was writing about. He took a conversation that was necessary for Christians to have in every generation, the conversation about how we should frame our ethical and legal conduct, and threw gasoline on the glowing embers of consideration.

In this next section Kline presents his analysis. We should notice that first he is clear in saying something that should be understood by all within the older Evangelical tradition, which is that the Westminster Confession, the most commonly used Evangelical Confession of faith, clearly held the view that Kline disagrees with (Chapters 19 and 23 included below). He thinks that the revision that changed the section on “Magistracy” did not remove all of the traditional legal thought necessary bring a complete correction. He then has the boldness to imply that those that hold to what the Confession teaches might be charged with heresy in the very churches that have sworn to uphold the theology of the Confession. It’s a confusing assault, at least.

“At the same time it must be said that Chalcedon is not without roots in respectable ecclesiastical tradition. It is in fact a revival of certain teachings contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith – at least in the Confession’s original formulations. These particular elements in the Confession, long since rejected as manifestly unbiblical by the mass of those who stand in that confessional tradition (as well as by virtually all other students of the Scriptures), have been subjected to official revision. The revision, however, has left us with standards whose proper legal interpretation is perplexed by ambiguities, and the claim of Chalcedon is that it is the true champion of confessional orthodoxy. Ecclesiastical courts operating under the Westminster Confession of Faith are going to have their problems, therefore, if they should be of a mind to bring the Chalcedon aberration under their judicial scrutiny.” Meredith Kline “Comments on an Old New Error” 1

Reading these things changed my views on Kline’s work. Having a great respect for history and for the Christians that came before us is part and parcel of the Reforming tradition. To be as bold as to threaten other Christians with censure for holding a position that he admits is in accord with their doctrinal standards, to me, shows disrespect for those same standards that he swore to uphold upon his own ordination. And people that disrespect the tradition should not be thought of as trustworthy advocates of that tradition, but instead, should be carefully considered, as they think of themselves as creative, instead of protective, of orthodoxy.

Kline not only admitted that the Confession that he swore to uphold was at least Theonomic in its scope, he did not hold back from implying that the Confession should be changed to a greater extent to remove the remaining elements that he found offensive.

“If, providentially, anything good is to come of the Chalcedon disturbance, perhaps, paradoxically, it will come from the very embarrassment given to churches committed to the Westminster standards by the relationship that can be traced, as noted above, between the Chalcedon position and certain ideas expressed in the Westminster Confession. Perhaps the shock of seeing where those ideas lead in Chalcedon’s vigorous development of them may make the church face up to the problem posed by the relevant formulations and reconsider the Confession’s position on these points (and on interlocking issues, like the Sabbath). From such a constructively critical effort there might ensue, if not actual amendment of the faulty formulations themselves, at least a sorely needed clarification of the use of the Confession as an instrument in the judicial process.” Kline 1.

Never the shy one, Kline even went as far as saying that the writers of the Confession managed to misinterpret the Bible on “a massive scale”.

“Whatever support may be found in the Westminster standards for the Chalcedon theory of Theonomic politics, when it comes to assessing it in terms of the church’s only infallible standard, that theory must be repudiated as a misreading of the Bible on a massive scale.” Kline 1.

(The sections that Kline is writing about as misreadings of the scriptures are included below for examination.)

Someone said to me on this that Kline might be commenting here on the Chalcedon group and not the Westminster Divines themselves as having a massive misreading of the Scriptures, but from his context, it would need to be both. He already said that the Divines (A title for Pastor/theologians in the 16th century) wrote this view into the Confession, so if on just this particular point, if the Chalcedon reading is a massive misread, by necessity the Divines misread the same read. The gall of the piece is found exactly in his distancing himself from the Confession in order to refute the ethic by some supposed contrast of the Confession with Holy Scripture.

A point of interest here is that Kline’s own innovative interpretation of these things has never been adopted by any Christian body, least of all in the Reformed tradition (though he might have some co-belligerents in the Ana-Baptist tradition). Since I don’t think anything quite like Kline’s interpretation has ever been heard of before in the Christian churches, it’s hard to understand what all the excitement is about. Smart guy? Sure. Very interesting and somewhat obscure understanding of the big texts. But I think his arguments tend to be persuasive only if you might already be looking for something to justify like positions. And that’s coming from someone that is neither a Chalcedon guy nor a Reconstructionist. Either way, Kline’s duty was to the defense and not the refutation of the Confession of his Church.

There should be a thick measure of respect for our past that protects us from needless and possibly harmful innovation, and that coupled with a heavy burden of proof upon anything that looks suspiciously like wanton disregard for the historic formulations of Christian dogma. Things are not sacred because they are old, but they are often old because wiser men than we established a worthy foundation that has stood the test of time, and the zeal for newness is often thoughtless of consequence.

Either way, Kline’s analysis is a presentation of an alternate view, and not a refutation of the Confession’s position, which is what leaves it unfulfilling. It is not an answer. It is an announcement.

Here are links to Kline’s article and Bahnsen’s response. It’s good to remember that understanding Bahnsen as defending orthodoxy in this regard does not entail either embracing Christian Reconstruction as a system nor any of the specific applications favored by the Chalcedon group. The method for the application of God’s law is debatable but it’s hard to see the Principal of drawing our norms from the Moral law of God as itself being up for debate.

Christopher Neiswonger

Kline’s accusation.
1 http://www.covopc.org/Kline/Kline_on_Theonomy.html

Bahnsen’s Response.
2 http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe043.htm

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 19 Of the Law of God.

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the four first commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.

III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;(d) and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law, as a covenant of works.(t) So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace.

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that, freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

WCF Chapters XVI-XIX

Chapter XXIII.
Of the Civil Magistrate.

I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.

WCF Chapters XXIII-XXVII