I wrote this a couple of weeks ago when I was stressed out. I'm stressed out again today, so I reviewed it and I'm posting it here. But first, here's the music I'm into right now:

...and, um, also this:

I realized after re-reading my most recent post that I left a few loose ends hanging, which I would like to mend...maybe not in elaborate depth in this post... First, I left open potential for concerns about legal uniformity in a Theonomic nation. Second, I think I should dig a bit deeper into whether there is a substantial distinction between "canonical" (though not inspired) commentary and the necessity of Christian fellowship in enabling proper Biblical interpretation.

I think I've discussed the issue of legal uniformity in another post somewhere.... but I don't remember. I know I wrote a paper on the topic and submitted it to an informal publication, but it hasn't been published. Here are the basics:

Biblical law is a true bottom-up hierarchy. There is no court of appeals, and people elect every tier of judge, with the lowest tier governing only ten people. Higher judges may not overturn the rulings of lower judges, and people may not appeal their decisions to higher judges. The higher judges only exist to resolve disputes which are too hard for lower judges, such as those issues which bridge the jurisdictions of several lower judges; the lowest common judge may be invoked. All judges are elected by and from among the people. They elect judges who they know personally and respect, and consider to have certain qualities enumerated in scripture. Furthermore, "the people" (that group of 10 people) are the accusers, defendants, jury, and executioners among themselves. They elect their judge, and they can choose not to penalize if the judge has been unjust.

What all this means is that there's a lot of room for variation in legal interpretation among different judges, because the judges cannot really step on one another's toes. two neighboring jurisdictions can have very different interpretations of many laws, and still function as neighbors, because their jurisdictions are clearly defined. And, if a case bridges the jurisdictions on the matter of that disagreement, then the lower judges must accept the ruling of the higher judge to whom they defer (if they don't resolve it among themselves).

The Christian state is designed for unity in diversity. Many jurisdictions with different interpretations of the law -- the best interpretations evidencing themselves as such by the greater equity with their constituents experience.

Now, on the matter of the distinction between commentary and community. That is, I am choosing to avoid producing a commentary on scripture, to which people might turn if they aren't sure about a passage, on the grounds that I do not believe that a right interpretation of Biblical Law should be considered only-possible with help from such a commentary. However, I do believe that a right interpretation of scripture is only possible when Christians are meditating on scripture together, engaging with their community, and discussing their disagreements with one another.

So, why community, but not commentary? What's the difference between a spoken commentary and a written one? 

Actually, I very much value the commentaries I've read -- the preserved works of Augustine, Calvin, and Tertullian are some of my good friends, and I think everyone should read them. I shy away from legal commentary in particular, because of what I see in other attempts at Christian nations. They reference the legal commentary instead of the scriptures when deciding a case, and as their understanding of practical applications evolve, so do the commentaries. Consider the endless rabbinic traditions -- so massive and absurd that Jews don't even have the confidence to approach the word that God gave them and commanded them to read aloud to one another. To be sure, nobody should be referencing Calvin instead of scripture either (and it is with much grief that I often observe people issuing references to confessions as arguments against references to scripture).

What I'm opposed to are not simply expository tomes, such as Bavinck's Dogmatics or any one of the many Systematic Theologies out there, but rather works designed to function as reference manuals, which is exactly what I hoped the wiki would be -- a thing where people could get Biblical topics explained to them so well that they didn't have to search the scriptures for themselves. I think that this goal, if achieved, would destroy just governance, as all righteous judges must be constantly meditating on scripture -- I believe that the maintenance of a good judge depends on consumption of  fresh meat carved right out of the book itself, not pre-digested food written out by some careful scholar. 

A good judge shouldn't ask, "tell me what the Bible says about theft" when a court case arises. He should already know it, because between cases he was reading the Biblical laws in total and asking, "why does the Bible say this?". And those questions should not be so few that it is practical, nor so depreciated that it is tolerable, to have pre-packaged answers which everyone in the state gets from the same extrabiblical source. The questions should be met with constantly reforming answers which everyone in the state seeks after and fights with one another to refine and perfect by means of Biblically prescribed community discussions and confrontations, so that no jurisdiction can assert undue authority over another by changing the law book which the other references for its cases.

For very controversial matters, debate books and theological works will be written down, and the proper answer will be summarized and remembered in history, just as it has been with every major theological debate since Christ -- the Church passes on this knowledge with excellent efficiency. Consider how many people have never read Haggai, which contains much comprehensible information, but yet have an ardent commitment to the Trinity, which is a far more complex and incomprehensible (though indispensable) doctrine. We don't need to pre-empt these debates by producing a reference manual to cover every possible past and future unstated application of the whole law.