Here’s the second installment. There’s more to come. Enjoy…..
1. Is there a connection between 19thcentury revival/revivalism and the kind of socio-political agendas often advocated by both the Christian Right and Left today?
Definitely. Many evangelicals and Reformed do not understand that the kind of evangelical activism they now promote or perform was first part of the Second Great Awakening – the bad one. Not only was Finney interested in converting people, but he also wanted a righteous and just society. Evangelicals responded by forming a ton of voluntary societies that did in many respects transform American society (if you were not a member of the Whig or Republican parties, you may not have appreciated all of these reforms.)
So the Second no-so-great Awakening drove a wedge between Protestants, those with a high view of the church (Episcopalians, Lutherans, and some Old School Presbyterians) and those with a low view of the church and a high view of America. The ethno-cultural school of political historians has produced a body of literature on these ecclesial differences, and this work has actually informed my own writing on confessional Protestantism. The term “confessional” itself comes from political history and it stands for high church Protestants who are less concerned about social and political matters compared to the eternal realities of the gospel.
One other historical reference worthy of comment here is that the Second not-so-great Awakening was really the soil from which the Social Gospel sprung. I sometimes wonder why today’s “conservative” evangelicals are so willing to repeat the efforts and arguments that “liberal” Protestants were making a hundred years ago. Also, if you look at the books written by leaders of the religious right, people like Falwell and Ralph Reed, you see the Second not-so-great Awakening cited as a model or inspiration for contemporary political activism.
As the kids used to say, “What’s up with that?”
2. Should the church tell people how to vote for specific candidates, based on issues like abortion or gay marriage?
Definitely not. The church may and should speak to all the laws of the Decalogue, including the sixth and the seventh. Why the first four don’t receive more attention is anyone’s guess – could it be that social activism makes matters like worship and the Sabbath less important? But beyond explaining what God’s word requires, the church needs to let members apply them in their lives according to the callings and consciences. I mean, would anyone want the church to tell members never to eat meat offered to idols? It looks to me that if Christian liberty applies to the affects of idolatry, it also applies to electoral politics and the legislators voted into office.
3. Does the church have a prophetic voice, challenging sin wherever it finds it, even in politics and culture?
It depends what you mean. Expounding and teaching God’s word does involve challenging sin, obviously. But what people often mean is they want the church to apply the truths of the word to specific circumstances. I actually think this stems from a desire for the church to be relevant, to be doing something important. If the church is the place where the kingdom of grace is advancing, I don’t see why cleaning up pockets of cultural crime in the United States is more relevant than that. So people need to see how amazing the work of the church is, and how trivial, ephemeral, and fading the affairs of politics and culture are in comparison. But even so, the church has a prophetic voice simply by proclaiming the whole counsel of God. I wonder if people who say the church needs to be a prophetic voice actually appreciate that a minister standing in the pulpit each Sunday is representing the prophetic office of Christ.
4. Is there a place for para-church agencies and what are the boundaries of legitimate para-church work?
There has to be a place for the parachurch because the church can’t run everything. So everything that is not the church is parachurch.
The real question is parachurch agencies that engage in religious work. I don’t think a hard rule exists here except in those areas of evangelism and missions, work that the church is to oversee directly. But when it comes to educational endeavors, publishing, flexibility is in order
5. How do you respond to those who believe that the work of the church is to ‘transform society’ or to ‘bring in the Kingdom’?
First, I say that the coming of the kingdom is not evident in transforming society. As I’ve said, the church through word, sacrament, and discipline, is advancing the kingdom of grace, which is hastening the kingdom of glory (I’m using the language of the Shorter Catechism here). And because the church is not called to transform society – she already has enough on her plate – then she is not called to transform society. Individual Christians in their vocations are called to a host of tasks that do, I guess, contribute to social transformation. (I don’t like that language because it has a progressive political valence that I oppose for political and cultural reasons – both libertarian and localist and at times agrarian.) But the church doesn’t transform society nor should she as an institution (in distinction from her members’ callings).
This doesn’t mean that some of the aspects of social transformation, such as government, policy, and legislation are unimportant or “worldly.” They are worldly but in the good sense of the created order and the way that God superintends this world. Society is a good thing and Christians as citizens or in other capacities should be dutiful in their obligations to neighbors and magistrates. But social transformation is not where the kingdom of Christ happens.
6. If cultural transformation isn’t the church’s work, what is?
The work of the church is word, sacrament, prayer, discipline, catechesis, diaconal care and fellowship. It is not sexy and it does not generally attract headlines. But these are God’s ordained means for building his kingdom.
August 29th, 2009 at 16:16
[...] Interview with Hart (Pt 2) Posted on August 29, 2009 by R. Scott Clark At Letters from Mississippi. [...]
August 29th, 2009 at 21:36
Am a High Churchman. Thanks for the post.
August 30th, 2009 at 10:22
In response to questions 2, 3 and 6 especially, but really the whole post…
The church may not have a duty to transform society. But I do think leaders and pastors in the church do have a duty to minister in a way that transforms members of the church. And the church also has a mandate to transform people into baptised followers of Christ i.e. church members.
It is the duty of the church to nurture its members so that they obey the Lord in relation to all the specific issues mentioned in the post.
If all that means I am not 2K then I suppose I’m just not 2K… but I struggle to understand how Christian ethical teaching doesn’t change the way Christians live and work, so changing their environment and society. If a non-Christian medical doctor, businessperson, mayor, artist, or lawyer repents and believes the gospel, and joins in the life of a local church, that will change the way they work.
Can we really distinguish between the church and her members? Are church members, in their vocations or callings, set apart from belonging to the body? Conceptually, perhaps. Practically, I dont know how.
August 30th, 2009 at 16:51
Shed,
I understand your concern, and I think the way you’ve prhased things helps get at an important distinction that needs to be kept in mind when evaluating 2K thinking.
At one level, of course we cannot seperate the church collectivelly from its members. The one is as much ‘church’ as the other. And yet no-one would surely want to deny that there is an important sense in which the church is not only an organism- made up of several members and always in existence wherever its members are- but also an organization.
The church as organization, involving officers, proceedures, confessions, worship, catechesis, discipline and so on. And as such it has duties that are often distinct from those devolving to its members severally.
2K thinking, so far as I understand it, and others are welcome to help clarify this, states that the church when considered as an institution has a very narrow mandate and remit from Christ for disctinvely spiritual and gospel ends. (see the last paragraph of Dr Hart’s comments above) As such it is not charged with the transformation of the culture, though no-one denies that such transformation may be, and often has historically been, a by product of faithful gospel work.
As you point out, individuals are transformed by the gospel (in the long slow process of sanctification) and one ought to look for the impact such people should have in their several callings to be consonant with their Christian convictions. Christian businessmen, politicians, school teachers doctors etc will do all they do deliberately as believers in Christ, with ethics and values informed by God’s word and faith in Him. AS they do this they may have a lasting, transformative impact on their immediate context.
2K thinking does not deny this for a moment. It does assert however that when the Church, as the organization established by Christ, sets its sights on winning the culture wars it rather tends to drop the gospel ball (to mix metaphors!) along the way.
August 31st, 2009 at 06:09
Dave, thanks for your comment. I agree with much that you say, and I hope we are struggling to work out together the implications of the 2K/Kuyperian conversation.
Perhaps against the thinking of some 2K thinkers, I can easily imagine scenarios where I would want the church to teach or discipline a member because of something in relation to their vocational life. This could involve hoping that the church member changes their vocation, or changes their way of working. An example: would you be content with a church member who was a historian teaching historical Jesus research methods and conclusions over against orthodox readings of the Gospels? I think Darryl would want the academy to sort that out!! I’d prefer my church Sunday School class to be the first attempt to change that historian’s way of working.
But if we think a Christian historian should work in a certain way, because that way is true, shouldn’t we want all historians to follow that method? Shouldn’t we want all doctors to protect life? I worry that the 2K approach sometimes appears care-less about society.
I guess there is possibly a danger for American Presbyterianism that the spiritual secular divide becomes something akin to the situation in Scottish established Presbyterianism…church courts with “spiritual” jurisdiction…church courts with no meaningful authority or influence apart from a very narrow focus on church administration.
I come back, then, to the early modern history of 2K thinking, before any of the awakenings…a church/state set up that was wholly Christian in theory, which allowed for pastors and elders to have a social responsibility for all the people in a local vicinity. Every square inch of the parish was under the care of Christ’s undershepherds…every square inch, where have I read that phrase before?
August 31st, 2009 at 10:02
Hmmmm…
I think you’d find that most 2K folks would want to speak to issues that are directly addressed in God’s word. So if a professor was teaching historical Jesus rubbish it would belong to the office of the elder to engage with him and perhaps ultimately move towards discipline if his errors were not rectified. Likewise in all other fields of life. Where the Bible indicates that God demands we believe certain truths or conform our lives to a certain pattern of morality, the church is compelled to speak to it, and challenge, rebuke, exhort, and even discipline if neccessary, those who do not repent, but still claim to be Christians.
However, aside from areas spoken to directly in the Word, 2K advocates would still want to step back and question whether the church has any business telling historians which heuristic tools or methods they ought to use, or how a citizen ought to vote, or how a teacher ought to teach. The church’s madate is a gospel one not a socio-political one.
As for older models of 2K thinking I am not arguing they are not there (see later installments of the Hart interview where I ask about this) but I do wonder if they really produced a helpful outcome. After all when the Kirk dominated life in post restoration Scotland the elders functioned almost like local law enforcement, imposing fines and punishing offenders with the Penitent’s Stool in the corner of the church building during public worship, or placing them in the stocks etc. I think we can see form this why people make worried connections between Kuyperian claims to trasnforming soceity as the church’s mandate and theonomy.
As for kuyper’s quote about ‘every square inch’ it really does need to be said that the claim of Christ over all creation and in every sphere is not denied by anyone on either side of the discussion. Indeed if you look at Dooyewerdian sphere sovereignty (an early version of which Kuyper espoused) there are resources there that can lead in a 2K rather than transformationist direction.
The main beef of 2K guys as I understand it is simply over whether it is right for the church to target cultural renewal as its job, and whether the scriptures are omnicompetent for every sphere of life and whether we handle them responsibily when we try to make them speak to economics, politics, art, science and so on. To be sure they have some things to say about these, but not much. Their message is focussed on Christ and the gospel.
2K’ers do not believe the Bible teaches a complete plan for every single area of life, nor do they believe that the Church is therefore madated by the Bible to engage in the Christianization of every single area of life. Nor, finally, do they believe that Biblical eschatology gives grounds for confidence that such a cultural transformation will every really take place. They find posmillenial cultural optimism to be unfounded and naieve.
Keep coming back on this Dave. I appreciate the reflections. I suspect we may end up agreeing more than not, but we’ll see!
August 31st, 2009 at 11:05
Thanks again Dave. I’m sure we do agree for the most part, we share enough cultural baggage for that to be almost inevitable.
You will appreciate my example of the historian…the Bible may not be omnicompetent but it is relevant everywhere. Medical, business or legal examples could be given too where the teaching of the Bible has a direct application to a particular issue…and we cannot separate those type of applications into Christian and non-Christian categories (i.e. it is morally right for a non-Christian to do this or that but morally wrong for a Christian to do the same.) Of course we need to keep this line of argument tightly to vocational life because there are permissions in family life where Christian and non-Christian moral choices are different, e.g. choice of marriage partner.
So I am not sure we can easily separate the spheres the way 2K thinkers suggest. Would a 2K thinking pastor or elder discipline or teach a Christian lawyer or a Christian doctor if they were compromising the faith through their professional activity…I would hope so.
Perhaps our area of concern is really about whether tranformation should be a Christian goal? I would find it difficult to criticise professional Christians who set up foundations or think tanks or action groups in their areas of expertise with the aim of influencing non-Christian or non-church bodies.
For example, should Christian politicians not seek after government and legislation that honours God’s law? Daryll’s answer to question 2 begs the bigger question…should Christians have any political affiliations at all? It is not clear that we are called to or expected to by anything written in the Scriptures. All good 2K thinkers will probably say we need to work this out for ourselves as individual Christians. But if we do get involved in politics then it must be for good, which is just another way of saying it is with a view to transforming our social political environment.
Looking forward to the next installments.
August 31st, 2009 at 14:44
Again I suspect we might be talking past each other a little here.
2K guys would, as far as I am aware, want to insist that a Christian politician ought to strive for a just and fair and wholesome and equitable society. They will and should do so informed by their Christian convictions. Should Christians set up a lobby group or social work endeavour or educational foundation to work towards justce and equity and fairness and morality in civic society? Certainly. 2K has no beef with Christian citizens taking their citizenship seriously and mobilizing to engage with the ‘system’ for what they believe to be universally good ends.
I suppose where they would have a problem is when the chruch, as church, decided that it was *its* job to do those things, or when Christians sought to engage in them with some notion that it is possible to Christianize social institutions (ie the misguided notion that there is such a thing as a single, Biblically mandated ‘Christian’ political stance, or economic stance). S far as I can see from Scripture the only institutions that can be ‘Christian’ are individuals, families and churches, not States, and certainly not the intitutions of the State.
Remember, it is the Kuyperians who have room for only one kingdom. It cannot affirm Christian cultural endeavour unless it is somehow ‘redeeming’ or ‘transforming the culture’. 2K affirms and gives the proper value to cultural endeavour as a good and godly and valuable thing in its own right, quite apart from any ‘spiritual’ desire to ‘redeem’ it for Jesus. As a creature, a citizen of the kingdom of creation, I have an innate dignity and mandate for cultural engagement that does not require further scriptural or spiritual ratification. Cultural activity does not need to be ‘redemptive’ activity. 2K affirms the value and dignity of creation and redemption, does not confuse them, but sees them as equally valid and mutually supportive but not identical, at least not until the eschaton.
It is the Kuyperians who err with an overrealized eschatology, seeking to make the kingdoms of this world co-extensive with the Kingdom of Christ. One day they will be, but Jesus shall make it so when he comes, and not till then.
February 28th, 2010 at 15:11
I would like to ask for a bit of clarification as well. Could you please give an example of a cultural endeavor that is “a good and godly and valuable thing in its own right, quite apart from any “spiritual” desire to “redeem” it for Jesus?
Then, doesn’t this statement “One day they will be, but Jesus shall make it so when he comes, and not till then.” conflict with your statement (above) that “2K has no beef with Christian citizens taking their citizenship seriously and mobilizing to engage with the ’system’ for what they believe to be universally good ends. ” If Christian citizens take their citizenship seriously (and that means the bit about doctors and businessmen acting from Christian morality as well) then surely there will begin to be a gradually increasing realization of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
As I understand it, that would mean Jesus is presently making it so and it will reach its completion when he arrives. If our sanctification works that way, why should we deny the possibility that’s what Paul means by the “present groaning of creation – awaiting the revelation of the sons of God.”
August 31st, 2009 at 15:51
I wonder if i could ask a further clarification question, purely for information purposes as every time the phrase “two kingdoms” comes up I’m afraid it’s a cue for me to start floundering in helpless confusion. How does it (or does it at all) relate to the Scottish model of the church’s remit in society, according to the establishment principle of Chalmers and co? Is 2K talk something that makes most sense in the US, or does it easily translate to other cultures? There’s the common perception of how intermingled American politics and religion are, relative to the UK situation eg – is the 2K framework something which must inevitably remain opaque to the Scottish or British onlooker? Not wanting to disrupt the flow of your ongoing discussion, but I can’t help grabbing what may be the first chance I’ve had to ask someone who might have a clue where a perplexed scottish presbyterian might be coming from!
August 31st, 2009 at 19:59
Cath,
I am still working through some of this myself so bear with me. In fact, I am hoping that later answers from Dr Hart will address some of this, at least from the perspective of history.
As I see it, much of the discussion as it stands in the US does have a distinctive American flavor, responding as it does to the rather unique marriage of American religion and politics to which you refer above. Nevertheless those who espouse 2K thinking tend to cite the Reformers themselves and claim to be articulating a stance more consistent with the central tradition of the Reformed faith than other versions of the Christ/culture construct.
To take a stab at answering your question (which is one I’ve been wrestling with for some time) it seems like there are two parts of the Scottish tradition here: one that sounds very like the American perspective and one that reflects the ‘Old World’ cultural location of Scottish Christianity, which tended to think in terms of national religion.
The first is the long and clear tradition affirming the spirituality of the Church in Scotland over against state intrusion. This was the position of Andrew Mellville when he reminded James VI that there are ‘two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland’, it was the position of the Covenanters who fought and died for the ‘crown rights of the Redeemer’ and of the Disruption Fathers who stood for the spiritual independence of the church over against Erastian claims by the state in 1843. With all this, needless to say, modern American 2K men are very pleased, I’m sure.
But then comes a second, more problematic strand of teh Scots tradition for current 2K thought. All these groups mentioned above, while insisting on the spiritual independence of the church, granted sometimes even in expressly 2K language, simulataneously laid claim to Scotland and all her national institutions. Theirs was a ‘covenanted nation’, or in Chalmer’s terms, ‘a godly commonwealth’.
As you know, Scottish Presbyterianism has always lived with and embraced, as one of its distinctive doctrines (with the notable exception of the Seccession churches) the idea of a Christian state, which enters into, and is bound by God to provide, privileges and protections for the true religion (aka the Establishment Principle). The Scottish version of this principle is, sadly almost invariably misunderstood or misrepresented by American brethren, who recognise only one kind of establishment and that is an Erastian one. For the Scots Presbyterians however it was theoretically possible for the Church to be free of state control while enjoying state privileges.
An American observer might point out, I suppose, that in the nature of the case Scotland’s Establishment principle has never worked out that way. For the bulk of its history the State claimed authority over the church. It was only in 1929 at the reunion of the United Free and Church of Scotland that the full spiritual independance of the National Church was established by law in Scotland. In other words in order for the church to obtain the kind of liberties it rightly laid claim to it had to quit the establishment altogether.
I guess, though I am unsure, (perhaps Dr Hart can clarify here?) that American 2K thinking would fault the Scottish doctrine at this point and simply challenge the idea of religious Establishments as flawed altogether, claiming perhaps instead, that the best dimensions of the Scottish traditions are still preserved in their 2K thought, while rejecting what they’d see as containing within it the seeds of compromise with the State from the outset.
Apologies for the long rant. Not sure if I’ve answered the question. Come back on this and let’s see if we can’t get more light on the subject.
February 28th, 2010 at 15:57
Dave, I have read the interview all the way to the end and I have to say that I think what you said here is the best way to view the whole debate.
I became a member of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand in 1964 and we have as our confessional base the Three Forms of Unity as well as the Westminster Confession. The influences of Kuyper and the OPC are stong in our Churches and there never seemed to be the tension DG Hart finds between the idea of the Two Kingdoms and the Kuyper/van Til stream of thinking. (I think Herman Dooyeweerd and van Til do not look at things the same way – but that’s another story).
Now, I can see why the Scots look at things differently from the 2K men. It’s the same reason van Til felt more at home with the OPC than the OPC did with his views. The Scots view is a blending of the 2K (Church’s spiritual priorities) and the (Church’s social/political responsibilities) views. The problem has always been in keeping things in balance.
Perhaps, taking shed’s point above might help. A doctor becomes a Christian. Alongside spiritual nurture should come an awareness of the implications of a systematic theological approach to the Bible for his work.
He might discover, for example, he needs to change his approach to families of the dying or those whose loved ones are on life-support. Is it right to say, for example, that “every attempt should be made to keep the dying alive as long as possible?” Is this the picture we have of death in the Bible? What should be the attitude of the doctor based on a Christian view of death?
These issues may or may not be the subject of sermons but should definitely be dealt with in Bible studies, where members of the congregation learn what the Bible has to say about things that affect their lives.
If the Church gives no guidance on these issues at all how can Christians know what God expects of them. The illustrations could be multiplied. Other issues and those from other walks of life need to be dealt with as well.
It would appear that the Reformers (in Switzerland and in Scotland) saw no problem with their ministers dealing with public officials and reminding them of their responsibilities. Nor did they seem to feel it was out of place for a minister of the Gospel to preach against the decision to run the trains on Sunday in Edinburgh.
True there were abuses. There are always abuses both of true as well as of false doctrine. But, these abuses often come about where we try to make a contrast where the Bible doesn’t. It seems to me that might be the case here. The Church’s priority is to make disciples (you can’t do the next step till you do), then, having baptized them (in the name of the Trinity) to teach them to observe *all* that Christ taught the disciples. That includes “rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.
Does the Church have the responsibility to remind Caesar that he is answerable to God for his decisions? Jesus did so to Pilate, Paul did so to Agrippa (and others). Does the Church have the responsibility to inform the consciences of the members so they can make their own decisions about how to vote? of course – the were Puritans on both sides of the English Civil War. Freedom is not curtailed by using the Bible that way. The questions multiply …
I’m sorry for this book … I thought you and shed were actually already saying the same and hoped my post might help make that plain. You comment about the Scots was the key.
Could it be that our spending time *talking* instead of doing is just what the devil wants us to do? After all, the more time we spend talking the less time we spend actively working to overthrow his “domain,” (like it *really* belongs to him)!
September 1st, 2009 at 16:05
Thanks, that’s extremely helpful.
From the little I know, it does seem that the first strand of the Chalmersesque position – independence of Church and State – seems to be the major feature of the 2K position – but with the key difference that in the EstPrinc it’s immediately tempered by the demands on the State to recognise and do what it can to support the Church.
Re the historical situation, my grasp of events gets extremely woolly post-1900, but wasn’t it the position of the Disruption fathers that the adverse court cases 1833-43 were unjustly encroaching on rights which the State did legally recognise as belonging (inherently, not by generous state grant!) to the Church? I have vague memories of things like the 1842 Claim, Declaration and Protest appealing to earlier legislation, even from Reformation times, in support of their position… Maybe not – but still, surely we’d have to say that Scottish theologians were very clear on both the theoretical possibility and the practical necessity of ‘independent spheres, mutual helpfulness’ – from at leats Samuel Rutherford onwards. Bannerman, Cunningham, Henry Wellwood Moncreiff, Hugh Miller … Even if historically there was only ever practical erastianism, whatever erastian claims the State did make have always been doughtily rejected by the post-Reformation Scottish Church in favour of a better, arguably more Westminster-consistent, and arguably more Scriptural framework (… she says dogmatically!).
September 2nd, 2009 at 08:32
Dave Shedden,
A 2Ker in the order of Hart myself, I think David has answered you quite well.
My own hunch, though, is that you might have the notion that what we should do is simply transfer the work of transforming society from the instititution called the church to her individual members. To those yet grappling with 2K this seems to be common, to yet hold onto the premise that societal improvement is the goal. But it seems to me that the spirit of 2K, if you will, has resident within it a Calvinist skepticism about the very concept of transforming society, no matter who’s doing. If my own experience is any measure of anybody’s else, and I think it is, we do a lot more maintaining than transforming things. I can barely get my drive through orders not to return to me void–with influence like that, what makes me think I’m “changing the world”?
September 2nd, 2009 at 15:05
Zrim,
Liked the drive though gag. Who knew that fast food could drive a man to 2K!
Thanks for stopping by.
September 2nd, 2009 at 15:42
Zrim always has good gags. I read his blog, even though I don’t understand the half of what he says.
September 2nd, 2009 at 17:19
Zrim, where in the history books do you find any justification for Calvinist skepticism…didn’t Calvinists transform the pre-Reformation world into the modern world? By and large that project worked out for good.
Whatever their eschatology Calvinists have always been incredible activists. Pre and post-mill Calvinists have been at the fore-front of too many movements to think transforming the world wasn’t integral to their thinking.
But, as Dave commented above, we’re only really talking past each other in all this…I think the real challenge is how Reformed thinkers and churches relate to post Christian societies in Europe and North America.
I believe both 2K and Kuyperian thinkers are struggling to do this because they are struggling to come to terms with changing paradigms of public morality and civil government.
Perhaps we need to pick up on one or two lessons from the anabaptist tradition to understand how the church and/or individual Christians will need to relate to societies which no longer even pretend to being Christian.
September 2nd, 2009 at 20:07
Shed,
I am intruiged by your comment that those of us in the Confessional Reformed tradition might benefit from a look at the Anabaptist tradition for better resources in tackling the changing face of Western culture. I wonder if you could elaborate a little on that.
Which part of the anabaptist tradition do you have in mind? How is this reformation era tradition better equipped to address the maladies of post-Christian culture than the magisterial Reformed one, or the Counter Reformation one for that matter?
As for Calvinist skepticism, I suppose, though I am unsure, that Zrim may have been thinking of the radical depravity of human nature since Adam and a kind of corrolary skepticism that arises among Calvinists (of his stripe at least) about any cultural renewal project producing ‘Christianization’ of the culture itself in light of that fact.
Zrim?
Shed, I also noticed that you omit Calvinist amils from your list of eschatological activists….. ?
September 3rd, 2009 at 05:10
Dave, I am thinking a lot about this whole question as I reflect on these and other recent blog posts on this theme.
Were all that many Calvinists between 1550 and 1900 amill? The terms are anachronistic but I suspect that most were either pre-mill or post-mill. I was simply trying to suggest that whatever eschatology Calvinists held to they remained very busy in their nation and empire building. Why do you take over and transform foreign nations if not to make them a better place and to benefit from that? Most readers will know the Calvinist missionary history better than I.
The biblical narrative is very clear that there are two kingdoms in the world…the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Babylon. More often than not the civil state is associated with or depicted as Babylon. I cannot think of one biblical passage where a civil authority is described in a positive way. At best Caesar is given recognition as being in power, but he is hardly ever commended, is he? For example I don’t think Romans 13 gives us a theory of civil government…it just states that the Lord is sovereign over all government and that believers should recognise all government.
So perhaps Christians really are in a strange pilgrim place of being subject to the state while knowing that it is doomed because of its perennial and inevitable opposition to God’s reign. Maybe I’m just swinging too far but perhaps 2K is just not radical enough in its critique of human government. Perhaps the real distinction is not 2K or Kuyper but Kuyper and some other Protestant view of church state relations…the only one I can think of is a Baptistic view.
I dont know the anabaptist position well enough to be sure…but if we dont believe that government or society can be transformed then I’m not sure that we can imagine how or why the Lord would call us to service in government or society. Can a Christian – given the choice – serve or work for an institution that is anti-Christian?
September 5th, 2009 at 08:59
Shed, Aside from the discussion here about the cultural mandate, which I think the fall irrevocably altered — otherwise, we’re still not to eat from the forbidden tree either (which one is it?) — I wonder if you’ve ever read Calvin’s Golden Booklet of the Christian Life, from book 3 of the Institutes. I cannot fathom how anyone, Kuyper included, could get the idea from that section on how to vIew this world that the Christian life is one of activism. Calvin likens the believers station in this world as a “sentry post” from which to look for the Lord’s return. That’s the work of guarding, not crusading.
September 5th, 2009 at 12:19
If what Calvin and his friends did in Geneva was just guarding then fair enough…next time I re-read book 3 of the Institutes I’ll do so with 2K lenses. But check out Sex, Marriage, and Family Life in John Calvin’s Geneva: Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage and come back to me if you think Calvin is anything like the 2K thinker you think Christian leaders should be.
As for Eden…show me the forbidden tree and I’ll make sure not to eat its fruit… as far as I can tell 2K thinkers as well as all Reformed theologians need the cultural mandate pretty much intact. Otherwise, at best!, we may as well be Bonhoeffer inspired Lutherans in our ethical teaching and practice.
We’re just straining gnats here, right? Despite Zrim’s comments in a long forgotten blog post I am not a theonomist, and I’m probably closer to 2K than to Kuyper.
You will appreciate from my posts that I do believe the church has a distinct calling, and that we are to be realists in what we can achieve both in and apart from our ecclesiastical lives. But to think that we cant achieve anything outside of church, and that we shouldn’t try, just strikes me as weird double think which is bound to lead to double living sooner or later.
Everything that is good in this world will be reflected in the new creation… the new creation will reflect all of our cultural accomplishments as well as our works fulfilling Matthew 28:16-20.
September 6th, 2009 at 15:10
Shed, what on earth does this mean? “Everything that is good in this world will be reflected in the new creation… the new creation will reflect all of our cultural accomplishments as well as our works fulfilling Matthew 28:16-20.”
Everything? Including marriage? They why does Christ say in heaven there will be no giving or receiving in marriage? Maybe there’s going to be more discontinuity than your transformationalism assumes. BTW, also gone will be the state and the church. And yet these institutions are good.
September 6th, 2009 at 16:41
Family, church and state will be as one…we’ll have come full circle, as it were, arriving at the fulfilment of Eden, where family church and state were one too. So we will always be members of a family, always be members of the church, always be members of the heavenly state on the new earth.
February 28th, 2010 at 16:07
Let me just respond to a pet peeve Dave Sheddon …
“post-Christian?” When did Christ step down from his throne? Was he overthrown? What happened to “… all power is given to me in heaven and on earth?” And what of Daniel’s “… and the stone grew until it filled the earth?” (after destroying the previous kingdoms). I know we have to live in an age where many do not want to think they have any obligations to God but, the reality is, they do!
Apart from my peeve – I thought your posts and those of the other Dave to this point were really thoughtful and helpful.
*gets ready to read on …*
September 3rd, 2009 at 08:16
Shed,
While you are right to say that often the state is connected with Babylon in scripture in a not-too-positive-way, another important motif that I’d say certainly underpins the worldview expressed in passges like the one you mentioed in Romans 13, for example, is the essential goodness of creation, the reality of common grace, and the consequent value and intrinsic worth of human culture making. These Bibblical motifs remind us that however depraved and broken culture and its institutions may be or become they remain products of men and women made in God’s image, and in them all are the vestiges of God-glorifying, creation-mandate-fulfilling activity.
Why would the Lord call a Christian to engage with government if not to transform it? Well first I might say that God calls people to particular vocations for his own glory and good pleasure that they might live lives of faithful obedience and goldy piety, shining as stars in a crooked and preverse generation. The path of persevering grace leads through our vocations in the world. There is noe scape from that.
Secondly, God may call someone to labor in government, say, because such labor already has its own intrinsic value and worth without needing to be ‘redeemed’. Not that it is perfect or sinless or amenable to Christian values. Often it is far from it. But even fallen cultural institutions retain their value, and a Christian can legitimately engage in it without qualms of conscience, provided they do so in faithful conformity to the moral and doctrinal commands of Holy Scripture.
Having trained as an artist in a former life, when I made art I believe that the work I made glorified God, though I did not make, nor did I feel the need to make, ‘Christian art’ (ala Thomas Kinkaid- shudder!) I simply worked hard at being the best artist I could be, and that both the manner in which I labored and the work itself was well pleasing to God for its own sake (though not free from my sin).
To resort for a moment to Dutch categories, the various spheres of human cultural endeavor are not dependant on the gospel for their validation. They are dependant on creation. Creation, and the creation mandate invests them with inherent worth.
To the best of my understanding the Anabaptist tradition embraced a radical dualism between nature and grace that moved in a gnostic direction, and led to a total withdrawal from cultural engagement. I suppose some versions of 2K might tend towards that extreme without robust afirmations of the dignity and worth of life in both Kingdoms.
A difficult balancing act to be sure.
2K does not denigrate the creational kingdom and puff the redemptive one, but affirms them both as coordinate but distinct. Its problem comes when the 2 Kingdoms are blurred. At that point what almost invariably happens is that the distinctive calling of the church, charged with gospel ends, get subsumed under creation-mandate activity, and eventually lost altogether.
As Darryl points out in answer to the first question above, very often today’s culture transformers of an evangelical stripe echo the concerns and agendas of an older generation of liberals who replaced the salvific content of the gospel call with a social message.
February 28th, 2010 at 16:40
I am left wondering if Paul had the kind of clear distinction that is claimed for the 2K position or whether he “blurred” that distinction. I really can’t find any place where he deals with the cultural mandate, the creation mandate or even the idea that there are spheres of cultural endeavor that are independent of the Gospel for their validation. Actually, now I think of it, I’m not even sure what it means to require the Gospel to validate what I do, in Church or out of it.
I do find him encouraging us to bring every thought in captivity to Jesus Christ. He does remind us that being a Christian should lead to changed lives – even though we have freedom from the obligations of the Law of God – lives which are to brought more and more into conformity to the likeness of Christ. I do find him arguing that elders are to live a certain kind of life and that we are to accord those who do so double honor.
But I would not expect anything different. Paul used the Old Testament to guide his “children in the faith.” The Old Testament seems to teach that there is one kingdom – God’s and both congregation and king are subject to God’s Law. It was largely because of Paul’s work that we, today, have the luxury of a Christian-influenced society. Not bad for someone who definitely seems to have a blurred vision of the two kingdoms
September 3rd, 2009 at 09:09
Cath,
My original intention, way back in another galaxy far far away, was to teach linguistics myself. But then I realized, as fascinating as it was, I didn’t understand half of what linguists were saying.
Shed,
As David rightly suggests, to my lights a Calvinist skepticism does arise from our notions of human sin and total depravity. Briefly, whatever efforts we may locate historically where Calvinists had in view the improvement of society seems to be a function of dysfunctional Augustinian-Calvinism. I realize that sounds odd (I live at ground zero for Calvinist transformationalism where there is plenty of pointing back to a long tradition of societal transformation. But given that Grand Rapids looks pretty much like any other city I have ever inhabited, it’s hard to buy into the idea that wherever believers dominate things are specially unique in a good way. We have all the pains and sorrows of perfectly pagan communities, even more.) But it seems that it really is a sort of wildly inflated sense of sanctified self (individual or corporate) that thinks it can actually bring about the sort of social change usually assumed. If Reformed are skeptical about the utopianism of liberalism, why are the rules all of a sudden suspended when believers try their hand at the same thing? Could it be that a Reformed narcissism is at play: “I am Reformed; I think X, therefore X is Reformed”?
But another key plank to all of this, as David ably points out, is that a better Reformed tradition actually has a supremely high view of creation. The premise, it seems to me, in transformational thought of any stripe is that creation really isn’t “very good.” I mean, one only seeks to transform something that is fundamentally flawed in the first place. But creation is essentially very good, while its condition is totally depraved. This seems to be Reformed theology 101, thus is escapes me how Reformed believers can accept the premise that New York City needs to be transformed. I love that town, I wouldn’t change a darn thing.
But if we take the cues of something like localism instead of transformationalism we might see that the premise in the former is that place, like the very image of God in which we individuals are created, is essentially still very good even if it is conditionally screwed up. Localism is affirming, transformationalism is obnoxious. Localism is the rightful mother nurturing the injured child she knows and loves, transformationalism is the self-rightoeus step-mother harassing children she doesn’t really know but believes she has all figured out.
February 28th, 2010 at 19:34
Just a small point in response to: “… whatever efforts we may locate historically where Calvinists had in view the improvement of society seems to be a function of dysfunctional Augustinian-Calvinism.”
I wonder what you might make of this – part of what is called a “topical sermon” (quoted from “Portrait of Calvin” by THL Parker, Desiring God edition): “Now then, let us consider that we are not told without good reason that, when we are going to elect men to some public position, we must set about it reverently and carefully. For we shall provoke God’s anger if we pollute the seat of justice, putting men in it who have neither the zeal, nor the interest to honor and serve it.” p.90. I guess it might have to be concluded then that Calvin was a part of the dysfunctional Augustinian-Calvinism mentioned above.
September 3rd, 2009 at 09:52
Zrim, no-one who really embraces the Reformed tradition denies that creation is essentially good. My reference to the anabaptist tradition was not a plea to any gnostic ideas.
Dave mentioned creation and the creational kingdom. As the story goes Adam was presented with a sinless world. And, get this, he was given a mandate to make it better. How and where does that mandate operate now? Do 2K thinkers subsume that mandate completely into Christ’s work of redemption? Whatever the answer to those questions, if Eden could be improved and extended, is it really beyond us to imagine that even New York City can be improved and extended in this present evil age? I come back to my point about progress in the modern era…when we take a big picture look at it things are getting better in many many ways.
To take any political position is to believe that things can be better. Take the recent controversy over US healthcare reform compared to the UK’s NHS. Opposition to Obama’s plans, and the criticism that was directed towards the NHS in the debates, implies that those people think there is a better way. According to the arguments the downright evil of the NHS, and the state sponsored abortion that would follow Obama’s healthcare reforms, is wrong… things either get better or worse, we can never have a detached indifference to things. And that’s my thing with 2K…is there an underlying or implicit assumption of neutrality when it comes to the civil sphere?
I think we need a more sophisticated discussion of how the church society relates to the non-church society. Recent posts at http://www.faith-theology.blogspot.com on Calvin and justice might make interesting reading for us… the church is more than just an evangelistic task force.
September 3rd, 2009 at 15:00
Dave Shedden,
…no-one who really embraces the Reformed tradition denies that creation is essentially good. My reference to the anabaptist tradition was not a plea to any gnostic ideas.
In theory Reformed affirm the very goodness of creation, yes. But my point is that when those who confess this go about trying to improve it seems to suggest a premise that creation needs some help.
As the story goes Adam was presented with a sinless world. And, get this, he was given a mandate to make it better. How and where does that mandate operate now? Do 2K thinkers subsume that mandate completely into Christ’s work of redemption? Whatever the answer to those questions, if Eden could be improved and extended, is it really beyond us to imagine that even New York City can be improved and extended in this present evil age? I come back to my point about progress in the modern era…when we take a big picture look at it things are getting better in many many ways..
What is significant about your suggestion here is the absence of the doctrine of sin. Yes, Adam was given the cultural mandate. But then came his sin. This side of the fall means that the mandate becomes something altogether different, less glorious. The mandate is still in effect, and while it retains its dignity, the stakes are simply much lower. It has moved from “make it better” to “keep it going,” from transform to maintain. Creation will most assuredly come into its original glory, but it will come by the hand of the second Adam instead of the first. I realize the suggestion of maintenance will make westerners bristle, given our long history of Constantinianism, but look around: if the cross was a kick off to improvement and extension in the here and now, after two thousand years, wouldn’t Christianity have bagged a better game by now? Instead the 20th century was the bloodiest of them all and there isn’t anything new under the sun. Brace yourself: Transformationalism is the social version of an individualistic prosperity gospel.
To take any political position is to believe that things can be better…And that’s my thing with 2K…is there an underlying or implicit assumption of neutrality when it comes to the civil sphere?
No, politics is simply a way to order our public lives and help us get from day to day without too much harm. Try Hart’s own words on for size:
“Liturgical Protestantism offers a way around this impasse. A different way of putting it is to say that liturgical Protestantism represents a way for Protestant believers to support the wall between church and state. By looking for religious significance not in this world but in the world to come, liturgical Protestantism lowers the stakes for public life while still affirming politics’ divinely ordained purpose. The public square loses some of its importance but retains its dignity. It is neither ultimately good nor inherently evil; politics becomes merely a divinely appointed means for restraining evil while the church as an institution goes about its holy calling.”
(For the whole context: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~edgoodwi/Hart.html)
And I understand the hunch about neutrality. But 2K’s realism and skepticism shouldn’t be mistaken for apathy or pessimism (even cynicism and antinomianism). It really just about being much more down-to-earth about how the real world actually works, being content with winning some and losing some and not setting ourselves up with such high expectations only to be enormously let down when things don’t go they way we think they should. Isn’t that the real formula for cynicism and disillusionment?
September 3rd, 2009 at 15:01
Looks like that link didn’t come through…how about this:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~edgoodwi/Hart.html
September 4th, 2009 at 07:45
Zrim, I don’t think you are reading the story closely enough. I see no change to or diminishing of Adam’s cultural mandate in the biblical narrative. Please show me if I’ve got this wrong. Humanity is still charged with the same aim and the same goal in relation to the world. The only question is whether we do it in relation to God’s ways or not, whether we do it according to his law and reign.
The effect of sin does not change the mandate in the slightest, nor does it lessen human capability. I take God’s covenant with Noah to assume and build on the Adamic mandate rather than replace it.
Sin means that humanity cannot now fulfil the mandate in a way pleasing to God. Despite God’s redemptive grace and wise judgements in directing the course of history humanity is still trying to subdue the earth, we still try to build our kingdom(s). That’s the wonder of Genesis 11:1-9… humanity has an inbuilt capacity and desire to do stuff, to achieve things…and it can achieve anything that is physically possible…God has to stoop down in grace and judgement to stop humanity fulfilling the mandate in a twisted godless way.
So the question for each of us is this: are we playing our part in fulfilling the mandate Christ’s way or Babel’s way? There is no third way. That’s why I remain wary of the secular sacred dualism that 2K thinkers embrace. Whatever Christian believers do they are obliged to do as saints. In that sense Christians can never think of acting in an unholy way… everything we do should be dedicated as service to Christ and his kingdom.
September 4th, 2009 at 23:30
Shed,
I think your point about the cultural mandate given to Adam still binding us all is correct so far as it goes. We are all called to contribute to the cultural project. And we are all called to do so in a way that reflects God’s values and norms. Thus far we are on the same page.
I think I’d want to nuance your point however, by saying, first, that the cultural mandate does not imply that Adam was to ‘improve’ creation, as if creation was made imperfect just so Adam couldadd the finishing touches, but simply that he was made in the image of the Creator and ought to participate in the ‘very good’ character of creation by his own creative culture making.
Secondly, I see nothing in what you say that presents a really penetrating porblem for 2k ideas. No-one denies that the cultural mandate continues to apply to all people by virtue of their creatureliness.
Thirdly, I am not sure about you’re assertion that the only way to see the fulfillment of the cultural mandate is ‘our way or Christ’s way’. At one level of course you are right. We are either Christians or we are not and we will either do what we do Christ’s way or we won’t.
And when it comes to the creation mandate I think I see that being a follower of Christ enables me, as the imago is bebing restored, to fulfil the creation mandate more and more effectively and in a way that will please God- so far so good, you say,- but when it comes to the explicit commands and mandates given by Christ to the church, qua church, I struggle to see what the creation mandate has got to do with anything really.
That last paragraph was badly expressed, so feel free to stomp all over it, and I’ll try to clarify my point better by way of response.
What I am trying to get at is that, yes the cultural mandate still applies, and yes being a Christian helps us fulfil it immensely, but that remains work to which all people as creatures are called in the same way, whether they are Christians or not. The unique calling of the Church of Jesus Christ, however, is simply not occupied with the fulfilment of the cultural mandate. It is occupied with the fulfillment of the Great Commission. The two are not the same and cannot be collapsed into one another.
Finally, I think Zrim has a point (below) about the impact of the fall on our culture making activity. We do remain under obligation to labor in the culture for goodness and beauty and truth etc. The mandate still applies.
But creation itself has been subjected to futility, Paul says in Romans. It groans in labor pains eagerly awaiting the time when all creation will be caught up into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. The very ground has been cursed. There is a futility and a toilsome labor built into all our culture making now that sin has distorted and twisted creation. Sin in no way removes the duty to engage the culture resting Christian citizens. But it also renders impossible any naieve optimism about our own ability to bring ‘redemptive’ change (who really denies that progress can be made or advances obtained in science and politics etc? But does this qualify as really redemptive change belonging to the kingdom of God? I think not).
2K men ought not to get terribbly worried about Christians working for a better soceity and occassionally accomplishing it- although to read them sometimes one might worry that they would be! But properly understood 2K keeps us humble and modest in our claims about what we have really accomplished when we do it. We have not ‘redeemed’ anything. We have perhaps improved the lot of kids in the school system or modified some legislation or made great music that enriched people’s lives. But the glorious liberty of the sons of God- the finally cataclysmic day of ultimate transformation- will come suddenly and be accomplished not by the hands of any earthly culture maker, but by Jesus Christ himself.
February 28th, 2010 at 21:37
David, I read this post and found myself asking: OK, I see where you are responding to the Kuyperians/van Tilians and attempting to show their inadequacies. Well and good.
I am sure they see some inadequacies with their views as well. I certainly admit there is a danger that has to be carefully avoided. There can be some who would become so concerned with the changes needed in society that they forget the main focus of the Church’s preaching is the Gospel – without which there can be no salvation.
I can see where the emphasis you want to place on the 2 kingdoms could avoid some of that problem. But can you admit that there is also a danger faced by those advocates? The danger some may be so concerned with soteriology the social ramifications could be neglected.
Seems to me this is true whether your escatology is A-mill or post-mill (or even pre-mill allowing there may be such Reformed-thinking people).
September 4th, 2009 at 08:43
David,
As you know, Vos said that eschatology precedes soteriology. In other words, we were built for self-made glory, not for a glory at the hands of another. So I understand the very deep-seated need to keep to our original design. You said:
Humanity is still charged with the same aim and the same goal in relation to the world. The only question is whether we do it in relation to God’s ways or not, whether we do it according to his law and reign.
Now, put this into individualistic terms. I, a sinner, am still charged with the same aim and the same goal in relation to my standing with God: do this and live. The only question is whether I do it in relation to God’s ways or not, whether I do it according to his law and reign. Now, to me that sounds like the precise opposite of orthodoxy, it sounds like “sinner, save thyself.” But I cannot. Somebody else must do it for me, as naturally maddening as that is. Yes, we are still, in some sense as individuals, charged with winning our own glory. But we are totally unable to do it and must submit to another’s work on our behalf. And in the meantime, as we await our glorification while being sanctified, we live as imperfect covenant keepers who live a mixed life of winning some and losing some.
Taken in social terms, yes, we are still, in some sense as a race, charged with the cultural mandate. But we are totally incapable of doing it. We must wait upon the Lord to make the new heavens and new earth. And in the meantime, as the creation groans awaiting its restortation, we simply try our best to keep things afloat.
If we admit can’t as indivduals win our own glory, why do the rules change when we become a group?
That’s the wonder of Genesis 11:1-9… humanity has an inbuilt capacity and desire to do stuff, to achieve things…and it can achieve anything that is physically possible…God has to stoop down in grace and judgement to stop humanity fulfilling the mandate in a twisted godless way.
Like I said above, i quite agree with you that we were built with a desire to “do stuff,” but our understanding of our capability is what this all actually turns on and what you seem to be glossing over. The individual version of “We can achieve anything that is physically possible” is “Ought implies can, so save thyself, sinner” and the individualistic version of “God has to stoop down in grace to stop humanity fulfilling the mandate in a twisted gosless way” is “God helps those who help themselves.” Do you see how what you’re saying seems like a semi-Pelagian (perhaps even Pelagian) outlook on us as corporate sinners?
September 5th, 2009 at 22:22
[...] September 5, 2009 in Uncategorized Here’s the next installment. You can read the others here and here [...]
September 9th, 2009 at 16:32
(Is it too late to chip in with more questions now that I’m back?)
From my weakly Establishment Principle-ish-informed perspective, i think it’s uncontroversial that the role of the church qua church is not to transform society, reduce crime, engage in politics etc. The bits in these interviews about how the Church has to preach the Word and administer the sacraments, and not much else, are the bits I’m nodding along to. So could I ask instead what is the 2K view of the role of the state? going on what you said above, David (St), this might perhaps be the nub of where 2K diverges from the EstPrinc. Does the state have any divinely imposed obligations towards the church? And do the different remits of the church and the state have any overlap in 2K thinking where the two institutions can cooperate?
September 15th, 2009 at 09:50
[...] 15, 2009 in Uncategorized Here’s the last intallment. You can read the others here, here and [...]
September 18th, 2009 at 21:28
[...] Part 2 [...]
February 18th, 2010 at 08:18
[...] Part Two [...]
February 28th, 2010 at 21:40
Fascinating interactions – I hope, however, that it is possible these issues will be revisited. I’ll return again
February 26th, 2011 at 17:32
[...] IPart IIPart [...]