Paleo vs. Neo-Reformed (continued)
March 4th, 2009 by Darryl G. HartThe paleo/neo distinction for Reformed Protestants is not only useful for discerning different attitudes toward evangelicalism, but even for figuring out distinct understandings of Calvinism itself. After all, the Kuyperian or world-and-life-view form of Calvinism has always been known as neo-Calvinism. That reputation implies a distinction with paleo-Calvinism, and furthers the wariness that should accompany the use of the prefix “neo” — as in neo-conservative, neo-evangelical, and neo-orthodox.
Neo-Calvinists are prone to dismiss paleo-Calvinists as warmed over Lutherans because of either the two-kingdom doctrine or the spirituality of the church. This is not the place to elaborate on either of these, except to remark that when paleo-Calvinists distinguish between the sacred and the secular, the spiritual and the natural, the temporal and the eternal, neo-Calvinists go batty and think that paleo-Calvinists are following Luther and restricting Christianity to the realm of religion and ethics. (As if Luther’s view of vocation and the goodness of work in this world doesn’t suggest that neo-Calvinists are confused about Luther and Lutheranism.)
True enough, paleo-Calvinists do distinguish between redemption and creation and think of Christianity the way the Bible does, as a religion of redemption and not a program of cultural and social renewal (which is why so many neo-Calvinists are tempted by theonomy and a view of Israel as a program of cultural and social renewal). But paleo-Calvinists do recognize the goodness of creation. They simply don’t think that creation is the place to look for redemption.
At the same time, paleo-Calvinists understand that redemption goes beyond creation. Creation as good was not the aim of God’s plan. The idea was to go higher to a place of blessedness that was even better than goodness. Sin messed up that plan. But redemption puts glorification back into play by promising that saints will one day inherit what Adam would have had he kept the covenant of works. The Garden of Eden was not the goal, nor was Old Jerusalem, Grand Rapids, or New York City. The new heavens and new earth was.
Paleo-Calvinists object to neo-Calvinists, then, for not understanding that consummation goes beyond creational norms and structures. Neo-Calvinists seem to want to go back to the Garden. Paleo-Calvinists believe that the Garden was not and is not all there is to man’s chief end. Pale0-Calvinists also sense that ne0-Calvinists are not really comfortable with the goodness of creation as creation. That’s why they keep talking about the need to redeem the culture, or redemption as cultural or social renewal. The implicit point seems to be that if something can’t be saved, then it’s no good. The neo-Calvinist seems to have no place for an in-between state — one between holy and profane such as common or good.
Neo-Calvinists should not despair. Paleo-Calvinists have just what they need, that is a dose of paleo-Calvinism from the most paleo of Calvinists, John Calvin, who made a distinction that neo-Calvinists are loathe to make:
. . . whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. Since, then, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and enclose Christ’s Kingdom within the elements of this world, let us rather ponder that what Scripture clearly teaches is a spiritual fruit, which we gather from Christ’s grace; and let us remember to keep within its own limits all that freedom which is promised and offered to us in him. For why is it that the same apostle who bids us stand and no submit to the ‘yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1) elsewhere forbids slaves to be anxious about their state (1 Cor. 7:21), unless it be that spiritual freedom can perfectly well exist along with civil bondage? . . . . By these statements he means that it makes no difference what your condition among men may be or under what nation’s laws you live, since the Kingdom of Christ does not at all consist of these things.
This quotation points precisely at an in-between realm that is neither wicked nor holy — it is temporal, earthly, and provisional. It recognizes that some things in life are good even if they are not holy, and that their proper place is simply to be good and not to be saved (or made holy). It is the difference between a good meal and a holy meal. And the ability to see the difference between an exceptional home-cooked meal and the Lord’s Supper is one that allows paleo-Calvinists to see the difference between the creational realm of culture and society, and the redeemed world of the church. It is, in fact, the only way to make sense of statements like this one from the Belgic Confession:
Now those who are regenerated have in them a twofold life (2 John 3:6): the one corporal and temporal, which they have from the first birth and is common to all men; the other spiritual and heavenly, which is given them in their second birth (John 3:5), which is effected by the word of the gospel (John 5:23, 25) in the communion of the body of Christ: and this life is not common, but is peculiar to God’s elect (1 John 5:12; John 10:28). In like manner God has given us, for the support of the bodily and earthly life, earthly and common bread which is subservient thereto and is common to all men, even as life itself. But for the support of the spiritual and heavenly life which believers have, he has sent a living bread which descended from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ (John 6:32-33, 51), who nourishes and strengthens the spiritual life of believers when they eat Him, that is to say, when they apply and receive him by faith and in the Spirit (John 6:63). (BC, Art. 35)
As Kuyper himself made clear, the only real neocalvinists (in cultural worldview) are themselves at the same time paleocalvinists (in confession and theology).
Of course, various sorts have taken or been given the term ‘neocalvinist’ (e.g. Barthians). But with fellow gnesio-neocalvinists Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos, I always find it entertaining to wonder who you might be referring to when you use that term.
Where are these neocalvinists who are both tempted by theonomy and are uncomfortable with the goodness of creation? What strange people! I join you in eschewing their unnatural concoctions.
Spot on – this is excellent.
The idea was to go higher to a place of blessedness that was even better than goodness. Sin messed up that plan. But redemption puts glorification back into play by promising that saints will one day inherit what Adam would have had he kept the covenant of works. The Garden of Eden was not the goal, nor was Old Jerusalem, Grand Rapids, or New York City. The new heavens and new earth was.
You’re sounding like quite the Vossian!
[...] I’d say more than that, but why would I want to? [...]
DGH,
I’m not given to assigning +’s to A’s, but employing the SOTC language warms the cockles of my Paleo-heart. Nice thesis, Ralphie; your Red Rider is in the mail.
Baus,
They’re freakin’ everywhere, man. I’m up to my eyeballs. And from what I can tell, they sure seem to have quite a natural read of Abe.
I always end up off-kilter, discombobulated even, when reading things like this, because somehow the very things I read in Kuyper, Bavinck, and Wolters that attracted me to NeoCalvinism (the abiding goodness of creation, to name just one) have somehow become the very antithesis (heh) to what NeoCalvinism is supposedly all about.
Yet neither can I comfortably be one of those who “simply don’t think that creation is the place to look for redemption.” What, pray tell, is God redeeming, if not his creation?
Camden, I’ve been Vossian all along. I just don’t think his BT is the same as his ST.
Baus, do the names Al Wolters, Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton ring any bells? How about Chuck Colson and Francis Schaeffer?
Russ, did Christ die for plumbing? Do you need to be saved to be a plumber? (Maybe it helps cover up a plumber’s plumber crack.) Seriously, all of the cosmological passages that Kuyperians love to claim where Christ saves the world, the ur-paleo-Calvinist, Calvin, interpreted the all to mean men plus angels. Would you at least acknowledge that neo-Calvinists are uncomfortable with Calvin’s modest account of redemption? BTW, I thought I saw the merits of worldviewism until it supplanted TULIP among Dutch-American Calvinists.
Did Christ die only for the disembodied souls of plumbers? If we can (and are in fact commanded to) eat and drink to the glory of God, can we direct fixing pipes also to God’s glory? (In addition to smoking pipes, of course). What, if anything, does grace have to do with nature?
I’m comfortable with Calvin’s account of the scope of redemption in his commentary on Romans 8:19-22.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xii.vi.html
The Dutch Reformed may tend toward “worldviewism,” but I don’t think that invalidates the insights of NeoCalvinism any more than the Southern Presbyterian tendency towards otherworldly pietism invalidates genuine Reformed piety.
Great stuff.
PS, I know you don’t have to be saved to be a plumber. Do you have to be saved to be a worship leader?
Russ,
Did Christ die only for the disembodied souls of plumbers?
No, he both lived and died for both his body and soul.
What, if anything, does grace have to do with nature?
Grace renews nature (as opposed to perfects or obliterates)
What is so unclear about the notion that (1) the only created agent eligible for sanctification is the one elected, made and fallen in the image of God and (2) the balance of creation is groaning for the former’s consummation?
I don’t have any problem with fixing pipes to the glory of God, as long as it’s understood that the pipes are simply being fixed and not redeemed. What the Neo-Calvinist has yet to demonstrate is just how the reality of sanctification moves from the inside of a believer’s body to the pipes he’s fixing, the state he’s crafting, the education he’s executing or any other part of creation within which he’s participating. It seems that to be asked to believe this happens is not too unlike being asked to believe that osmosis really works in lieu studying for tests.
Russ, I think you hit the nail on the head. Neo-Calvinists are uncomfortable with otherworldly Christianity. Post-millennialism would be most compatible with this-worldly Christianity. But I don’t know how to be anything but otherworldly as either an amillenialist, or in reading Paul in 1 Corinthians against a theology of glory, or Calvin on how a Christian is to view this life (reprinted in the Golden Booklet of the Christian Life.) I think this is likely the biggest difference between paleo- and neo-Calvinists. Calvin was pretty clear on not locating the kingdom of Christ, or the fruit of grace in “this world.”
It does seem to me that this-worldliness has been the leading edge of liberal Protestantism. I don’t mean that as a way of baiting neo-Calvinists. I mean that as historical observation. The Social Gospel was this-worldly, the CRC has become this-worldly, and the PCA is increasingly flirting with this-worldliness. Why is it that when this-world comes in, a sense of the other world exits? Again, some recognition of the distinction between what is ultimate and what is penultimate, or between what is eternal and what is temporal, is useful for maintaining a proper otherworldliness. But since Jesus isn’t in this world any more, it seems a Christian’s first loyalty is where Jesus is.
DGH, you may recall that we’ve covered this ground before. You say “neocalvinists hold to such&such.” And I say “to whom do you refer?” And you say “Wolters, Walsh & Middleton.” And I say “chapter and verse, please.” And then… nothing.
So, here’s the thing. I’m claiming to be a gnesio-neocalvinist along with Vos and Ridderbos (and Kuyper, of course), and because real neocalvinists are also confessionally paleocalvinist I’m ready to eschew anything un-paleocalvinist spouted by Wolters, Walsh or Middleton.
But so far you claims about neocalvinism as a whole and/or particular neocalvinists are utterly unsubstantiated.
If you (or anyone) substantiates such claims *anywhere*, I’ll even take a book reference or URL.
I just don’t think his BT is the same as his ST.
What are you thinking of in particular?
Daryl,
I just thought I’d point out the fact that you switch topics midway through your post. Neo-Reformed (annoying term) ≠ neo-Calvinist. The first is McKnight’s term referring to evangelicals that figured out God is sovereign and want everyone else to figure it out too. The second refers mostly to Dutch people who took Kuyper’s thought about culture and ran with it. I know you know this, but I do not think mixing categories in this way is helpful. As a guy who could potentially be considered “neo-Reformed” (though I’d object to the characterization), I would appreciate it if you didn’t impute transformationalism to the newer group. Some us are quite content to be 2 Kingdoms.
Greg, so what do you think about Russ’ point that neo-Calvinists believe in redeeming creation? Or do you see any problem in Wolters’ contention that a Reformed world-view denies all dualisms? It seems to me Paul, Augustine and Calvin all affirm a certain kind of dualism, one that distinguishes things spiritual from things temporal.
Jeff, My first post was not about neo-Calvinists. It was about McKnight’s so-called Neo-Reformed. I was simply using his category to show that some Reformed, as in paleo-, don’t really want to run evangelicalism. That was the point. But since you bring it up, it does seem to be the case that the McKnight’s neo-Reformed and the second post’s neo-Calvnists are more willing to consider themselves “evangelical” than are paleo-Calvinists. Still, I called this post “paleo- vs. neo-” for a reason, because it’s the new vs. old distinction that reveals wrinkles that many don’t notice.
Jeff, oops. Now I see your point. I did include “reformed” in the second title. My explanation above still stands. Neo- vs. Paleo- Calvinist is a separate distinction from Neo- vs. Paleo-Reformed. Though I also think with evangelicalism in the picture the distinction is less clear.
Camden, my comment about Vos involved a distinction between BT and ST. Vos wrote a dogmatics. As far as I know, it remains in Dutch untranslated. The zinger had to do with the idea that ST is the queen of the theological sciences, and that the BT impulse unleashed by Vos and Ridderbos has overwhelmed ST. So for instance, the doctrine of justification has become much more confused because of BT, in my opinion. ST is a really handy thing for thinking about theology clearly. (BTW, exegetical theology is also different from either BT and or ST.)
I can understand that. I do believe that Vos wrote early on in Biblical Theology that BT is the servant of ST. If that’s the case I think he may have alleviated your concerns – though that doesn’t mean his disciples wouldn’t alter the relationship.
Daryl: I was using otherworldly as an insult; you weren’t supposed to embrace the term!
As someone who doesn’t have both feet fully planted in either camp, my temptation is to be conciliatory and to think of this debate as one group standing at Now arguing with another group at Not-yet, each worried the other side has gone fallen off the edge into a this-worldly or otherworldly extreme. But even that sentence confuses two distinct frameworks are likely incompatible, and part of the substance of this debate.
It’s not so much that NeoCalvinists are uncomfortable with otherworldly Christianity as they are uncomfortable with the categories of this- and other-worldly. NeoCalvinists are inevitably Vossian, making an eschatological distinction between this age and the age to come rather than a division of creation into realms of sacred and secular. PaleoCalvinists, it seems to me, are pretty comfortable with the dualism of a temporal/secular and spiritual/sacred world (though as one commentator noted, the article above does have a Vossian tone). To me, it seems more in line with the New Testament to speak of our hope in Christ’s return than our loyalty to him in a different world, and that a longing for the fullness of Christ’s Kingdom will do more to help us resist entanglement with the world more than an otherworldly mindset.
As to where Calvin fits into all this, first I don’t have any problem thinking that Ridderbos and Vos may have contributed significantly to our understanding of Scripture beyond Calvin. Second, Calvin does not seem entirely consistent; he was working within the inheritance of the dualism of the Middle Ages, yet even in the section quoted above, he spoke not just of “this” life and “eternal” life, but this “present” life and “future” eternal life. And third, neither side is repristinating Calvin; the modern “Two Kingdoms” approach which takes Calvin’s temporal kingdom (which was a real kingdom – a state, with a king) and uses as an expansive category to hold business, economics, art, science, education, family (? never was sure what strict Two Kingdom fold do with that) – everything but the church, I guess – are adapting Calvin’s categories, just as Kuyper did. But that’s a different discussion.
Zrim: Some of that might indirectly address your comments; your objection seems to be that NeoCalvinists treat sanctification as if its a thing, moving from the inside of the believer to pipes, changing them from the ontological category of fallen to the ontological category of sanctified. But of course, no one who rejects such an ontological dualism on principle could affirm anything like you suggest.
And why do other people get little pictures and I look like a chess pawn? Do I register somewhere?
Russ,
To my 2K mind there are two kinds of otherworldly (bad: Gnostic/pietist/polish-stowing; good: spiritual/Vossian/Pauline/theology of the cross) and two kinds of this-worldly (bad: theology of glory/prosperity/golden age; good: world-affirming/creation very good)…so as to “otherworldly” being an insult, you’d have to get more specific.
When I speak with my this-worldly neo-Calvinists they hear bad otherworldliness, and when I speak with my otherworldly evangelicals they hear “worldly Christianity.” The thing about 2K is that there is a constant shuttling between this world and the next, a juggling act between already and not-yet such that, depending on who is listening and what presuppositions he has, a 2Ker also has to do a lot of ducking.
I realize that when I suggest sanctification moves from believer to pipes and morphs into the transformation of pipes, as it were, that it cannot be affirmed. But (1) silly things have a way of being resistant to affirmation when put directly, yet (2) I cannot see any other way transformationalism works without that being the case. Evidently, the only people able to transform society are those house the Holy Ghost–how does transforming then happen without some leakage?
DGH, I think Russ and I are on the same page concerning the relationship between creation and redemption. Russ and I affirm (with all neocalvinists I know of) that redemption obtains an eschaton that surpasses “protological” creation.
(btw, Russ, go to gravatar[dot]com )
We do have to define terms more precisely in this discussion so we don’t talk past each other.
I’m going to work up some kind of list of definitions, distinctions, affirmations and denials on this topic (paleocalvinist theological positions in relation to neocalvinist cultural positions)… and maybe it will be something we can discuss more effectively.
I’m willing to consider some specific statement by Wolters concerning dualism where I might disagree with him, but off-hand I’d say I have no problem with the rejection of all dualism.
All neocalvinists accept certain “dualities” (proper distinctions between two things), “pluralities” (distinctions between multiple things), and “antitheses” (oppositions between two things).
Russ, maybe neither side is following Calvin precisely, but my own view is that the paleo- option resonates much more with Calvin’s meaning than the neo-. An important example of this is the nature and purpose of suffering. Neo-’s hold a kind of progressivism that doesn’t seem to be able to account for suffering, impoverishment, and loss. They so identify the coming of the kingdom with success and improvement, that they forget that most of the examples of the kingdom coming in Scripture involve God’s people losing, not winning. This kind of progressivism would also seem to account for Nick Wolterstorff’s denial of the eternal decree (I’m not sure if he did so in print but he did in Q&A at the Stone Lectures in 1998) because he felt that Calvin’s view of suffering led to fatalism. Calvin just wouldn’t support the French revolutionaries because Christians are called to suffer.
Baus: if you agree with Russ about the redemption of creation, could you explain what the salvation of television means?
I won’t dispute that, Daryl, though there are plenty of other factors that make it difficult for North American/Northern European Christians to embrace a Christian view of suffering (including, at least in the 18-19th centuries, Paleo postmillennialism). FWIW, I’m actually uneasy with phrases like “redeeming culture” (though I have no reservations about saying God is redeeming his creation) and prefer to speak of Christian cultural activity as an implication of our redemption, recognizing and countering the cultural effects of our sin. That’s often not a recipe for worldly success. For me, NeoCalvinism fits under the rubrics of faithfulness and discernment rather than transformation, so cultural success isn’t a factor. Perhaps that makes me an odd kind of NeoCalvinist, but perhaps not.
Russ, don’t give Hart so much ground. You know that Wolterstorff denounces our neocalvinism and Kuyper himself as ridiculous and implausible “religious totalism.” Ole Nick has more in common with Hart in their mutual poo-pooing of real neocalvinism. I think Hart would very much like what Wolterstorff has to say.
Neocalvinism certainly does *not* hold to any kind of triumphalistic “progressivism” or to any confused ideas about the nature and purpose of suffering. Hart can’t give a single real example of what he’s taking about, because what he’s talking about isn’t neocalvinism.
Real neocalvinists will join with anyone in denouncing Wolterstorff! We denounce the entire apostate CRC and all their corrupt seed.
But, yes, Darryl, I can tell you about the salvation of television. But I’ll do you one better: when we’ve had a thorough discussion, you’re going to be able to articulate yourself what I would say to my satisfaction.
I’ve made the same kind of criticism about NeoCalvinism and suffering, so I can’t deny it just because Darryl said it. But Wolterstorff does seem like an odd example, both for his distance (whatever is roots may be) from NeoCalvinism, and for his book Lament for a Son, where (if memory serves) he talks about suffering as part of our being brought into conformity with the image of Christ.
According Jamie Smith over at Immanent Frame, Wolterstorff’s latest book on rights now qualifies him as a “Whig Calvinist.” That sounds more neo- than paleo-. My point in bringing up Wolterstorff was not to debate his ouvre, but to suggest that neo-Calvinists have trouble submitting to circumstances because the ideal of transformation breeds discontentment with things as they are. Some of this discontenment if of course natural because we groan against sin. Some of it is not, especially when it becomes the Christian version of either validating Christendom or embracing multi-culturalism and the politics of identity.
Greg, I can actually heap example upon example of neo-Calvinism’s influence: Neal Plantinga, Nancy Pearcey, James Skillen, Chuck Colson — really, the list could go on and on. World-and-viewism is the coin of the realm in evangelical higher education. Your own alma mater, Covenant College is flooded with this stuff. Does the name Bill Davis come to mind? And when I spoke there in 2001 my paleo-Calvinism was not well regarded, even if my reception was polite and my time there enjoyable.
Whenever we have these exchanges, I keep bring up examples and you keep saying that’s not “real” neo-Calvinism. Okay, maybe all of the examples I bring up are “faux” neo-Calvinists. Maybe you are the lone keeper of the flame, the Gideon of Gideon’s band. So would you like to take a stab at critiquing the faux neo-Calvinism?
Greg, BTW, we are never going to have a thorough conversation in this format. So why don’t you try me on television. I don’t think our Lord died for it, either the matter or the form. Does it mean that people who repair televisions, work behind the cameras, write the scripts, or act can’t glorify God in their work? Of course not. It means that to talk about any of this work as redemptive is to miss the “real” Reformed language that made sense of these folks honoring and glorifying God — vocation. Neo-Calvinists believe in integration, paleos’ in vocation.
The latter is a hopeful sign, indeed. It suggests that “neo-Calvinists” are willing to maintain the unity of the Body in the face of disagreement — which is precisely what the council of Jerusalem was about.
—
Dr. Hart, at this point, I’ve read these two articles as you have suggested. I’ve also now read your debate with Frame on RPW, re-read Frame’s article on RPW and (for good measure) “In Defense …”
I don’t precisely see how this amounts to an exposition of W2K. I could attempt to infer the basic positive statements of W2K, but I’m always nervous about reducing someone else’s system to my own words. The potential towards over-simplification is always real.
Here would be my summary of W2K:
(1) The Church is spiritual and set apart from the world. Within the Church, God’s word is immediately authoritative. For this reason, the RPW, as developed by the English Puritans, is to be followed wrt. all worship. Whatever is not prescribed is forbidden.
(2) The world itself is “common” — created by God as originally good, but now (since the Fall) the realm in which the saved and the unsaved alike have intercourse. Within the world, God’s common grace holds sway, so that men have liberty (wrt other men; not, of course, wrt their own fallen natures) to follow God’s commands or not — in the latter case, storing up judgment for themselves at the eschaton. Specifically in government, then, God’s word is not immediately authoritative. Instead, the magistrate has liberty to use “common sense”, or Natural Law, in order to make decisions. Whatever is not directly forbidden (and the Scripture makes no direct commands to the magistrates outside of the special time and place of Israel) is permitted.
(3) John Frame is always wrong.
Just kidding about the last one.
Do (1) and (2) adequately describe your view, or does something need adding or correcting?
Also, would you prefer for me to write over here or over at my blog?
Jeff Cagle
I say that Russ is giving DGH too much ground, because whatever Russ’ in-camp critique may be, it is *not* that neocalvinism as a system of cultural thought is inherently contra- theological paleocalvinism; it is *not* that neocalvinism is essentially “progressive” (triumphalistic) and that it has an erroneous view of suffering and seeks to validate a kind of Christendom or multiculturalism.
I imagine that Russ is merely granting that he has criticized this-or-that within a neocalvinist essay or other as inconsistent. But, of course, paleocalvinists that we all are, we do this with theological paleocalvinist essays too. There is a difference between characterizing the roots of a movement or system as fundamentally flawed, and saying that some particular implication drawn is inconsistent.
Darryl, my idea is to eventually entice you to a more thorough discussion in another forum. But, the way to address the question of salvation with regard to something ostensibly implausible given your assumptions, such as television, is to ask: what about television is creational and what fallen & cursed? If there is anything, in any way, fallen and/or under curse about television and there is at the same time some difference in the way that a Christian might ‘do’ television in beneficial and God-glorifying way, different from how a nonChristian might not benefit or glorify-God… well, then you can be sure Jesus and salvation has *something* to do with this arrangement.
Of course, the question is “what *does* it have to do with Jesus?” Now it may not be your particular vocation to ask or answer these sorts of questions, but ignorance about such research certainly doesn’t entail that the answer is “nothing.” And regardless of ones vocation, the answer to this question (what does Jesus have to do with it?) concerning ones own vocation, cannot be dismissed as insignificant out of hand. One should not too hastily conclude that one cannot find a distinctively Christian approach to matters of common grace and natural revelation, which require a Christian interpretation to be understood for what they really are.
My paper on sphere sovereignty was an implicit critique of faux neocalvinism… basically implying that any other view of sphere sovereignty was not the genuine article. Skillen was in the audience when I presented it at Princeton last year, and I had him in mind among others who have confused sphere sovereignty with “pillarization” (verzuiling). I have also strongly and openly criticized Mouw as a neoConstantinian who rejects essential neocalvinist views.
Also, theologically, my criticisms have always been that those who are not confessionally paleoreformed cannot be consistently neocalvinist.
Greg, I’m glad to hear of your disapproval of most aspects of neo-Calvinism. That leaves you, of course, in a less popular position that even the readership of the NTJ. ba-dop-bop.
But I must question your paleo- bonafides because of your defense of a Christian view of television. I am not sure what forum you have in mind for exploring this. And yes, I am not either a TV repairman or a sit-com producer. But in my own vocation of history, I have found the idea of a Christian approach to be more inspirational than plausible. Even church history resists Christianization. So my hunch is that those Christians engaged in television related vocations will find neo-Calvinism similarly unuseful even if very philosophical.
Jeff, I’d make three clarifications. John Frame is usually (not always) wrong. ba-dop-bop-bop. The Regulative Principle is not British but Reformed — check out Heidelberg on the Second Commandment as well as the Belgic Confession on a true church (can’t remember which article). And instead of common grace holding sway in the common realm I’d rather use the language of providence and the created order. There is more to say about the 2k view and Dave VanDrunen will be doing just that in a book to be published later this year with Eerdmans. But the key point is to distinguish between the church and her purpose and the common realm and its purpose. Two spheres that may overlap but are by no means the same. Neo-Calvinists tend to want to apply the standards of the redemptive sphere (the church) to the common sphere. 2k folks want to maintain the difference. Neo-Calvinists respond by calling 2k folk fundamentalists. Food fight breaks out.
Food fight indeed. Do I perceive correctly that you prefer to dialog over here?
Let me start with some points of contact.
First, I appreciate your zeal (and Dr. Muether’s) for the purity of Church in this sense: that the church should be free from the love of political power. As I recall from his class, this was one of Dr. Muether’s central concerns, expressed in his discussions of Machen’s objection to Prohibition and the events surrounding the North-South split of 1861. For you, improperly combining the purpose of the church with the purpose of the common sphere is the root of all error in this way. While I will argue against this absolute position later, I will also join you in affirming that the love of political power is a real and corrupting desire for the Church.
Second, I appreciate your zeal for proper worship and affirm the basic RPW principle as articulated in WCoF 21 (even while disagreeing with you on some Puritan particulars).
Third, I appreciate the basic concern for Christian liberty. In my view, we must distinguish between the norms required of individuals by the Scripture and the norms which man may properly lay down for one another. This latter set is decidedly smaller and operates under different principles.
That said, if agreeable, I want to challenge what I understand of W2K in several ways, with the understanding that I’m challenging the ideas and methods, not you as a person. As I mentioned over on GB, the goal here is unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Regards,
Jeff Cagle
Greg: I find it less frustrating to read Hart (and I could add, Scott Clark) if I read them as critiquing Neocalvinists, not necessarily Neocalvinism. They often hit the nail right on the head if they’re talking about Colson, but banging their own thumbs if read to be talking about Van Til (who, it seems to me, is unquestionably a Neocalvinist, of an antithetical sort). So no, I don’t think Neocalvinism is inherently opposed to Paleocalvinism (though frankly Paleocalvinism strikes me more as a slogan than a clearly definable position), or that neocalvinism is essentially progressive (or inevitably liberalizing).
Russ, out of curiosity, why is paleo-Calvinism any more of a slogan than neo-Calvinism?
Darryl, I absolutely approve of everything that defines neocalvinism and most (if not all) of its aspects. Neocalvinism does not apply ecclesial standards to any non-ecclesial sphere. Any wouldbe neocalvinist who has introduced some faux element or aberration (which includes departing from reformed confessionalism, aka paleocalvinism) stands under the critique of real neocalvinism itself.
Even though you don’t have a vocation in philosophy, given your own field, we should (were we to have such a discussion) probably talk about Christian historiography/philosophy of history, rather than television programming, repair, or viewing, don’t you think? What ‘historiographers’ have you considered who proposed a ‘Christian’ take on the field in some sense? I mean, I’m thinking of three non-neocalvinists off the top of my head: Butterfield, Dawson, and Bebbington. What do you dis/like about their proposals?
Russ, I guess I should read more Colson and critique him for reformed folk? If he is responsible for giving neocalvinists a bad name, we should be publicly poo-pooing him a lot more and offering the proper neocalvinist alternative. I feel as though Koyzis has dissected Colson often enough, but I’m presently drawing a blank on the nature of those criticisms.
Yes, many today can’t seem to grasp that Bavinck, Vos, Ridderbos, VanTil are all genuine neocalvinists.
btw, I’d say paleocalvinism is theologically paleoreformed, that is “reformed confessionalism” (3forms & WminStandards).
Darryl: “Slogan” might sound derogatory, which isn’t what I intend. It seems like more of a mood or mindset that, as successors to the Old Side and Old School, looks askance at whatever the latest big new method, program, or new measure might be. Fidelity to the confessions would of course be an essential element, though if it were a simple case of older is better, it would seem strange that most self-idenified Paleos seem to prefer the 1789 WCF over the 1646.
NeoCalvinism is varied but it’s fairly easy to identify founders and interpreters (Kuyper, Bavinck, Dooyeweerd, Runner, Wolters) and essential elements (Christ as Lord over all aspects of life, abiding authority of the cultural mandate, sphere sovereignty, antithesis, common grace, etc.).
Greg: The problem is that NeoCalvinist terminology has become so prevalent that it sounds like NeoCalvinists are everywhere. However, when I listen to evangelicals speak about Christian education, what always runs through my mind is Inigo Montoya saying, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…”
Jeff, challenge away, unity and peace withstanding.
Greg, you see, this is one of my problems with neo-Calvinism: why do we have to talk about historiography regarding my vocation? Why always the effort to theorize about everything? Neo’s really do privilege philosophy, and while there’s nothing inherently wrong with philosophy, it’s hard to read Scripture as giving philosophers that kind of importance. I’d much prefer talking about history — period. The history of the 1848 elections, the history of the Civil War, the history of the 1960s. And when you get to those subjects, the wonder-working power of Christian ground motives or Lordship of Christ look a lot less certain. In fact, and I suspect Russ will agree about this, many of the neo’s who write history with these ideas in mind usually write bad history — they let their theory determine their reading. I know, I know, that’s the point of neo-Calvinism — no neutral interpretations and all that. But what the neo’s fail to realize is that sometimes the theory driven interpretations are simply foolish — not only do they receive disapproval from non-Xians but also fail to convince Xians. And a Christian interpretation to have any staying power needs to be binding — to say that something is Christian is to say it’s normative.
Russ, does it give you any pause that neo-Calvinism is so Dutch? I mean, maybe this is an internal debate that Dutch-Calvinists need to have and then get back to the rest of the Reformed world when they’ve reached consensus. As for the WCF revisions, last time I checked it is better not to grant George W. Bush or Barry Obama power to call and preside over church synods and councils.
Russ,
The problem is that NeoCalvinist terminology has become so prevalent that it sounds like NeoCalvinists are everywhere. However, when I listen to evangelicals speak about Christian education, what always runs through my mind is Inigo Montoya saying, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means…”
To my 2K mind, “Christian education,” no matter who’s talking about it, is incontheivable.
I know what Christians doing education is, but I still have no idea what Christian education is. I have sailed the world looking for an answer to this. After having climbed the Cliffs of Insanity, the bastion-port of Grand Rapids still cannot answer it. Since, as DGH points out, we 2Kers have a penchant for things practical over things theoretical, let me ask you: since you imply there is an answer, what do you think it means?
Aye, aye cap’n.
Obj. 1: (of five) The W2K position reduces, rather than enhances, liberty.
We’ve discussed before the plight of the Christian magistrate, but I’ve recently realized that my point needs to be clearer. The W2K position is that the Christian magistrate (which we Americans all are in a minor way) must restrain himself from making specifically Biblical arguments for policy positions. Rather, the magistrate is supposed to engage in the “common sphere” using Natural Law reasoning that is common to all.
Supposedly, this enhances freedom for all, since neither the unChristian nor the Christian need fear that liberty will be trampled upon.
On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable position to take. In particular, this position has the positive merit of requiring the Christian to rely upon God’s sovereignty rather than his own strength in order to bring about societal change or to usher in the kingdom of God.
But now we consider the processes of law-making and of executing laws. Both of these processes, at core, are concerned with ethics: “What behavior should we require of society? How should we implement the law?” By introducing ethics at this point, I’m not seeking to privilege philosophy; rather, I’m pointing out what takes place in every public policy school across the country: policy begins with ethics, often in classes entitled “The Social Contract” or “The Rule of Law” or “Social Justice” or whatnot.
DGH, on your theory, Christian and non-Christian alike can find common ground in the Natural Law. This theory is strikingly modernist, imagining that we can all find common ground in a self-evident code of ethics. In practice, this is simply not the way it goes down. Rather, each person brings to the table his own set of ethical ideas, with the result that we have Marxist social theory, feminist social theory, utilitarian social theory, libertarian social theory, and so on.
What of the Christian? As a member of the community, can he bring his own set of norms, Christian norms, to bear on society? Not for W2K. For W2K, there is no such thing as Christian social theory, since the Bible has no section labeled “Christian social theory.”
At this point, W2K has removed the essential liberty of a Christian to think Christianly when operating in the public sphere. Non-Christians are to have complete liberty to be grounded in whatever influences they choose; but the Christian must explicitly eschew his own grounding so as to preserve “liberty.”
At this point, one must ask what liberty that W2K has preserved. Certainly, not the liberty to be guided by the teachings of the Lord. The liberty of a Christian is the liberty, apparently, to live with a divided conscience, upholding one set of ethical norms in private and Church life, and a different set of norms in public life. (And what is worse, the second set of norms don’t actually exist! More on this later.)
I was not aware of Dr. Kloosterman’s comments until after our discussion first started, DGH, but I associate myself with many of them. In particular:
At this point, DGH might ask, “Why should I care if the Christian’s liberty is restricted? After all, we are promised trouble in this world. And all I’m asking is that the Christian not take up the sword in order to force others to obey God’s law.”
If that were all that W2K asked, I would probably not raise any objections. Unfortunately, it goes beyond this: it positively requires the Christian to use a different ethical basis for his laws, to call night, day; and to call black, white.
Over against this stands the Scripture:
The making of laws is the making of justice, and there is but one standard of justice. To ask the Christian to set this aside for a supposed Natural Law is to shackle him with a non-Biblical command of men which requires him to deny the unique moral status of the teaching of the Lord.
W2K does this by failing to distinguish between two separate acts: Christians taking up political power in order to change society (which we agree is misguided), and Christians who are in positions of political power, faithfully holding to the teachings of the Lord as the unique source of right and wrong. By conflating these two acts into one, W2K wrongly shackles the Christian magistrate, withholding from him the freedom to be a faithful follower of Christ.
I sum up with Calvin:
Jeff,
Do you think it is possible that two Christian magistrates can disagree about how to solve any given political problem, or is there only one Christian way to solve for it? Let’s leave the highly loaded and way over-done questions about abortion, etc. alone (sorry, Dr. Kloosterman) and bring things down to a more manageable, but no less important and ultimately helpful, level: What if I think turn-abouts are better than 4-way stops but you think otherwise? We’re both interested in how to make a certain important aspect of society run well, but we differ over how. (I know I’ve done this before, but prudence and generosity are both biblical virtues. You might leave a prudent tip while I leave a generous one, but neither has any ground to say the other is wrong in what he lays down; he only has ground to exhort when the other doesn’t pay his bill.)
How do the classic Reformed categories of indicatives (“You belong to Christ”) and imperatives (“Therefore, act like it”) figure in to your objection? How can the civil magistrate be said to meet the indicative so that the imperative has ground? Your objection seems to suggest that 2K wrongly tears asunder, but what you actually have to show is how something other than 2K can legitimately bring together what cannot be. Another classic Reformed formulation seems to help, namely the first use of the law: nobody needs to belong to Jesus by faith in order to carry out what is right, true and good. 2K doesn’t tear asunder; it wants to think more carefully about who does what and on what grounds.
Given how you speak about it, you seem to assume that natural law is some sort of man-made thing, which allows you to carry forward with this odd notion that 2K promotes some sort of private/public antagonism for the believer. But 2K understands natural law and revealed law to be synonymous. Believer and non- both have equal access to the idea that stealing is wrong. That’s natural law. That’s common ground. The irony of all objections to 2K is that everyone lives happily like a 2Ker everyday but wants to speak as if something better exists. The common sphere is so big many don’t seem to realize they are smack in the middle of it. I think this can often break down between those satisfied with a proximate justice and those questing after an exact one, those who can live with the world as it is and those who want to quest after how it should be.
Darryl: Most things Dutch give me pause, actually. But it seems to me that more and more the most prominent advocates of NeoCalvinism are found either outside, or only adopted into, the Dutch subculture. And I’m all for the 1789 revision; it would seem that of PaleoCalvinist just means old Calvinism, the Covenanters or even the Still Water Revival types could make a case for being more paleo than thou.
The Dutch question for me raises the question of Van Til. How does he fit into a non- (anit-?) NeoCalvinist PaleoCalvinist framework?
Zrim: I’d say, in brief, that since nearly all knowledge we possess consists of the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man, and that since there is something distinctively Christian about knowing God as he is revealed in Scripture and knowing the nature of humanity as created in the image of God but fallen into sin, there is such a thing as Christian education. For example, history at any level must answer the question of why stuff happened. Any attempt to provide an answer raises questions of how we weight human agency in relation to other factors (evolutionary biology, class conflict, geography, etc.) and human nature itself. These are fundamentally religious questions. I would also affirm what Van Til would say on the antithesis, non-Christians borrowing a Christian framework for interpreting reality, etc., as well as the role of Christian education in helping students develop discernment, etc.
Russ, the Covenanters (whom I admire) and the Still Water folks suffer from a similar problem as neo-Calvinists — too ethnic. That is, in the same way the neo-Calvinists have trouble getting beyond the Dutch ghetto, the Covenanters and other keepers of the National Covenant flame, have trouble not realizing that what happened in Scotland is circumstantial to being Reformed. Granted, Americans have their own version of this when they privilege revivalism and its offshoot, experimental Calvinism. But it is a problem nonetheless. This does not mean that I’m an advocate of cosmopolitan Calvinism. The more particular Calvinism is, the better in my estimation. But once you take a particular form of Calvinism and transplant it in another place, the particularity needs to adjust. I’d have thought neo-Calvinists would have learned this kind of organicism from Kuyper himself (who was not always at odds with 2k views).
Jeff, I believe you raise a good point about the 2k view of liberty, at least at one level. But I think you make a couple of assumptions about my view that are inaccurate. First, I do not advocate Natural Law. I am not opposed to it either. But I don’t think it is the magical wand that will resolve all political difficulties. What I do advocate is the ability of fallen reason to make some sense of this world for the proximate ends of stability and order (in the larger providential plan of restraining evil). Just as Calvin recognized the insights of Seneca and Aristotle about politics, so I’m more than willing to recommend the likes of Roger Scruton, Wendell Berry, and Leon Kass about a host of policy and theoretical matters that pertain to public life (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson also come to mind as worthwhile political theorists).
Second, I do not insist that Christians use natural aw in the political realm, nor do I insist that they refrain from Christian arguments. It is a free country and I think all believers have political liberties to express their faith openly. That doesn’t mean, though, that I think believers will be successful. If it’s a free country for them to make Christian arguments, it’s also a free country for non-Christians to reject Christian arguments. So part of my objection to a Christian world view on American politics is its lack of wisdom. If Christians want to convince others to come around to their way of looking at things, using Christian arguments may not be the best way.
But I suspect that part of your concern is not the pragmatic one but the theoretical one — what is the true Christian view of society and government? Here I feel we are headed back to the sorts of arguments that occurred at Greenbaggins after the 2008 election. If you hold, whether tenaciously or no, to a Christian social theory as being the norm that informs your conscience, I sense you are headed to an uncomfortable position of either rejecting the existing secular regime of the United States or needing to cause a revolution to institute a form of government that embodies a Christian social theory. If you think Christians must follow a Christian form of government, then are you not violating your own conscience by submitting to the American powers that be?
I am not trying to be clever or rhetorical about this. I am truly trying to understand how someone who believes the Bible teaches a certain kind of social and ethical order can live in a society where that order is not observed. As I said many times over at Greenbaggins, chances are the advocates of a Christian politics end up behaving like 2k Christians. So why not make the circle complete and simply adopt a 2k theory to go with your 2k practice?
Russ,
I guess I still don’t understand how it follows that because “nearly all knowledge we possess consists of the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man, and that since there is something distinctively Christian about knowing God as he is revealed in Scripture and knowing the nature of humanity as created in the image of God but fallen into sin” that “there is such a thing as Christian education.” Does that also mean there is a thing called Christian pottery and politics?
I agree that these are “fundamentally religious questions,” just like I agree that Christianity has something to say to the world. But I think where we might differ is just what that answer is: Some say the gospel has a direct and obvious bearing on the cares of this world, some say it doesn’t, rather it has a counter-intuitive bearing and something directly to say about the next world. Some say true religion takes pains to say there is no such thing as Christian versions of any worldly project (politics, education, art, science, salad making), only a Christian version of the church.
In other words, the difference between 2K/SOTC types and, well, everyone else isn’t that the former don’t believe these are fundamentally religious questions, rather that we think the answers are way more counter-intuitive, not-so-obvious or indirect. I think the failure to grasp this is what may help account for all the rotten “antinomian-speak” tomatoes thrown in the typical food fight.
No, I agree. Not just wrt Christianity, but wrt any worldview whatsoever, I wonder whether the American Constitutional project can survive long-term. I suspect that the Founding Fathers operated on a modernist basis: either that a common mode of ethics was self-evident (Jefferson) or else, they hoped that some form of Christianity would be the established religion of the states.
Today’s America, with a greater Federalist impulse and a particular view of Church and State, cannot but help trample on liberties in one form or another when it comes to issues like land use, marriage, freedom-of-conscience laws, and so on.
More later. Gotta meet the family for dinner.
JRC
I would think that there might be multiple Christian approaches to, say, turn-abouts; and multiple non-Christian ones as well. I’m not sure what that proves??
For the record, I think Frame deserves a second look from you guys. He handles the “common sphere” aspects by stuffing them into the situational and existential perspectives, which has the effect of elevating the common sphere into a genuine aspect of knowledge.
I know that his perspective on the RPW is anathema, but if you could get past that a bit, you might find some helpful points of common contact in this very area of coordinating the common and the sacred. </advertisement>
This whole paragraph is hard for me to grasp (sorry!). I’ll respond so that you can understand and correct the confusion.
I think what you’re asking is how a non-Christian magistrate could possibly be expected to carry out God’s imperatives? If so, then I deny the premise: belonging to Adam, not Christ, places one under the weight of God’s imperatives.
It was Kant and not the Reformed who taught that “ought implies can.” Kant was simply mistaken.
Tears what asunder? Bring what together? I was really lost here.
Are you referring to Calvin’s first use of the law?
This is so opposite what you wrote that I have to think we’re talking about a different “first use”?
Well, actually, I have more specific assumptions about the Natural Law: namely, that no-one has ever had any success at exhibiting its content, without smuggling in some other ethical theory; and that “Natural Law” suffers from the inability to bridge the gap between *is* and *ought*.
So for example, I agree that believers and non-believers have equal access to the idea that stealing is wrong. But I believe that because I share with you a meta-ethical theory about right and wrong: that God’s commands define what is right.
People that don’t share that meta-ethical theory (ex.: Peter Singer, Joseph Fletcher, Ayn Rand) would not agree that stealing is wrong per se; it is only wrong if it decreases total preferences, is done outside of “love”, or is contrary to rational self-interest, respectively.
Now if you want to stand ground here and say that the Natural Law really *is* just the revealed Law of God, written on the hearts of men, then we have some content to the Natural Law.
But at the same time, you’ve surrendered your main point: that the Natural Law is “common” and can be used in the common sphere in a way that Scripture cannot.
I’ll have more to say about this in a future objection.
Well, I’ll grant that I live happily as a 2K-er. And I even describe myself as some kind of 2K-er. I’m just not a Westminsterian 2K-er. The problem here is that 2K theologies come in multiple flavors, and you’ve tended to rush past the differences and assign everyone to “2K” or “not 2K”, when in fact the world of political theology is much more variegated. This problem is especially acute when dealing with historical figures like Calvin and Augustine. They were 2K, but they were far, far from W2K.
JRC
I stand corrected. I wrongly inferred your position on the NL by improperly globbing your position and Zrim’s together, and from a vanDrunen article I read.
But now a trio of new puzzles present:
(1) If we take “stability and order” as the goals, would you say that the magistrate is bound by utilitarian ethics? Or, would you say that “utilitarian ethics is as good as we get in the common sphere”?
(2) Does fallen reason include both *means* and *ends*, or means only? How does this work out with, say, the embryonic stem cell debate? You are President Obama’s bioethics adviser. Put your fallen reason to work on crafting a policy for federal funding.
(3) In practice, fallen reason will conflict with Scripture ‘cuz that’s what we do as fallen man. But can fallen reason *legitimately* conflict with Scripture? If not, then why not use Scripture as a check on our fallen reason?
When I suggested this before, you said that I was “turning the Bible into a reference book” (which was really odd to my ear — I thought it was standard 3rd use that I was advocating), but you never gave a reason not to do this.
This is also a useful clarification that gives hope for further common ground. But what then should I make of your objections to Christians making Scriptural arguments?
Say for example: What’s wrong with Chuck Colson arguing that the OT pattern of retributive justice is superior to our modern model of “corrective justice”? Somehow, he’s a naughty transformationalist when he makes such an argument.
Or put another way: you grant that Chuckie C has the political liberty to make these arguments, but you (appear) to object to the wisdom of his making those arguments at the same time. Well, fine. The liberty wasn’t the question; the right thing to do was.
So when you say, “It is a free country…”, are you really giving Christians the moral liberty to make Scriptural arguments? Or are you just commenting on our political freedoms?
Well, no, actually, it’s pretty much a pragmatic concern! There are a couple of reasons for this.
(1) I’m by nature pragmatic. In my view, James teaches that doctrine that does not actually reach our hands (”doer of the Law”) is doctrine that we don’t really believe. For me, belief and practice form a continuum. That’s one reason that I find Frame useful in certain areas: he and I share this prejudice about theology.
So when I encountered the W2K arguments, I started running them through test cases, such as the Case of the Christian Magistrate. My objection really starts there, both in time and in ground.
(2) I’m sufficiently 2K that I don’t believe that government is an essential feature of being a Christian. Christians who govern, should govern as unto the Lord; but Christians who live under a government, should submit as to the agent of the Lord. Some of us get to live under amenable governments, and some of us don’t, but the world is never our home.
That’s the sum of my Christian Social Theory. Well, no, there’s more. But wrt governance, I definitely do not believe that Christians must establish a Christian Social Order in order to be faithful citizens.
So …
Not at all. I don’t think Christians must follow a Christian form of government because I don’t think that the laws of man are, in general, binding on the conscience. They restrict my behavior, but they don’t force me to disbelieve.
BUT
I do think that Christians who happen to govern, should govern Christianly (whatever that means).
AND
I also think that secular governments tend towards idolatry. Even though I resisted Elder Hoss’s strictures about education, I think he’s right that fallen reason tends to make government into an idol. At least one study bears out the negative correlation between reliance on government and reliance on God: Gill and Lundsgaarde.
Therefore, I believe that Christians may at times have to resist the government. Zrim thinks I’m crazy in this regard, even though I multiplied Biblical examples of civil disobedience.
My stance is above, but let me go one further and answer for the theonomists: if one does believe that a certain social order ought to obtain, then the right thing to do is to take the steps to maximize the likelihood of that order materializing. A Bahnsenian theonomist would argue that spreading the Gospel and using the legitimate arms of democracy are the right, pragmatic means to that end. So a genuine theonomist lives as a long-term transformationalist.
JRC
Jeff,
The point over turn-abouts and 4-ways is simply that there are various ways to solve a temporal problem and that eternal devotion has nothing at all to do with it. You suggest that there are Christian and non-Christian approaches to turn-abouts, but what could that possibly mean? I am honestly asking: what is a Christian view of turn-abouts?
The point about indicative/imperative wasn’t that a pagan magistrate shouldn’t be expected to carry out what is right, true and good, rather that the pagan’s ground is different from the believer’s. I think we have more agreement than not here. But if that is the case I guess I still don’t know why you seem to want scripture to have even indirect bearing on the structuring of society when it belongs exclusively to the church.
But it seems to me there are two ways to get revealed law onto general society, one blatant and the other latent. Those who favor latent ways tend to agree with 2K/SOTC as it opposes blatant things like outside-in theonomy, Constantinianism and even some forms of transformationalism. But because it still harbors the notion that the gospel has direct and obvious bearing on society it seems to prefer a more inside-out posture, a kinder and gentler one and out pops something quizzical about a Christian answer to questions of city planning.
By first use I mean the law referred to in Rom 2:14,15, the moral code written on men’s hearts which alternately excuses or condemns them. It’s the law known by all men, regardless of their covenantal status (i.e. believers and non-) as to what is right, true and good. Christians and pagans have equal ability to get things as right as wrong because each is as indwelt by sin. Christians can try and construct some sort of social theory based on the revealed law of God in order to meet the alleged alternatives; but for what purpose since sin always subverts everything?
I agree that there are myriad ways of understanding 2K. Many agree that there are indeed two kingdoms—after that there are different understandings of the nature of the kingdoms and their relationship to each other. For what it’s worth, I tend to think we may have more to learn from Luther on the kingdoms than Calvin. Luther seems to begin with the basic structures of Augustine but improves upon them and finally renders what I think is a vastly superior approach. Of course, we live on this side of history such that I think even Luther could be surpassed. I wouldn’t seek to disingenuously “enlist” any of these thinkers, but rather capitalize on them and see how they can be brought to bear on our time and place as Xian believers.
sssshhhhhhh on the Luther business. We don’t want people getting the idea that the NTJ is Lutheran.
Jeff, what do you see as the difference between 2k and W2k such that you say the former is far from the latter. My own view is that Augustine’s views on the two cities (not necessarily the same as the two kingdoms) is far removed from American Protestant modes of thinking about this world. Luther and Calvin were indebted to Augustine in their own ideas about the church and the world. But again, their ideas are in short supply among American Protestants who prefer the inspiration of Kuyperianism (even though Kuyper himself was not always so inspiring). You make it seem like lots of 2k thinking is going on out there. I suppose you also put Frame in that camp. But his brief for biblicism has had much more appeal among theonomists (both hard and soft) than among those who distinguish the holy from the common.