179 thoughts on “Between a Millstone and a Mandate”

1. Pingback: Hart Replies to Kloosterman « Heidelblog
2. Pingback: Educational Legalism? Oh, No, He Didn’t! « The Confessional Outhouse

3. Dennis Johnson edited a book on education with essays written by Berkhof and Van Til:

   http://tiny.cc/BBm5P

   In the first essay, Van Til talks about the implications for the antithesis for education, asserting that math does not take place outside the Christian context. His reason is that everyone who isn’t a Christian is basically Kantian, and ultimately skeptical about everything. Thus they are not teaching facts as facts, thus they are not teaching anything.

   Astonishingly, he asserts that he’s not undermining common grace, but rather establishing it.

   LikeLike

4. Sorry, the tiny-url seems not to be working. I meant this book:

   http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Christian-Education-Addresses-Perspectives/dp/0875521142/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241452269&sr=1-1

   LikeLike

5. Echo,

   What’s astonishing to me is how the project to maintain a Dutch immigrant subculture by way of education drives one to assert that non-Xians don’t really believe that two and two are four. It’s perfectly legitimate for immigrant subcultures to maintain their identity as they forge their way into a broader one, and education is certainly one way to do it. But there is thinking too much and surfacing with conclusions any fourth grader will recongize as odd.

   “In our isolation is our strength” works for either cult or culture. But when you mix the two you end up not only undermining common grace but also common sense. And if educational projects were meant to maintain confessional Reformed orthodoxy, may I present the CRC as exhibit one against that hypothesis? Lots of commitment to CSI but just as much diminished orthodoxy. Ouch.

   LikeLike

6. Cornelius Van Til’s project was to “maintain a Dutch immigrant subculture”? Really? Where in his writings does he lay out this vision?

   LikeLike

7. Steve,

   To my knowledge, he doesn’t, which is what’s so interesting to me. I’m suggesting that the educational project was at least as much about maintaining immigrant culture as it was about maintaining the Christian cult. I am not sure how anyone doesn’t recognize the huge cultural factor going on in all this, especially considering CVT’s own immigrant background. From the habits of language to work ethic (culture), the Dutch Reformed are a very distinct people and not just because of their sabbatarianism (cult).

   Education is a way to preserve a particular humanity within a larger, alien one. To simply explain it as a way to preserve cult really seems to overlook significant aspects of what it means to be human.

   LikeLike

8. Since Kloosterman is being “slandered” with the title neocalvinist (I thought he was vrijgemaakt), I’d like to read up on these articles. Anyone have a link to them online?

   From Darryl’s description, he doesn’t sound like a neocalvinist to me. Maybe he is a theonomist, which of course is totally different. Neocalvinists should love Kline as Kline loved VanTil as VanTil loved Vos as Vos loved Kuyper. The redemptive-historical school of biblical hermeneutics and the neocalvinist school of cultural work are set on the same campus green; had the same early proponents. If Kloosterman doesn’t like Kline than he needs a lesson in hermeneutics as badly as Hart needs one in history.

   Anyway, I can’t see why Kloosterman would make Lutherans into bad guys if his hobby horse is Christian education (!), since orthodox Lutherans are as (if not more) adamant about it (and have been at it longer) than Can/AmRCs or whoeverelse.

   LikeLike

9. Baus: here is one link to but a portion of Dr. K’s series: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MGt7vsByLtcJ:auxesis.net/kloosterman/kloosterman_third_way_081126.pdf+kloosterman+pilgrim%27s+pathway+theonomy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

   Again, I have to wonder about your understanding of neo-Calvinism, not to say that yours is inherently defective or necessarily odd. But all the neo-Calvinists I read, from Wolters and Middleton to Plantinga, rarely read like amillennialists. The consummation is generally missing from the idea of recreation.

   LikeLike

10. Parts 1-11: http://auxesis.net/kloosterman/kloosterman_third_way_01-11.pdf

    Parts 12-13: http://auxesis.net/kloosterman/kloosterman_third_way_12-13.pdf

    LikeLike

11. Of course I am appalled at Van Til’s conclusions in that essay. I went to public school, where I learned math. The real conundrum that Van Til’s position would be in is this: wouldn’t he have to affirm that as a regenerate Christian, that when I “do math” today I am actually and truly doing God-glorifying Math? But how could that possibly be, if I learned something-other-than-math in grade school because my teachers were pagans?

    I was really hoping for a comment from Dr. Hart on the Van Til business. Perhaps he’s waiting for a direct quote, or waiting to read the essay for himself. No one ever seems to believe me when I talk about what he says in that book, because it’s nothing short of irrational, and no one wants to impute that to Van Til.

    LikeLike

12. How about something from Nevin on Christian schools?

    LikeLike

13. Kloosterman explicitly rejects the notion of “transformational Calvinism” on the grounds that it is overly triumphalist.

    LikeLike

14. Zrim :To my knowledge, he doesn’t, which is what’s so interesting to me.

    So his real meaning has nothing to do with his actual words? Nah.

    Perhaps … just maybe … CVT’s concern for Christian education is exactly what he said it was: the desire to frame all of knowledge within the the context of Scripture, and to teach our children to do the same.

    Nothing particularly Dutch about that, especially for us non-Dutch readers of CVT.

    JRC

    LikeLike

15. Darryl,

    I agree with your point about neo-Calvinists rarely reading like amillennialists. They generally have a little too much “not yet” in their “already!”

    LikeLike

16. Echo,

    Good questions. I can’t make heads nor tails of Van Tilian views on education. But I’m as bad at irrationality as I am math; it’s hard to believe when I do math I am glorifying much of anything.

    LikeLike

17. Jeff, my man, you gotta put on the skeptic’s hat once in a while with the neo-Calvinists and not just with the 2kers.

    Kloosterman says that the statements of certain Reformed colleges reflect a movement away from “transformational Calvinism.” Well, if by that he means they don’t use the word “transformation” okay, yah, he has a point. But if you look at the mission statements you see the kind of rationale that aids and abets transformationalism. Here are some examples:

    To reclaim the creation for God and to redirect it to the service of God and humankind, receiving the many valuable insights into the structure of reality provided by the good hand of God through thinkers in every age, and seeking to interpret and re-form such insights according to the Scriptures;
    To see learning as a continuous process and vocation;
    To endeavor to think scripturally about culture so as to glorify God and promote true human advancement.
    ______

    Here’s another:
    But God came with his word of grace, reclaiming his world through the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Even though the effects of the fall will continue until he returns, Christ has rescued the creation from the curse of sin, and he reigns as king over all. He summons those he has redeemed to work to establish his kingdom everywhere.
    _______

    And another:
    We are now fallen creatures in a fallen world. The Christian gospel tells us that all hell has broken loose in this sorry world but also that, in Christ, all heaven has come to do battle. Christ the warrior has come to defeat worldly power, to move the world over onto a new foundation, and to equip a people—informed, devout, educated, pious, determined people—to follow him in righting what’s wrong, in transforming what’s corrupted, in doing the things that make for peace.

    That’s what Christian higher education is for. It’s for shalom. It’s for peace in the sense of wholeness and harmony in the world. It’s for restoring proper relationships with nature and other humans and God, and for teaching us to delight in the wonders of creation that remain. As my teacher Nicholas Wolterstorff used to say, Christian college education equips us to be agents of shalom, models of shalom, witnesses to shalom.
    ___________

    DGH: I don’t know what Kloosterman is talking about, and I don’t know why you didn’t dig deeper, Jeff. I am glad that Kloosterman thinks triumphalism is an unfortunate side of neo-Calvinism. But I’m not sure he could recognize how pervasive it is if he thinks Reformed colleges are backing away from it.

    LikeLike

18. Zrim and Echo:

    CVT’s stance on “two plus two” is famous and documented. In its historical context, he was rhetoricizing in response to two battles he was fighting:

    (1) The apologetics battle, in which he felt it necessary to completely distance himself from the Aquinian “evidentialist” method. For CVT, if we affirm “brute facts” that exist apart from God himself, then we have introduced a note of autonomy in creation, which moves us in the direction of Scholastic Catholicism. Read “Christian Apologetics” for a sense of this idea (sorry, no page # — I’m working from memory here).

    CVT says, No, the presuppositions of our hearts shape how we view “brute facts”, and he then went on to argue for presuppositional apologetics.

    At first, this seems unrelated to “two plus two” — except that we generally regard “two plus two equals four” as a brute fact. (ironically, mathematicians do not, exactly).

    CVT wants to put a flag by “two plus two equals four” and note that even apparent brute facts like this are colored by presuppositions.

    (2) The Clark controversy, in which Clark appealed to the notion of “brute logic” as a hermeneutical method. For CVT, Clark’s approach reduced saving faith to a mere intellectual affirmation, and diminished the distance between God and man in terms of knowledge.

    So the “two plus two” meme was not an outright denial that unsaved man can know anything about two and two. Rather, it was an affirmation that man in general cannot know “two plus two equals four” in the same sense that God does — and it follows (for CVT) that saved people operating from God’s revelation are in a better position to contextually appreciate “two plus two equals four.”

    —

    Now, CVT was criticized for his extreme language, and most presuppositionalists don’t use his language any more. In fact, Bahnsen’s TAG argument takes the opposite approach: “two plus two equals four” is an abstract, true statement.

    My point is this: CVT’s position on two plus two should be taken with a grain of salt and a large bucket of historical context.

    JRC

    LikeLike

19. And that is the appeal of neo-Calvinism. It is very rah rah. It’s fun to think you’re on the winning side, that your team is going to prevail in the bottom of the ninth. But that is a pretty worldly way of looking at success and victory, not exactly the model of the cross. And as inspiring as the resurrection was, it was hardly followed by a parade down Broad Street. A lot of people did not seem to know it had happened.

    LikeLike

20. Jeff,

    I’m trying to account for unstated motivations as well as stated. When the stated purpose is “to frame all of knowledge within the the context of Scripture” I still raise my hand. And since human beings are, as the man said, complex as creatures (versus the Creators’ simplicity), I think we still have to account for unstated purposes that aren’t quite as sexy. In other words, it sounds good and fine to suggest that “all of knowledge should be framed within the the context of Scripture,” but sometimes it’s also about keeping cohesion in the clan. I’m not necessarily faulting the latter, just suggesting that a lot more is going on than developing a Christian worldview for people clamoring for one.

    LikeLike

21. It’s a fair cop. Certainly here, I’ve represented a skeptical approach to REPT that might suggest a transformationalist bent.

    In the shower and while gardening, though, my thoughts are different. I just haven’t had a chance to put them altogether yet.

    JRC

    LikeLike

22. Having one line of thought when considering education and the role and the state and a different one while gardening and showering is what helped drive at least some of us toward the 2k camp.

    LikeLike

23. rather “of the state.” (public school grad)

    LikeLike

24. Jeff,

    Another variation on one’s system getting in the way of his confession.

    Recall that the theonomists will explicitly confess that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and prophets. One then wonders what gives with all the fixation on law if Jesus really is messianic fulfillment. Theonomy gets in the way of a good confession.

    In the same way, if triumphalism is bad then what gives with all the neocalvinism? At least better theonomists will say they are co-belligerents with the religious right, even if the latter doesn’t employ theonomy’s sophisticated system or language. Better theonomists understand there is a spirit to theonomy as well as a letter. Kloosterman’s rejection of transformational Calvinism makes little sense to the extent that he may not be distinguishing between letter and spirit. One sure sign that one really is a transformational Calvinist is that he thinks education is mandate.

    LikeLike

25. You’re probably joking, but just to be clear: I express one line of thought when engaging in critical examination of REPT (here). I have another line of thought when trying to synthesize various elements into a coherent theology.

    Gardening is the medium, not the message.

    JRC

    LikeLike

26. OK. But there are two problems:

    (1) You’re operating on mighty thin evidence when you start working with unstated motivations, and

    (2) There’s a danger of becoming uncharitable by suspecting the worst of people.

    I mean really: CVT develops his whole “world-view” notion just so his great-grandchildren will be culturally Dutch?! That seems a bit silly, no?

    LikeLike

27. Jeff,

    (1) You’re operating on mighty thin evidence when you start working with unstated motivations, and

    (2) There’s a danger of becoming uncharitable by suspecting the worst of people.

    I mean really: CVT develops his whole “world-view” notion just so his great-grandchildren will be culturally Dutch?! That seems a bit silly, no?

    1) Fair enough. But there is a difference between trying to peer into a man’s heart and suggesting he may not be accounting for everything in his project. I hope you’re not faulting simply trying to interpret human goings on, because that is actually 99% of human activity.

    2) True, but a) your caution seems to suggest that worldviewism is bad, at which one wonders why you keep cornering 2K, and b) I already said I am not necessarily faulting his alleged worldviewism (yet) but just trying to account for what drives it beyond constructing a worldviewism for people clamoring for one.

    And, yes, that would be silly, Jeff. Good thing that really isn’t my point. What was that about being charitable? CVT lamented that the wider landscape of Christian schooling didn’t understand him and “turned out a product” that was little more than glorified education. Indeed, he had something else in mind than what CSI came up with. But I think that only helps make my point: nobody could do it because there is no such thing as Christian education in the first place.

    LikeLike

28. Zrim, you wrote:

    “One sure sign that one really is a transformational Calvinist is that he thinks education is mandate.”

    Tell that to David Engelsma and the PRCA. Maybe you are unfamiliar with his short treatment of this subject, “Reformed Education: the Christian School as Demand of the Covenant”. Good luck trying to find any transformationlists in the PRCA. Your sweeping conflation of viewpoints, along with the hilarious attempt to color Van Til’s project as one of ethno-centric subcultural preservation, betrays an oversimplified (and highly prejudiced) view of Neo-Calvinism, Dutch Reformed tradition, and the Christian education movement therein.

    LikeLike

29. Steve,

    Hmmm, I live right down the street from the PRC sem. Recently, after a local PRC pastor had the audacity to remove his children from the local Xian school and home-school instead, droves of URCs moved over in their pews to make way for poor bound consciences brow beat from the PRC pulpits on the sins of homeschooling. Was Engelsma one of the two seminary apostles dispatched to carry out the educational legalism?

    There are different kinds of transformationalism, Steve. All it takes is the principle that there are Christian versions of worldly enterprise.

    LikeLike

30. Steve, is the Engelsma piece available on-line anywhere? I do think it is possible to be pro-Christian schools and two-kingdom. Machen clearly was. But it is odd that you get huffy about the Dutch Reformed tradition when Zrim takes issue with Christian schooling and Van Til. It is pretty clear that the Dutch Reformed have insisted on Christian schools the most of Reformed Protestants in the U.S. It is also clear that they maintained a vigorous cultural isolation (read: ghetto) for a long time — “in our isolation is our strength.” I for one have great respect for all forms of cultural life that resist American assimilation. At the same time, ethnic cultures can breed their own forms of jingoism. The inability of the Dutch to question schooling — and no one here is saying they are illegitimate — seems to be evidence of Dutch parochialism. And I also want to admit that it produced a vibrant intellectual life — the faculty at Calvin in the middle decades of the twentieth century was remarkable. But what schooling advocates don’t seem to ponder is that the mixing of kingdoms that inevitably comes with arguments for Xian schools, also brings confusion about the gospel. It’s not as if the CRC’s commitment to Xian schools has slackened even as it has lamentably lost touch with big parts of the Reformed faith.

    LikeLike

31. Zrim: Education is a way to preserve a particular humanity within a larger, alien one.

    JRC: I mean really: CVT develops his whole “world-view” notion just so his great-grandchildren will be culturally Dutch?! That seems a bit silly, no?

    Zrim: And, yes, that would be silly, Jeff. Good thing that really isn’t my point. What was that about being charitable?

    Hey — goose, gander, all that. 😉 I’m glad you weren’t saying what I thought you were saying.

    JRC

    LikeLike

32. Zrim, I’ve never set foot near Grand Rapids, so I don’t have a sense for it. Dr. Kloosterman’s article makes it seem as if having a child in a specifically CRC/URC school is a requirement for being an elder in the URC.

    Am I reading this correctly?

    Also, he makes a mistake in the article:

    Dr. K: The attentive inquirer wanting to know the pay-off of this new view will look—and listen—in vain for an explicit, outright denial of the validity of Christian education as one of its implications.

    You do, right?

    JRC

    LikeLike

33. DGH: I am not sure when “Lutheran” became a four-letter word…

    Written in Hebrew, it is: לטרן

    LikeLike

34. Jeff,

    Dr. Kloosterman’s article makes it seem as if having a child in a specifically CRC/URC school is a requirement for being an elder in the URC. Am I reading this correctly?”

    Well, perhaps it’s best not to interpret a man’s words lest I get charged with peering into a man’s heart wrt to his project and just go with the URC’s Article 14 (you should know the feel of my elbow in your ribs by now):

    “The duties belonging to the office of elder consist of continuing in prayer and ruling the church of Christ according to the principles taught in Scripture, in order that purity of doctrine and holiness of life may be practiced. They shall see to it that their fellow-elders, the minister(s) and the deacons faithfully discharge their offices. They are to maintain the purity of the Word and Sacraments, assist in catechizing the youth, promote God-centered schooling, visit the members of the congregation according to their needs, engage in family visiting, exercise discipline in the congregation, actively promote the work of evangelism and missions, and insure that everything is done decently and in good order.” (italics mine)

    When I imagine myself being nominated for elder in the URC I also imagine asking the council how I promote something I do not understand. I get all the other charges, but how do I promote something that escapes me, and what integrity is there in promoting it when I am an advocate of secular education in both theory and practice? How do I exhort even myself toward something I think is subject to liberty (whereas all the other charges are matters of command)? The URCs around here, actually, are quite heavy in the home-school tradition. The thing which seems clear to me is that it’s not so much that one must Xian or homeschool as much as one better not public school. But nobody comes out and says that in so many words because it’s too uncouth. Better to imply it. I’ve served as deacon in the CRC; it remains to be seen if my name ever shows up on the elder slate. A PCA pastor friend of mine told me I’d never be considered for elder in his church precisley because of my educational heresy.

    Re your second question, I am not sure I am clear because I haven’t gotten to that part yet in the article. But if I understand, no, I would not say I “explicitly deny the validity of Christian education.” I have serious reservations about its assumptions, for I do not know what it is any more than any other worldly endeavor (e.g. politics or pottery). I happen to think that secular education is more consistent with two-kingdom theology (there, I said it, nyah), so I think Dr. K. has a pretty good point. But he expresses it at the expense of my own understanding of liberty, which is to say, school your covenant child any way you deem fit. But be sure you catechize him only in the Reformed tradition and do not neglect the means of grace, etc.

    LikeLike

35. Zrim: I am not defending Engelsma or the PRCA’s position on home schooling, but merely pointing out, as Dr. Hart has done with his reference to Machen, that one can be a Christian-school advocate without being a transformationalist, contra Zrim’s sweeping conflation of the two positions. I’ll assume my point is granted. Thus, it is quite possible for Dr. Kloosterman to reject transformationalism while being pro-Christian education.

    Dr. Hart writes: “The inability of the Dutch to question schooling — and no one here is saying they are illegitimate — seems to be evidence of Dutch parochialism.”

    An inability to question schooling? Is it a mental inability these poor Dutch suffer from? Rather, it is more likely the case that the Reformed folks you refer to have thought through this issue over many decades and their defense of Christian education is evidence of a deeply-held conviction that the covenant duties of parents include providing such schooling for their children. You may disagree with that conviction, but you cannot credibly dismiss it as ethnic parochialism.

    LikeLike

36. Misc. thoughts:

    DGH: In fact, the greatest weakness of Dr. K’s scare tactics is his lack of a remotely exegetical argument for Christian schooling. It is clear from Scripture that parents need to rear their children in the faith. But it is not clear from Scripture that universal education is the norm for God’s people, or that parents even need to make sure Johnny and Susie can read, write, and know the multiplication tables. In fact, the very idea of universal education is a recent phenomenon in the West. In which case, Dr. K. uncharitably condemns most of the saints living before 1900 for being delinquent in his Christian education “mandate.”

    OK, but given that universal education is a reality of our situation (unless Delaware seceded from the Union and forgot to mention it? Biden, do you have a comment on the situation?), the question is not “should Christians educate their kids?”, but “what manner of education should Christians provide for their children?”

    Your 2K gear is slipping; everyone knows that the magistrate will demand that kids go to school. 🙂

    DGH: Even so, without a biblical mandate, Dr. K.’s argument is unReformed and violates Christian liberty. It subjects saints to the doctrines and commandments of men. It is another case of establishing a norm, not on the basis of “thus, saith the Lord” but on the zeal of pious intentions…

    I agree with you — Dr K appears to believe that Christian education is a Scriptural mandate.

    But the substantive question is not really whether URC ought to have such a law. They shouldn’t, and when put like that, it’s obvious.

    The substantive question, rather, is whether Christian education is a Good Idea. His complaint against REPTers and you in particular seems not to be that you resist the legalism (two cheers from over here), but that you doubt the benefit or even the possibility (Zrim) of Christian education.

    That’s the point that really needs argument here: Is Christian school a good idea?

    Additionally, if we consider the task of raising one’s kids in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and soberly assess the time and energy needed to accomplish that task, it may well be that Christian schooling is the most realistic option in most cases. I think this avenue of thought ought to be developed some.

    We assume that a Christian can place his child in public school and accomplish the task of catechizing “after hours” and on Sunday. And perhaps that’s so. I’m sure Zrim gives it a sporting shot. I will, too, next year, when my daughter goes to public kindergarten.

    But it might be that the time-stealing nature of our culture makes proper catechizing impossible for an average family. Or that parents, whom everyone knows are the stupidest people in the universe, are not always the best ones to catechize their own children.

    And in that case, Christian schooling might be a matter of proper wisdom, even though it is not a matter of law.

    DGH: So, the neo-Calvinist aim of redeeming all of creation winds up once again ending up in polarities rather than a middle way. You are either with him or against him. The neo-Calvinist invariably leaves no room for Christian liberty, wisdom or goodness. It is all either mandated or licentious, intelligent or stupid, holy or profane. Thankfully, the two-kingdom view allows for a less strident assessment of Dr. K. He is not as wise as we would like, but we concede his intentions are good. We wish his worldview would allow him to say the same of us.

    “less strident assessment”? Hm. If I were portrayed as a well-intentioned legalist, I would rate it high on the Stridency Scale (see below).

    Dr. Hart, you can see in Kloosterman’s analysis some of the same concerns that I’ve raised before about REPT. In some cases, my concerns have been satisfied; in some cases, not. But in any event, we seem to have found a way to communicate with one another.

    This leads to two thoughts:

    (1) The way in which REPT presents itself lends to an interpretation similar to Kloosterman’s.

    To co-opt a phrase from someone famous, REPT appears to “make the world safe for Enlightenment thinking.”

    In particular, for those of us who find van Til persuasive on the point that all knowledge is connected to the Creator and no knowledge is value-neutral, the REPT meme that “there is no Christian plumbing” is a huge red flag, that says more than you want it to say. The shock value overwhelms the main point.

    (2) Perhaps Kloosterman and you can find some rapprochement.

    You would know best how to accomplish that, but if the Church is going to move forward, then it’s time for some dialog.

    Just my humble (?) opinion.

    JRC

    The Stridency Scale

    0 — The Bach Double Concerto

    2 — The Wiggles

    4 — “TEACHERS, PARDON THE INTERRUPTION. THE FOLLOWING STUDENTS NEED TO COME TO THE OFFICE RIGHT AFTER SCHOOL…”

    6 — King’s X: Dogman (but delightfully artistically strident!)

    8 — Greenbaggins threads on theonomy (*not* delightfully or artistically strident)

    10 — My darling daughters fighting over who gets to play Dora in Candyland.

    Being portrayed as a well-intentioned legalist: 9.3

    LikeLike

37. Wow. I’m a PCA elder and no-one’s given me any grief about anything. Now, my wife and I are keeping a close eye on what goes on with daughter #1 in public K next year.

    The topic of “Public/Christian/Home” does come up, but the sense in our church is that any of the three is basically permissible.

    Oh, wait: that’s not possible ’cause were naughty transformationalists who read Frame and like him. 😉 (I don’t even know what a transformationalist *is*, properly speaking).

    JRC

    LikeLike

38. Steve,

    I am not defending Engelsma or the PRCA’s position on home schooling, but merely pointing out, as Dr. Hart has done with his reference to Machen, that one can be a Christian-school advocate without being a transformationalist, contra Zrim’s sweeping conflation of the two positions.

    Perhaps it may be better to say, as I said to Jeff, I happen to think that secular education is more consistent with a two-kingdom theology. I stand by my suggestion that all it takes to be transformationalist is the notiuon that there can be a redemptive version of a creational endeavor. Maybe two-kingdomites who are pro-Christian school haven’t shaken all the transformationalism off? But, again, liberty trumps this in the end because schooling is adiaphora. It matters not to me how a conscience chooses to school a child; I just have some questions for 2Kers who are also pro-Xian school, that’s all. Sounds like you disagree.

    Speaking of Machen, does this sound like a guy Engelsma could warm up to:

    In Baltimore I attended a good private school. It was purely secular; and in it I learned nothing about the Bible or the great things of our Christian faith. But I did not need to learn about those things in any school; for I learned them from my mother at home. That was the best school of all; and in it, without any merit of my own, I will venture to say that I had acquired a better knowledge of the contents of the Bible at twelve years of age than is possessed by many theological students of the present day. The Shorter Catechism was not omitted. I repeated it perfectly, questions and answers, at a very tender age; and the divine revelation of which it is so glorious a summary was stored up in my mind and heart. When a man has once come into sympathetic contact with that noble tradition of the Reformed Faith, he will never readily be satisfied with a mere “Fundamentalism” that seeks in some hasty modern statement a greatest common measure between men of different creeds. Rather will he strive always to stand in the great central current of the Church’s life that has come down to us through Augustine and Calvin to the standards of the Reformed Faith.

    My mother did more for me than impart a knowledge of the Bible and of the Faith of our Church. She also helped me in my doubts

    From Christianity in Conflict

    LikeLike

39. Jeff,

    Now, my wife and I are keeping a close eye on what goes on with daughter #1 in public K next year.

    Who could begrudge thoughtful and responsible parenting? Certainly not me.

    But I always find it curious how secular halls are presumed guilty until proven innocent, but I never hear Christian parents utter these same words about Christian schools. Yet every Christian school I have been in (as a teacher or educational professional) has human beings in it, just like secular schools, equally subject to sin, etc. I’ve heard and seen just as much stuff that would need de-programming as a secular school. Until I hear a Christian parent say something like, “Suzie will begin at Sylvan Christian next year, and you can bet we’ll be keeping a close eye on things,” I seriously wonder about the assumptions that seem to suggest that certain halls are less prone to sin than others.

    …there’s that obesssion with sin again.

    LikeLike

40. Zrim: …but I never hear Christian parents utter these same words about Christian schools.

    You should spend some time around me and my colleagues, then. We are very concerned to be “eyes-open” about sin and such.

    But yes, secular halls are presumed guilty of one thing in particular: of being structured around Enlightenment ideals. That doesn’t mean that everything that #1 finds there will be “tainted”, but it does mean that it will have a certain bent.

    This is obvious with colleges. We take it for granted in the grad school process that we *do* want to go to Reformed Theological and we *don’t* want to go to Bob Jones because the former takes a particular approach to theology and subject matter that we want to be immersed and trained in.

    Secondary is no different. Each school is going to take a particular approach to its subject material. I don’t know exactly how #1’s school will go, but I am confident that its approach will include a certain amount of Mazlow, a certain amount of “getting along in life without thinking about God”, and a certain amount of “character counts!” kinds of moralism. She will, for both good and ill, be imprinted with the “flavor” of her school.

    So yeah, we are going to watch that closely.

    Now, we considered a Christian school (the one I teach at starts at grade 6, so that was not an option), but it was too far away. However, we agreed that were it closer, we would want her there for the simple reason that it is a highly nurturing environment socially, which was a priority for our daughter. And, we had a greater level of confidence that *if* problems came up, then the school would be likely to understand and be responsive to our concerns.

    So yes: public schools start with a couple of strikes against. That fact doesn’t make all Christian schools automatically utopian.

    JRC

    LikeLike

41. Steve, I like ethnic parochialism. But look, the Covenanters can be pretty parochial, and I think they hold on to a fairly odd view of the national covenant, that they will not give up, but that has given them coherence. Still, the Covenanters don’t insist on Christian schools (to my knowledge). Anyway, the larger point is that ethnicity may cloud the weakness of the argument for Christian schools. The Dutch Calvinists were and are very smart. The OPC owes a great debt to the Dutch tradition. Yet, I’m still waiting for a biblical argument for Christian schools that does not borrow, beg and steal from the legitimate argument for catechesis.

    LikeLike

42. Jeff, where does “religious secularism” rank on the stridency scale?

    Your dismissal of the issue about what the Bible requires, I’m afraid, suffers from the way that Frame deals with the regulative principle. The Bible not only applies to the church and to worship but to all of life. So when we ask for a biblical “mandate” — Dr. K’s word — we don’t get one and we are told that’s not the germane question. I thought for a biblicist that was always the germane question, in each and every part of life. For the two-k’er, it’s the germane question for the church, her courts and her ministry.

    So you dismiss the biblical mandate question and say the real issue is whether the Christian school is good? That is the right question for the family. That’s not the question that Dr. K. is raising for the URC. They are about to adopt a church polity that may require officers to support and send their children to Christian schools. That’s not a question of whether it is good. What the church does requires a “thus, saith the Lord.” The church doesn’t ask what’s good. It if did, it wouldn’t adopt the method of preaching. That’s not a wise crack. It’s what Paul told the Corinthians.

    LikeLike

43. Jeff,

    But yes, secular halls are presumed guilty of one thing in particular: of being structured around Enlightenment ideals.

    See, here is what I am trying to get at. And this happens in exchanges with self-professed theonomists to neocalvinists to those who resist labels yet have some shared space with them. Everyone wants to blame an impersonal system. But the problem isn’t a philosophy (the Enlightenment), idolatrous theology (Roman Catholicism) or even a false religion (Mormonism). The problem is personal sin. I see heads nodding, but I really mean it.

    When secular schooling goes wrong it is for the same reason Christian schooling does: sin. Sinners sin because they are sinners, not because they aren’t (Reformed) Christians, or because they think in Enlightenment ideals. Come down from the platitudes and think a bit more realistically, which is to say, Calvinistically.

    So when you say, “We are very concerned to be ‘eyes-open’ about sin and such,” and then turn around and blame the Enlightenment instead of human beings, I seriously wonder just what you understand by total depravity, sin.

    LikeLike

44. Sorry to pile on Jeff, but Zrim has a point. Plus, if Calvin could say lots of warm things about pagan Greek philosophy, why can’t you say anything good about liberal Christian Enlightenment philosophy? Is Hume really worse that Aristotle or Cicero?

    LikeLike

45. Thanks for the link, Darryl.

    Alvin Plantinga (if that’s to whom you refer) is not neocalvinist (as N.Wolterstorff is not). They are so-called “Reformed Epistemologists” and are both clear about their fundamental departure from Kuyper’s worldview (and, distinctly, the Reformed Faith). I’ve mentioned this before.
    Also, the four-fold C/F/R/Consummation was coined by neocalvinists. See Spykman’s Dogmatics. I’ve also mentioned this previously.

    Anyway, as you can imagine, I don’t really trust your ear for what doesn’t sound amillennial, since I’m certain all mention of the non-ecclesial qualified by the adjective Christian is ruled out in principle, right? If it has a supposed Christian character and is non-ecclesial, then according to Hart’s criteria it has necessarily confused creation and redemption, and/or church and state, and/or heaven and earth, and/or law and gospel, right?

    By the way, my first lesson in neocalvinism was that “parochial” or church-operated schools are a violation of sphere sovereignty. I learned this at a college that is an official denominational “agency,” no less. The second lesson of neocalvinism was that common grace means the Pagans have real insights.

    LikeLike

46. thanks!

    LikeLike

47. Look out. Your strawman is on fire.

    LikeLike

48. Ideas too are tainted with sin, some more egregiously than others. And ideas have consequences, which in turn can be more or less egregious. Hume(‘s ideas) could be worse than Aristotle(‘s ideas) or vice versa. Of course those who believe the myth of secular faith (or Hartian paradoxicalism or whathaveyou) might have a hard time seeing any connection between distortion of creational norms (uh, I mean natural law) and the sin of idolatry, so I guess the totalness of depravity is hard to discern for them in things theoretical.

    LikeLike

49. Mr. Cagle,

    I am not talking about Van TIl’s view of 2+2=4. I am talking about his view of public education. Of course we don’t want to affirm the existence of brute facts, etc, of course Van Til’s apologetics are very useful and helpful and all pastors……[insert party line here].

    What I’m talking about is a specific essay in which he said that we shouldn’t send our children to public schools because they will not learn math. In fact, he said in public school, “the child dies”, meaning spiritually, because they are educated apart from God.

    This is what I’m saying is irrational. Read the essay. It’s outrageous. I frankly couldn’t care less if a pagan school teacher thinks 2+2=4 is a brute fact. We know it isn’t, and my kids will know it isn’t. Just because the school teacher thinks it is does not make it so. But Van Til seems to think it does. He seems to think that because that’s what they think, therefore the child cannot learn math from them, because what they’re doing is not math, simply because they think it’s a brute fact. It’s totally bizarre and irrational.

    And actually, now that I think of it, he even goes beyond that, imputing absolute and total skepticism on every single non-Christian in the entire world. They don’t believe we can know anything at all, he says, and therefore the child learns nothing, because they teach nothing. Save your children, send them to Christian schools.

    Bizarre.

    LikeLike

50. Baus, you really do have to get your map of the Calvinist world published because it’s sounding more and more like the famous New Yorker cover that looks at the world West of the Hudsom as basically fly over country. Why I was reading a prominent U.S. Historian yesterday, in book published by Brazos, and edited by a Christian college faculty member, that described the Calvin college scholars, from Wolterstorff to Marsden, as neo-Calvinist. He even threw in Rich Mouw. Either you need to adjust your word usage, or you’ve got a real story about the fabrication going on in American higher education.

    And to help you with distinction paleo-Calvinists try to preserve, here’s Calvin: Therefore, to perceive more clearly how far the mind can proceed in any matter according to the degree of its ability, we must here set forth a distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it. John Calvin, Institutes, II.2.13

    Sure, you can cheapen it by attributing it to some kind of wierd prejudice on my part. But when are you going to be honest about the distance between yourself and Calvin thanks to the undisputed and unembarrassed use of the prefix “neo.”

    LikeLike

51. Baus, your indirection is too much for me. I really can’t understand your point. Maybe that’s because I have no trouble connecting the dots between a natural law that convicts men and leaves them without excuse, and the suppression of such knowledge that leads to idolatry. But does that connection somehow turn my work in the natural world into worship? I can serve God with all my might Mon. through Sat. by pruning trees. Does that mean I can prune trees on the Lord’s Day and it can still work as worship? Does tree pruning actually yield a benediction pronounced by God’s appointed ambassador?

    Also, nice dodge on Hume and Aristotle. I know, they’re not DOOOOOEYWEEEEEEEEEERRRRRD. Imagine how Homer Simpson would say it if he were a neo-Calvinst.

    LikeLike

52. Zrim: But the problem isn’t a philosophy (the Enlightenment), idolatrous theology (Roman Catholicism) or even a false religion (Mormonism). The problem is personal sin. I see heads nodding, but I really mean it.

    I know you mean it, but I don’t agree. You’ve posited a false choice: either the “real problem” is personal sin, or else it is structure. The answer is, “it’s both.”

    Yes, personal sin is the core problem. My idolatrous heart grasps at ideas that take me away from God.

    But no, Enlightenment ideas are not thereby exonerated. The structure of our lives provides temptations, and living in an Enlightenment soup provides the temptation to think along those lines.

    Your analysis assumes that structures have no effect on us, and that’s just plain wrong.

    Ah!, you say, but Christian schools provide *different* temptations. Sure they do, and that’s why we try to keep our eyes wide open. But the fact that Christian schools (or churches, for that matter) provide different temptations does not mean that we should be blase about temptations, or that we should not identify the ways in which our structures tempt us.

    Which is what you sound like right now: “Structure, Smucture — the real problem is personal sin.”

    Nonsense. If personal sin was the only issue, then people’s sins would be statistically randomly distributed around the world. But no, we find sins clustered by culture: the 17th century was tempted by superstition and violence; we are tempted by apathy and agnosticism.

    @DGH: Can I say anything “good” about Hume? Sure. A lot, actually. Is that supposed to negate the deleterious effects his ideas have had on our culture?

    I think the problem with your question is that you’re painting in the broad strokes of “good” and “bad” — either Hume is good or bad. The real truth is that Hume’s ideas have a particular bent, and that bent is antagonistic towards faith in Jesus in specific ways (namely, towards confidence in the testimony of Scripture).

    JRC

    LikeLike

53. Jeff, From the sins of violence and superstition to one of apathy and agnosticism. That sounds like cultural progress to me. And yet you don’t seem comforted.

    On Hume, I think you’re read is thin. His essays on aesthetics, economics, and government would make any Christian wiser. He also covers a lot of terrain that the Bible doesn’t. But you keep looking at the world through the biblicist lens.

    But the point wasn’t Hume. The point was your dismissal of the Enlightenment. If our socidety was based more on Enlightenment philosophy it would be better than it currently is. You make it seem like the Enlightenment sowed the seeds of our destruction, as if having Christian magistrates making war against each other was either the pinnacle of Western Civ. or even the peaceful society for which Paul told Christians to pray.

    LikeLike

54. Jeff,

    I’m not exonerating structures at all, nor am I saying personal sin is “the only issue” (I’ll remind you of being charitable only one more time, young man). I’m pointing out the curiosity of your go-to criticisms. When I suggest personal sin is the problem you obviously agree. But for you the real problem is structure (as you call it). It’s all a matter of emphasis or priority between us. We both agree that people and institutions are vulnerable to sin. But you explain the state of things primarily by how ideas and institutions have given way to ungodliness, where I would say people have. (See, that’s how one does charity, Jeff, he presumes the best of the other but tries to point out how each differs.)

    So I don’t look for Christian philosophy or institutions to be safe in the world, I look for the church to give me refuge as I pilgrimage through the world. And, guess what? I find sinners even there, corrupting the church. I simply cannot get away from them, even when I am all alone.

    LikeLike

55. Echo,

    I don’t want your comment to be buried before I say, Word up.

    The essay you are referencing goes to show how the presupposition (!) is that something redemptive is inherent in education. But education, like pottery and politics, is creation, not redemption. Passing on creation is just not the same as nurturing redemption. This goes to the heart of the matter, I think. But I’d want to suggest that the very right reverend and scholar isn’t “irrational” so much as confused.

    The CRC came out of the RCA and day schooling was one of the issues, the RCA being much more open to secular education. This openness was one of the reasons to break away. (The CRC is debating the restoration of ties to the RCA, but there are still quibbles about education, as if that helped the CRC remain faithful. Nevermind the proposals to revise the FOS. If the CRC were as interested in her confessional heritage as she is in day schooling, watch out.) The URC comes out of the CRC and seems to be continuing this left-over project at cultural cohesion through education. This raises interesting questions in light of the fact that, as the old timers feared, cultural assimilation is firmly in place anyway. Now that the kids have assimilated, and confessional orthodoxy is clearly no longer valued, what is the point of parochial schooling except to suggest that there is indeed such a thing as a redemptive way to do creation?

    Moreover, two-kingdomites who blame evangelicals for creating all sorts of sub-culture yet champion Christian schooling come off a bit compromised. What it seems to mean is that there is something wrong with creating certain kinds of Christian culture, namely trivial culture. But what’s wrong with trivial if Jesus is Lord over all things? The problem isn’t creating trivial (tee shirts and pop music) or enduring (education or politics) culture, the problem is confusing creation with redemption.

    LikeLike

56. Zrim, it’s not a matter of being charitable. It’s that you use the word “real”, and I take your words at face value. I think you may not realize what you’re saying — identifying the “real” problem implies that the other factors are not “the real problem”, which is exactly how I read you.

    So for example, it’s false that I think the “real” problem is structure. The “real” problem is that structure tugs at my heartstrings and the lusts of my heart produce sin in response.

    To use a crude analogy that cannot be pressed too far, it’s like allergies: If I’m allergic to shellfish, the “real” problem is neither the shellfish nor my immune system — it’s both in combination.

    JRC

    LikeLike

57. And no, I’m not looking for “Christian philosophy” to solve all of the problems.

    LikeLike

58. DGH, I’m not comforted because I don’t think agnosticism is progress. I think it’s strongly debatable whether a society based on Enlightenment philosophy would be better than it currently is.

    “Better” for what purpose?

    LikeLike

59. Jeff,

    When you say the literalist apple doesn’t fall far from the tree you’re not kidding. Let me clarify: when I say “real” I mean it figuratively, that is to say, there is priority and that personal sin comes before everything. Your shellfish analogy doesn’t help because it’s akin to chicken and egg games, or the relatively impossible conundrum of nature versus nurture. Sure, it’s all organic, but we should know that sin preceeds everything (I’m a “nature” guy).

    On your view, sinners may blame something outside them that they created. On mine, blame comes back to us personally and it helps explain sinful structures without shifting blame to them unnecessarily. Or do you imagine that during the confession of sin part of the liturgy we could say, “Forgive the wayward philosophies, institutions and structures around us that cause us to sin, and we who do sin,” instead of, “Have mercy on us, sinners”?

    If so, sounds a lot like, “That woman you put here with me, she gave it to me and I ate.” The temptation to look outside ourselves and place lame is deep. We come by it honestly enough. But Jesus died for his sinful people, not the structures they sinfully construct.

    LikeLike

60. Zrim: On your view, sinners may blame something outside them that they created. On mine, blame comes back to us personally and it helps explain sinful structures without shifting blame to them unnecessarily.

    No, you’re assuming that I’m casting around to find something to blame. What would be the point of that? I’m responsible for my end of the sin, regardless of how tempted I may have been.

    I’m not really interested in blame. We all know who is to blame — each of us individually. Instead, I’m interested in being aware of structures and their tendencies.

    And frankly, your line of critique entirely swallows its own tail. What is REPT if not a criticism that “bad eschatology” — meaning postmillennial or “optimistic amillennial” — tempts the church into denying the Gospel? Ideas tempt people into sin.

    If you want to resist any analysis of structure as an Adamic “blame the woman” tactic, then you have to train your guns on yourself as well.

    That gets nowhere. My contention is and remains that the sin nature in our hearts resonates with external temptations, including structural ones, to produce sin. Thus, we should be concerned with both ends of the problem.

    My contention is consistent with the advice given in both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, as well as much of the NT. It’s as simple as deciding not to be a companion of fools. Or recognizing about oneself that being in a strip-joint is too much of temptation. Or deciding to have two different deacons count the offering because a single-counter system offers too many opportunities for problems. It’s as simple as recognizing that the meaningless of our state springs from the structure of our existence: we are under the curse.

    I don’t see why you want to make it into an issue.

    JRC

    LikeLike

61. Jeff,

    I don’t see why you want to make it into an issue.

    I make it an issue because some believers say things like, “My contention is and remains that the sin nature in our hearts resonates with external temptations, including structural ones, to produce sin.” Sin is not the result of an admixture of things. It is inborn; it Is not “produced,” it comes with the territory at conception. We were conceived in sin. We could sit in a box all day and still be sinners. Sin is first a condition, then a behavior. I don’t see much room in your view for this. It seems to me that when one doesn’t have a high view of sin (which is different from a low opinion of sin) or doesn’t sees the priority of conditional sin to behavioral sin, one tends toward losing sight of personal sin and placing more emphasis on “structure” (even as he says, “Yeah, yeah, I believe in personal sin”).

    And out pops stuff about the alleged dangers of Enlightenment ideals in a secular kindergarten classroom.

    LikeLike

62. Jeff, you think violence and superstition is more conducive to a quiet and peaceful life than agnosticism? Methinks you’re looking for ultimate truths in proximate reality, which is a version of Calvin’s Judaic folly — confusing the heavenly and the earthly realms.

    LikeLike

63. DGH: Methinks you’re looking for ultimate truths in proximate reality, which is a version of Calvin’s Judaic folly — confusing the heavenly and the earthly realms.

    “To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

    (it’s a joke)

    LikeLike

64. Zrim, you’ve confused the sin nature with actual sin. On your account, Jesus has no grounds for criticizing “stumbling blocks.” Or speaking of those who “cause another to sin.”

    LikeLike

65. How do account for the Proverbist warning “my son” to stay away from the adulteress or the bad companions (reiterated by Paul in 1 Cor 5)? He doesn’t digress into a diatribe about how sin is only in the heart and has nothing to do with external stimuli. No, he says (no doubt presuming a certain state of the heart) that wisdom means staying away from the stimuli.

    I’m just following his lead. It makes Biblical sense to assess the external world and the tugs that it has on our hearts, and then make wise choices about where not to go.

    For some reason, you want to disparage this. I don’t get it.

    JRC

    LikeLike

66. Zrim, you’ve confused the sin nature with actual sin. On your account, Jesus has no grounds for criticizing “stumbling blocks.” Or speaking of those who “cause another to sin.”

    Jeff!!

    I am making a point about priority, consarnit. Nothing I’ve said eliminates the realities of external influences upon us or their culpability. There certainly is reciprocity, but it all has to start somewhere.

    LikeLike

67. Jeff,

    For some reason, you want to disparage this. I don’t get it.

    I’m not disparaging anything. I am saying that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.

    LikeLike

68. Hey, I know I can be frustrating. Let’s step back a bit and see if there’s really any issue here.

    You want to make a point about priority: the state of the heart is the first cause of sin.

    I basically agree with this point.

    As a kind of funny example, a friend of mine (“Mark”) relates being dragged to rather blue movies by a film critic friend of his. Mark says that while he was getting all hot and bothered under the collar, the friend was saying things like, “Wow, look at the way they used the lighting on that shot!”

    The point of course is that anything or nothing can be tempting, based on the heart. Nothing is an “absolute temptation” for all.

    Or as you quoted, it is what goes out and not what goes in that defiles the man.

    This point is why I resisted Elder H on the issue of mandatory Christian schooling (you may recall). While non-Christian schools may provide a host of temptations for many, they are not an absolute source of temptation for all; and Christian schools may provide a host of temptations for others, as may homeschooling also.

    Now, the point I was making is that sin is complicated. The full Biblical teaching on sin recognizes that external stimuli are a part of the temptation package. The payoff here is that we are actively commanded to “flee temptation” as circumstances arise.

    Further, there is a Christological reason to insist on a more complicated view. Since Jesus did not inherit the sin nature, it cannot be the case that his temptations arose from the heart alone. Ditto for Adam.

    So “the heart has priority”, while mostly true, is not sufficiently cogent. That was my point.

    All of this relates to my comment about school in this way: if #1 appears to respond to public school by buying into Mazlovian thought, we’re going to find a different school.

    When I expressed this thought, you accused me of platitudes and unrealism. Perhaps you overreacted?

    JRC

    LikeLike

69. Jeff,

    But since we are neither Adam nor Jesus I think we still have to see that ours is a different situation. Adam did not inherit sin just as Jesus didn’t. Adam only chose sin, we inherit it and choose it. Jesus does none of that.

    All of this relates to my comment about school in this way: if #1 appears to respond to public school by buying into Mazlovian thought, we’re going to find a different school

    Again, I don’t begrudge the sentiment of being a dutiful parent. But, I don’t think the problem is “buying into certain philosophies” (whatever that means) but rather recognizing sin for what it is. I still think your doctrine of sin is much too low.

    Anyway, what’s so wrong about Maslow when trying to explain human behavior; are you saying you don’t see yourself anywhere in the pyramid? Isn’t it only really a problem when it’s baptized and made into Maslovian theology? When I learned Maslow in early childhood development it made a lot of sense, still does; When I hear Wayne Dyer make it theology I think he’s gone quite off the rails.

    LikeLike

70. DGH: Jeff, where does “religious secularism” rank on the stridency scale?

    It’s not on the scale. 🙂

    DGH: Your dismissal of the issue about what the Bible requires, I’m afraid, suffers from the way that Frame deals with the regulative principle. The Bible not only applies to the church and to worship but to all of life. So when we ask for a biblical “mandate” — Dr. K’s word — we don’t get one and we are told that’s not the germane question.

    We need to split some things out here. First, in case it wasn’t clear, if it is the case (as it appears) that Dr. K wants to mandate Christian ed — and specifically URC or CRC schools — for all URC members, then I think he’s dead wrong. So while he sees a mandate, I do not.

    Instead, I think the germane question is whether Christian schooling is a good idea for many or most or almost all Christian kids.

    So it’s different people doing the telling in your tale, and they aren’t in agreement with each other.

    DGH: I thought for a biblicist [a biblical mandate] was always the germane question, in each and every part of life.

    That’s an interesting take. I don’t think that this is what Frame is driving at. It certainly isn’t what I drive at.

    On your understanding the “biblicist” (still don’t understand why that’s a four-letter word) seeks out a Scriptural mandate for each and every area of life. That is, he assumes that the Bible gives direct or indirect guidance that amounts to a definite answer for every definite situation — in fact, the same definite answer that someone else in his exact situation would find, assuming competent exegesis.

    We can call this kind of biblicism “exhaustively mandative biblicism”, or EMB. The EMBist believes that Scripture provides a definite answer to every question in life, either directly or indirectly.

    There are both obvious and subtle problems with EMB.

    Obviously, the Bible does not provide an exhaustive mandate for the Christian plumber (tip o the hat) in his plumbing. So while EMB requires a mandate and expects a mandate, it cannot find a mandate for the Christian plumber. So EMB is a frustrated enterprise.

    This leads to the subtle problem. Since EMB is subject to frustration, its practitioners can fill the gap by finding “implications” in Scripture that are not good and necessary inferences. This can happen through a hyperenthusiasm for logic (Gordon Clark, anyone?) or for symbolism (James Jordan?), exhaustive casuistry (the school of Shammai) or some other means.

    Regardless of means, the point is that subtly, EMBists can come to confuse their own opinions for the clear teaching of Scripture. And thus, they become legalists: adding the commands of men to the commands of God as a means of righteousness.

    If EMB is what you understand of my view, or of Frame’s, then it doesn’t surprise or alarm me that you would oppose it. I would, too. In fact, I do oppose EMB and find it dangerous.

    (As a side note: the practice of confusing one’s own opinions for the clear teaching of Scripture is not localized to EMB. Some forms of Confessionalism can fall into the same pit).

    But now, Frame is driving at something else. At least, as I read him, he is. And certainly, certainly, I drive at something else.

    For Frame, the norms of Scripture apply to every area of life. At first, this looks like a mere restatement of EMBism. But in fact, it is importantly different. Rather than saying that Scripture provides exhaustive detail, Frame is saying that God’s (preceptive) will is not fully known to us in any given situation. The norms of Scripture provide one important avenue, along with situational and existential information, for determining God’s will to the best of our ability. While those norms are not exhaustive, they apply everywhere.

    He thus turns EMB on its head: Scripture is not the exhaustive source of definite mandates. Instead, it provides a framework within which we exercise wisdom.

    This isn’t the place to digress on triperspectivalism, except to say that (contra many critics) the situational and existential information are *not* conditioners of the norms. The norms are absolute (thou shalt not steal). Rather, the situational and existential perspectives flesh out what those norms mean in any given situation (this coat is not mine; therefore, taking it would be stealing; therefore, I should not take it).

    Now, here are the pragmatic ways in which (my understanding of) Frame differs from EMB.

    (1) Frame is very unlikely to absolutize his conclusions as universal norms. If anything, Frame suffers from the opposite problem — he is sometimes accused of being unable to give a simple answer.

    Unlike the EMBer, who confuses his own opinions with “thus saith the Lord”, Frame maintains a careful distance between one’s very best reasoning (human thought) and God’s knowledge. This is a van Tillian legacy, and it serves as a robust firewall to prevent the EMBish tendency towards absolutism.

    I say “robust” because I have seen it often in practice, and I am very persuaded that Frame’s distance is correct (cf. WCoF 1.10).

    (2) In saying that norms apply to all of life, Frame is not saying that norms will provide definite answers for all of life. Instead of a “clear path to truth” approach, Frame takes a “boundary” approach. The norms provide boundaries within which our common grace wisdom (gasp!) will function. So the process of coming to a plumbing decision, for Frame, is not the process of seeking out the right passage that will give me the answer. Instead, it is the process of laying out the boundary stones, and then coming to a decision within those boundary stones.

    Thus it is very likely that Zrim the Christian plumber and Jeff the Christian plumber will come to different conclusions about materials and methods; but both will be bounded by the norms of Scripture as they carry out their common grace tasks. The norms of Scripture apply even to plumbing; but they don’t provide exhaustive answers.

    This kind of biblicism is simply not EMB. It needs a different tag. I prefer “Framework Biblicism.”

    Now, how does all this relate? In a (very?) long-winded way, I’m addressing your complaint that I’ve dismissed the concern about Christian schooling and Biblical mandate.

    Yes, I did dismiss Dr. K’s point, on the understanding that he was creating a rule that isn’t in Scripture.

    Having done so, and not being an EMBist, I don’t feel obligated to replace his mandate with a “better Biblical mandate.” As an FBist, I feel the freedom to make my schooling choices within framework of biblical norms. Those include things like the first commandment: if #1’s school interferes with her worship, we’re yanking her. And so on.

    So it strikes me that we may have been talking past each other for some time. Your criticisms of biblicism are in the main directed at EMB, and are really not apropos for FB. On the other hand, I’ve been reading your criticisms of biblicism as a blanket rejected of both EMB and FB, which they may not be.

    JRC

    LikeLike

71. Zrim: I still think your doctrine of sin is much too low.

    And I think your ability to diagnose my spiritual condition across the Internet is not as high as you think. <double raspberry>

    LikeLike

72. Jeff, I appreciate your effort to defend Frame. Are you aware of the man-crush?

    Here’s the problem. When Frame wrote on the RPW, both in a journal article and his book on worship, he said that the “Puritan” view (it’s also the continental reformed) was inadequate because it limited the RPW to worship and didn’t extend it to all of life. This is frankly crazy. The RPW insists that the church and her officers must have a biblical mandate for what the church does in worship or in her programmatic capacities.

    To extend this to all of life sounds nice, which is why Kloosterman’s articles reassure the faithful. “Why yes, the Bible must extend to all of life. A very important book it is.” But no plumber could make a living looking in the Bible for what he must do as a plumber. This is why the flipside of the RPW is Christian liberty. Where Scripture is silent, a Christian is at liberty to live and act to the best of his ability. Frame’s idea destroys Christian liberty.

    Then when you write: “Thus it is very likely that Zrim the Christian plumber and Jeff the Christian plumber will come to different conclusions about materials and methods; but both will be bounded by the norms of Scripture as they carry out their common grace tasks. The norms of Scripture apply even to plumbing; but they don’t provide exhaustive answers,” I do not know what kind of schizophrenia you have wished on the plumber. “The Bible has answers for how you plumb, you’re not going to find them, but keep looking.” Huh?

    If you mean that a plumber will be guided by telling the truth and having honest financial dealings, well sure. But duh? That’s not exactly what plumbing is. The Bible doesn’t tell you or set norms for fixing leaks. So you’re still insisting that Scripture informs common tasks, but it also seems like you’re trying to wiggle out from its less reasonable implications.

    LikeLike

73. DGH: I do not know what kind of schizophrenia you have wished on the plumber. “The Bible has answers for how you plumb, you’re not going to find them, but keep looking.” Huh?

    Look again. The Bible does not have (all) answers for how one is to plumb. That’s EMB. The Bible provides a framework within which plumbing occurs.

    DGH: If you mean that a plumber will be guided by telling the truth and having honest financial dealings, well sure. But duh?

    Not duh. Did you notice that our recent financial collapse occurred almost entirely because people weren’t doing the Well Duh of telling the truth and having honest financial dealings? You take too much for granted.

    DGH: So you’re still insisting that Scripture informs common tasks, but it also seems like you’re trying to wiggle out from its less reasonable implications.

    Yes, Scripture informs common tasks. You admitted it above: the Scripture requires me to tell the truth and have honest financial dealings in my common tasks (in fact, it requires something more general — that I love my neighbor as myself in the common tasks).

    There’s no wiggling, though. There is a completely different structure of thought involved.

    JRC

    LikeLike

74. Jeff, if not wiggling, denial. Telling the truth and honest financial dealings are not how you fix a leak. Learning about materials, tools, watersheds, health of a household, endurance of a plumber, marketing the plumbing business – all of these things are not to be found in the Bible. Sorry, but I think it is almost perverse and an act of falsification to suggest that you can. Really, this stuff gives Calvinism a bad name. I have friends who read this and think we are a version of Mormonism.

    Sorry to sound so incensed. I do appreciate your interaction. But I think you are being stubborn to think that truth telling and sound business practices is at the heart of being a good plumber. Plumbing is the substance, truth and honesty are accidents.

    LikeLike

75. Maybe we should leave it, then. I don’t, don’t, really don’t think that truth and honesty are (Aristotelian) accidents.

    I don’t think most good plumbers think that, either. They would tell you that all of that learning is applied in a craftsmanly manner BECAUSE we are trying to do the best possible job for the customer BECAUSE it’s the right thing to do (various motives for “the right thing” will apply).

    When my wife was in medical school, one of her profs made the point that “competence is the first kindness.” By this, he meant that if we care about our patients, we will first make every effort to provide competent care.

    So while I sort-of understand your discomfort, I think you have not yet appreciated how deeply integrated “what I do” and “why I do it” are for my view. It has nothing to do with finding specific mandates in Scripture, and everything to do with locating the specifics within a Scriptural framework.

    Do you think it’s possible to make forward progress here, or should we just abandon this aspect of the dialog?

    JRC

    LikeLike

76. Jeff,

    I think you said something key:

    It has nothing to do with finding specific mandates in Scripture, and everything to do with locating the specifics within a Scriptural framework.

    This is where I get totally lost. What is the principled difference between these things? As long as we’re talking about profs, I once had a human communications prof explain the relationship women set up with men with a simultaneous “come hither” and “get away” set of hand gestures. This is how I feel when I hear you say things like this. Could this be where your soft theonomic skirt is showing?

    LikeLike

77. The difference is huge. The first (specific mandates) looks for and requires that Scripture tell me what to do.

    The second (framework) says that Scripture, in general, places boundaries on what we may do — but leaves many specifics within the realm of liberty.

    JRC

    LikeLike

78. Aren’t the “truth and honesty”, the lack of which may have been behind the financial collapse, things of natural law? Therefore even if truth and honesty were of the essence of plumbing, plumbing still can’t be viewed as either Christian or not.

    -Broken record alert- I know plenty of folks who are dishonest and plenty who are honest. For the life of me I can’t tell which ones are in Christ and which ones aren’t.

    LikeLike

79. That’s not quite the point, though. Whether those things are found in the natural law or not, they are normative for the Christian because the Lord requires them, as expressed in the Law.

    As Paul points out in Romans, the gentiles operating by conscience are doing things required by the Law, which is found in the Scripture.

    So if we grant that truth and honesty are a facet of plumbing (and indeed, all common enterprise), then we are granting that the Scripture has something to say about plumbing.

    Which is different from saying that “plumbing is Christian” — which I never said, and have never heard anyone say.

    JRC

    LikeLike

80. Jeff,

    If “The second (framework) says that Scripture, in general, places boundaries on what we may do — but leaves many specifics within the realm of liberty” then why are you trying to “locate the specifics within a Scriptural framework”? Why are you trying to locate that which is left to liberty?

    We may not lie. That seems clear enough. What in thee heck does that have to do with whether to use copper or PVC (unless I told my client I’d be using copper when I intended on PVC)?

    LikeLike

81. Bruce,

    I know plenty of folks who are dishonest and plenty who are honest. For the life of me I can’t tell which ones are in Christ and which ones aren’t.

    The believers are the ones holding bread and wine. But some of them are hypocrites.

    LikeLike

82. I think you just answered your own question. If ordering PVC goes outside the framework, then you shouldn’t do it. If not, then you have liberty. Isn’t that what the Confession teaches?

    JRC

    LikeLike

83. Guys, I’d like a concession here.

    Many times now the question has been asked, “What does the Scripture have to say about plumbing?”

    And I’ve pointed out that the Scripture has a lot to say about the way in which we do our work: with honesty, integrity, loving one’s neighbor, etc.

    We agree that these things are not specific to plumbing, but they do include plumbing! And no one has denied, so far, that Christians who are plumbers must obey God’s commands while plumbing.

    So I would like for people here to admit that the question has been answered. The Scripture does have some things to say about the way we plumb.

    In exchange, I cheerfully concede that Scripture does not give exhaustive guidance about every detail of plumbing.

    JRC

    LikeLike

84. And those not in Christ must also obey God’s commands while plumbing.

    I’m just not sure what all this gets me. Isn’t this getting close to saying something like “the sky is blue”.

    LikeLike

85. So I would like for people here to admit that the question has been answered. The Scripture does have some things to say about the way we plumb.

    You didn’t say, “Simon says.” I do not like green eggs and ham, not with a mouse, not on a house; I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them, Sam I Am.

    Until the Bible can be assigned reading to Plumbing 101 I will not admit the Scripture has anything to say about the way we plumb.

    LikeLike

86. Jeff,

    If ordering PVC goes outside the framework, then you shouldn’t do it. If not, then you have liberty.

    How do I know when PVC is to go outside the framework?

    LikeLike

87. Jeff, so you’re not a viewer of House (neither am I but I did rent a disk). The premise of the show is that you have this unfuzzy, unfriendly physician who is great at diagnosis but terrible at people skills, not because he’s socially awkward, but because he’s an SOB.

    My point in bringing Dr. House up is that most of operate in a world where we prefer him to Christian or honest or truthful doctors because even the bad guy gets good results (I’m assuing you’re not a big promoter of the Christian Yellow Pages). So we don’t look for Christian virtues in a host of our daily lives — we trust the cop who yelled at his wife, we root for the baseball player who doesn’t observe the Sabbath (even breaks it), and we trust our lives to countless unknown drivers who keep their vehicles on their side of the road even when they take the Lord’s name in vain.

    Now to up the stakes, I’m also saying that the driver in good driving, the ballplayer in good hitting, and the cop in good execution of the law, are doing something theistic. They are conforming to the realities of human existence which are God given. They are not behaving morally in these decisions (and this goes back to an earlier exchange where I objected that you looked at too much of life as narrowly ethical). There is more to the created order than morality. I do believe that morality is the biggest aspect, or the ultimate one. But in the rest of our daily creaturely affairs it is possible to separate the proximate from the ultimate. That means it is possible to recognize the goodness of a base hit and the goodness of truth telling. Both are good. Truth telling is better. But the base hit, which is not moral or immoral is stll good, true, and if performed by a Phillie, beautiful.

    LikeLike

88. Now you understand why I scratch my head so much at all these folk who keep shouting that the sky is red until I can prove that it’s pure blue.

    JRC

    LikeLike

89. Hate to say it, but my wife the physician and my father the physician agree: in the real world, House would be fired fast.

    People skills are an important aspect of doctoring. There’s even a medical term for it: “bedside manner.” Many a doctor has been let go because patients complained that (s)he didn’t listen or didn’t clearly explain the treatment options or whatnot.

    The point here is that seemingly unrelated areas of our lives have a way of biting us back if we try to separate the public and private. That cop that yells at his wife? Guess how he treats his female co-workers.

    —

    Let’s go with the upped stakes for a bit; I recognize that you’re trying to bring a bit of nuance into the discussion.

    Is it true that God views a base hit as good, true, and beautiful? (My wife agrees with you on the Phillies part, BTW). But does the Lord look down from heaven and see the base hit as a good thing, insofar as it correlates to excellence in the job?

    Or, does He see it in its context as tainted by sin — greed of players in their salaries, sloth of fans who are sitting in the stands instead of getting their own darn exercise, etc.?

    Is that a “glass half full” question?

    JRC

    LikeLike

90. I recall another popular TV show set in an ER. One of the senior doctors supervising young interns is the stock character which is supposed to try our assumptions: he’s a world-class jerk who knows medicine up one side, down another. One scene is between he and a fresh face:

    He to her: “Why do you want to be a doctor?”

    Her to him: “I want to help people.”

    He back to her: “You need an attitude adjustment before somebody dies.”

    Yeah, it’d be great if the master physician was also a master with bedside manner (and fresh face interns would likely appreciate a day of rest), but that just isn’t the way the world works. What I find intriguing is how those who would that the law-laden cultural mandate be in force full throttle want to apply it by gospel instead of law. Which means that doling out justice would entail a lot more freed criminals (like gospel medicine would result in more deaths). But that isn’t what “setting the captives free” means at all.

    LikeLike

91. Once more, with feeling AND four-part harmony:

    We agree that the Scripture tells us to speak truthfully and engage in fair financial dealings.

    We agree that this covers the speech and financial dealings involved in plumbing.

    We therefore cannot escape the conclusion that Scripture has something to say about plumbing (UNLESS we plumb in mime, for free).

    Simon says, admit it. 🙂

    JRC

    LikeLike

92. Zrim: Yeah, it’d be great if the master physician was also a master with bedside manner (and fresh face interns would likely appreciate a day of rest), but that just isn’t the way the world works. What I find intriguing is how those who would that the law-laden cultural mandate be in force full throttle want to apply it by gospel instead of law. Which means that doling out justice would entail a lot more freed criminals (like gospel medicine would result in more deaths). But that isn’t what “setting the captives free” means at all.

    What? I think you lost me at “gospel medicine would result in more deaths.” No, back up. You lost me at “if the master physician was also a master with bedside manner.”

    To repeat: physicians with bad bedside manner aren’t master physicians; they’re great candidates for research programs.

    Being able to work with patients is not an Aristotelian accident to doctoring. It is a core aspect of doctoring. Don’t take my word for it; look here or here.

    LikeLike

93. Jeff,

    We agree that the Scripture tells us to speak truthfully and engage in fair financial dealings.

    We agree that this covers the speech and financial dealings involved in plumbing.

    We therefore cannot escape the conclusion that Scripture has something to say about plumbing (UNLESS we plumb in mime, for free).

    No, it has something to say about how we conduct ourselves while we plumb (and why). “The Basics of Plumbing” has something to say about plumbing. Does it help to qualify these things with “indirect” and “direct”?

    I realize this may seem quite tortured, so let me ask you this: do we live the gospel or believe the gospel and live in light of it, or do you think this is a tortured and unnceccesary distinction? Do you think it unhelpful to suggest that, while it certainly has a way of life resident within it, Christianity is not a way of life? Have you encountered the taxonomy of indicatives and imperatives in Reformed theology?

    LikeLike

94. And yes, now that renting disks is possible, who wants to watch TV anymore?! Good call.

    LikeLike

95. Zrim: No, it has something to say about how we conduct ourselves while we plumb (and why). “The Basics of Plumbing” has something to say about plumbing. Does it help to qualify these things with “indirect” and “direct”?

    If you’re willing to concede that Scripture indirectly speaks to plumbing, I’ll take it.

    But “saying something about how we conduct ourselves while we plumb” is not quite enough — or quite true. If I’ve made an oral agreement to fill your house with copper pipe, then the Scripture requires me to use copper pipe in your house, even if the (civil) law does not.

    If I do shoddy workmanship on your pipes, Col. 3.23 appropriately speaks to this.

    It’s not just the behaviors incidental to plumbing that are bounded by the Scriptural norms; it’s the plumbing itself that is also bounded by Scriptural norms. Indirect? Yes. General instead of specific? Yes. But never unbounded.

    JRC

    LikeLike

96. I accidentally replied further down, but I’ll take a different tack here.

    Zrim: Have you encountered the taxonomy of indicatives and imperatives in Reformed theology?

    Yes, and I’m familiar with the phrase “the indicative precedes the imperative.”

    Zrim: Do you think it unhelpful to suggest that, while it certainly has a way of life resident within it, Christianity is not a way of life?

    Given the history of the slogan, “Christianity is a way of life”, I think your suggestion is helpful — if properly qualified. You want to emphasize that the indicative precedes the imperative; I’m happy to join you in that.

    Zrim: I realize this may seem quite tortured, so let me ask you this: do we live the gospel or believe the gospel and live in light of it, or do you think this is a tortured and unnceccesary distinction?

    I would go with the second, absolutely. It helps sort out non-Gospel-believing individuals from, well, the Church.

    The problem is, though, that almost any biblicist, Framian, neo-Calvinist, transformationalist, or theonomist would also go with the second.

    So this distinction does not helpfully distinguish your position from mine.

    Indeed, what I’m talking about is the “living in light of the gospel” part of the equation. Does the gospel shed light on every part of life? I say, “Yes.”

    Your words say, “No.” The Gospel has no light to shed on plumbing. Redemption has no impact on our vocation.

    It sounds from here like you want to live a large part of your life as if the Gospel has no light to shed on it. I think that’s weird and probably isn’t what you really mean.

    JRC

    LikeLike

97. Jeff, come on already. Col. 3:23 has nothing to do with someone who stinks as a plumber — me. I can work on fixing all I want to the glory of God but that doesn’t fix the leak. What it seems to me you are doing stubbornly is inserting a spiritual norm where a creational one applies. It also is the sort of spiritualizing that has allowed shoddy work to go on in all sorts of Christian settings — “he means well, and he’s working for God’s glory, but I sure wish he hadn’t severed the gas line with the back hoe when trying to plant that tree.” Really, Jeff, this is the sort of fundamentalist pietistic spin with which I grew up. And as much as I love my parents and the church where I was reared, it was truly liberating to come into the Reformed faith and get a vocational life. Please, please, please don’t return Calvinism to Egypt.

    LikeLike

98. Jeff,

    If you’re willing to concede that Scripture indirectly speaks to plumbing, I’ll take it. But “saying something about how we conduct ourselves while we plumb” is not quite enough — or quite true… If I do shoddy workmanship on your pipes, Col. 3.23 appropriately speaks to this.

    I can’t be sure, but is this more simultaneous “come hither/go away”? Maybe it’s shooting oneself in the foot. But “not quite enough” suggests you really do think Jesus gave us more law to fulfill instead of amplifying our depravity for those hard of hearing. This usually signals that legalism lurks around the corner: “don’t be satisfied with living in gratitude and falling down along the way (how unvictorious)—no,no, Jesus has provided biblical principles for those who want to plumb christianly.” (DGH grew up in this stuff. I converted and married into it, which basically the same thing. It was very disappointing to come out of the fundy sticks to Little Geneva and realize it was fundamentalism with a smile.)

    And if you do shoddy work on pagan Joe’s pipes you can’t hide behind the Bible when he calls the Better Business Bureau (I switched out me for Joe since taking believers to court is verboten). This is precisely the attitude, Jeff, that renders believers fools, and not the Pauline sort. It’s what causes believers to foolishly ask judges to suspend justice for their daughter’s killer. It’s what causes Xian school principals to go foolishly easy on students who strike their teachers under the banner of “we’re all about forgiveness,” while the same kid would be roundly expelled by those dangerous Enlightenment secularists in the public schools (OK, that was a bit specific—I have good friend who is that teacher).

    LikeLike

99. Zrim: But “not quite enough” suggests you really do think Jesus gave us more law to fulfill instead of amplifying our depravity for those hard of hearing. This usually signals that legalism lurks around the corner: “don’t be satisfied with living in gratitude and falling down along the way (how unvictorious)—no,no, Jesus has provided biblical principles for those who want to plumb christianly.”

    Fortunately, the Confession anticipates this kind of criticism and directly refutes it.

    According to you, using the law of God as a rule of life is just a corner away from legalism. For the Confession, it is entirely compliant with the Gospel.

    Talk about letting your system get in the way of your confession!

    WCoF 19.6-7: Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace.

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

    (emph. added)

    Where do you imagine that this “walking” gets done? In the Church, on Sunday only?

    Now, the thing is that in real life, if you (either of you) were plumbers, you wouldn’t hesitate to honor your contracts; and if someone tempted you to weasel out, you would appeal to the Lord for grace through the Spirit to resist the temptation.

    So again, I don’t think you’re really saying what you mean.

    JRC

    LikeLike

100. DGH: Col. 3:23 has nothing to do with someone who stinks as a plumber — me. I can work on fixing all I want to the glory of God but that doesn’t fix the leak. What it seems to me you are doing stubbornly is inserting a spiritual norm where a creational one applies. It also is the sort of spiritualizing that has allowed shoddy work to go on in all sorts of Christian settings — “he means well, and he’s working for God’s glory, but I sure wish he hadn’t severed the gas line with the back hoe when trying to plant that tree.”

     So “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men” means “let people get away with shoddy work”? This makes no sense.

     It’s fairly obvious that if you were thrown into the task of being a plumber, then working as if for the Lord would require you to get up to speed posthaste. Or find a replacement.

     JRC

     LikeLike

101. Zrim: And if you do shoddy work on pagan Joe’s pipes you can’t hide behind the Bible when he calls the Better Business Bureau (I switched out me for Joe since taking believers to court is verboten).

     Did you ever pause to consider *why* a Church court would have jurisdiction over my shoddy plumbing on your pipes? It must be that a sin has been committed, no? And that would imply that the Scripture really did have something to say about shoddy plumbing after all.

     JRC

     LikeLike

102. Jeff,

     According to you, using the law of God as a rule of life is just a corner away from legalism. For the Confession, it is entirely compliant with the Gospel.

     Not at all. The law is the structure of our sanctification (the Spirit the power), third use of the law, gratitude and all that. What is a hopscotch away from legalism is to suggest that when it comes to PVC or copper one of them is to sin. But sin is only lying about PVC or copper.

     Did you ever pause to consider *why* a Church court would have jurisdiction over my shoddy plumbing on your pipes? It must be that a sin has been committed, no? And that would imply that the Scripture really did have something to say about shoddy plumbing after all.

     No, it has something to say about taking brethren to court. Again, you’re trying too hard. There is more of a problem with me taking you to court than with you doing shoddy work, which is why the Scripture is clear about who takes whom to court and says nothing about plumbing. And if the question is why</i< the answer is: we don’t take each other to court because we live by the rule of grace amongst each other, not law.

     LikeLike

103. Jeff, you really are sounding like my mother. With mother’s day on the horizon, that COULD be a compliment.

     I really do think you are being stubbort and borderline perverse to suggest that a session could hold someone accountable for shoddy plumbing. I find it hard to believe that even the Branch Wilsonians would go there. And you would appeal to Col. 3:23. Your case would be thrown out of court. Really.

     And the reason is that you cannot discern the difference between a moral command and a creaturely activity, something that we do by virtue simply by being human. Yes, we are moral by virtue of being human. But that is not the only reality. To sit down and figure out the structure of creation, how pipes fit, how epoxy works, the right machines to make good tools, etc., etc., etc., these are not moral questions. Some people have more capacity for figuring them out than others.

     And what happens when you turn these things in to moral questions, you end up like Andrew in another thread saying that vegetarianism and utensils are unimportant. Actually, they are important for what they say about our place in God’s created order. But the moralists only want to look at law and obedience. That leaves them stunted in glorifying God, because they don’t appreciate the diversity and wonder of God’s creation and the remarkable gifts God has given to man.

     Of course, you could try to say that failing to glorify God is a moral failure. But actually showing how said activity or endeavor fails to honor or glorify God would be Jeff’s opinion, not “thus, saith the Lord.” There we go again, stumbling back to biblicism and the regulative principle/sufficiency of Scripture.

     LikeLike

104. DGH, if the plumbing were bad enough to constitute something court-worthy (that *is* what Zrim was talking about), then the session would look at it. Breach of contract, for example; or flooding my house with water and refusing to pay for the damage.

     Or perhaps you think they ought to just haul themselves off to secular courts, since plumbing is a secular matter, a purely creaturely endeavor with no moral component. That way, we can not only ignore the moral implications of the law, we can also ignore the direct commands of Scripture too. </sarcasm>

     Your discourse on figuring out the structure of creation is mostly a non-sequitur. We weren’t talking about the technical skills of the plumber; we were talking about the use to which he put those skills.

     OK, I’m getting snarky here. The point is that your refutation is confused because you are conflating things that are actually separate, and separating things that are actually connected.

     The Law *is* connected to our physical lives. It has something to say about what we actually *do*.

     The technical skills of the plumber are neither “good” nor “bad” until they are exercised in context. (this is actually true both at a technical *and* a moral level — technically “good” plumbing changes over time).

     From here, I think you’re being mighty obtuse on this point.

     JRC

     LikeLike

105. Zrim: What is a hopscotch away from legalism is to suggest that when it comes to PVC or copper one of them is to sin.

     So I’ve said that choosing one or the other is sin? Perhaps you wouldn’t mind telling me which one I think is sin?

     Zrim: here is more of a problem with me taking you to court than with you doing shoddy work, which is why the Scripture is clear about who takes whom to court and says nothing about plumbing. And if the question is why the answer is: we don’t take each other to court because we live by the rule of grace amongst each other, not law.

     That’s not the reason Paul gives, nor Jesus. How is it “living by the rule of grace” to tell the Church about a transgression? I mean, the church can handle it graciously — but the reason one tells the Church about a transgression is out of last resort.

     JRC

     LikeLike

106. Jeff,

     So I’ve said that choosing one or the other is sin? Perhaps you wouldn’t mind telling me which one I think is sin?

     I’ve no idea. But you have said that the framework of Scripture holds the answer. So how about you tell me. I’m really bad at divining things from hearts.

     How is it “living by the rule of grace” to tell the Church about a transgression?

     It is not the telling but the settling of the matter. But like DGH suggests, my case for your shoddy work will be thrown out anyway (shoddy craftsmanship is no sin, it’s just bad craftsmanship). They’d be more interested in my bringing you to court.

     LikeLike

107. Sorry, Jeff, but I think you’re crazy on this point. I cannot think of any church court that would handle charges of bad plumbing. And if your church does, please tell me where it is so if I move I can avoid joining. What’s next, bad penmanship? Yes, this too is snarky but you need to hear yourself.

     You write: “Your discourse on figuring out the structure of creation is mostly a non-sequitur. We weren’t talking about the technical skills of the plumber; we were talking about the use to which he put those skills.”

     But I was talking and have been all along about technical skills, of plumbing, banking, baking, and holding the office of a magistrate. If now you’re saying that a distinction between technical skills and moral duties exists, then what the hades have we been going on about?

     But then what Jeff takes, he gives back, when you write: “The Law *is* connected to our physical lives. It has something to say about what we actually *do*.” So now the technical is moral and the moral is technical.

     This seems like a valid read of your assertion since you also write: “your refutation is confused because you are conflating things that are actually separate, and separating things that are actually connected.” Right back at you, bro. My head is reeling trying to keep up with your distinction between the technical and the moral, followed by your own conflation (especially with recourse to church courts for bad plumbing as the topic sentence for all this).

     And when you write, “the technical skills of the plumber are neither “good” nor “bad” until they are exercised in context,” isn’t this an admission, in good neo-Calvinist parlance, of neutrality? Plumbing is technically neither good nor bad.

     I’m glad we finally agree. But somehow I’m sure we don’t.

     LikeLike

108. JRC: So I’ve said that choosing one or the other is sin? Perhaps you wouldn’t mind telling me which one I think is sin?

     Zrim: I’ve no idea.

     Then maybe I didn’t say it. Take a look again. I said, “*If* I’ve promised to put copper in your house, *then* using PVC is sin.”

     It’s not the copper or the PVC that’s the problem; it’s that I’ve broken a promise while plumbing. The word of God has something to say about my plumbing, in the context of the promise I’ve made.

     JRC

     LikeLike

109. So DGH, I flood your basement with water. You complain to me. I tell you to pound sand. You bring a friend and complain to me. I tell you both to pound sand. You bring a complaint against me to the session. And the session tells you to pound sand and take it up in the secular courts?

     Really?

     JRC

     LikeLike

110. DGH: If now you’re saying that a distinction between technical skills and moral duties exists, then what the hades have we been going on about?

     The distinction is that a technical skill is not an action; it’s an ability. Abilities, like objects, are not inherently moral — the actions are.

     JRC

     LikeLike

111. Also, men cannot know what 2+2 is without first presupposing the Triune God of the Bible. When Van Til says that unbelievers cannot truly “do math” he’s saying they can’t account for mathematics based on their own presuppositions. Therefore they can’t know anything according to their own system of belief. At the same time, however, unbelievers are not truly consistent with their systems of belief. They actually do know things and usually know things like math and science much better than Christians. This is because all humans are made in God’s image and have him as their foundation for all knowledge. Unbelievers, however suppress that truth in unrighteousness and formulate systems of belief that factor the God of the Bible out of their thinking.

     You have to distinguish speaking about unbelievers ‘epistemologically’ from ‘psychologically.’ They cannot know anything epistemologically (according to their philosophical system), but they actually do know things psychologically.

     LikeLike

112. Jeff, at this point I just don’t think, in your striving, you’re listening to yourself. You’ve got church courts wasting time with poor plumbing and the Bible on the assigned reading list to Plumbing 101. That’s just one weird world.

     I think what you want to say is that Jesus is Lord over plumbing. If so, quite agreed. But you’re running roughshod over necessary distinctions to say it. Look, 2kers agree that Jesus is Lord over every square inch. The irony is that we believe more than neo-Kuyperians, because what inevitably happens is that the enduring parts of creation are prized while the trivial get neglected. I’m not saying that’s you at the moment. But if you wake up one day and think Jesus has more interest in literature than football you have no one to blame but yourself. You’ve been warned.

     LikeLike

113. Alright, I’m repenting of my sarcasm and re-writing this.

     Deep Breath.

     (1) “assigned reading list to Plumbing 101” is your phrase, not mine. I wouldn’t put it like that.

     (2) Yes, I do want church courts involved (as last resort) in cases of significant damage by one church member to another church member’s property. I don’t find that particularly weird. See WLC 141 and 142. And 1 Cor 6.

     If you want to make the case that I’m running roughshod over necessary distinctions, then spell out those necessary distinctions.

     For starters, it might be helpful if you could explain what you mean by “The law is the structure of our sanctification (the Spirit the power), third use of the law, gratitude and all that” and how it differs from the Framework Biblicism I’ve described.

     ‘Cause “the structure of our sanctification” sounds like it’s moving in the direction of “the law is a framework” which is intended to be a restatement of “the law is a rule of life.”

     Zrim: The irony is that we believe more than neo-Kuyperians…

     It might be helpful if you saw neo-Kuyperians and others as different from rather than weaker than yourself in faith.

     JRC

     LikeLike

114. Jeff, the distinction between action and ability sounds dangerously like the sort of distinction Edwardseans made that resulted in Finney.

     If I went to you about a flooded home and you told me to pound sand, the offense with the session would not be your plumbing. It would be your God-awful attitude. The remedy for the plumbing would be to get another plumber, not for you to repent of bad plumbing.

     LikeLike

115. DGH: Jeff, the distinction between action and ability sounds dangerously like the sort of distinction Edwardseans made that resulted in Finney.

     I don’t understand what you mean.

     First, I don’t understand the reference to Finney … on my understanding, he was all about trying to use external means to make the heart ready to believe. I don’t see the relevance here.

     Second, the distinction between action and ability is rather basic and obvious. My Marine brother has the ability to kill people. But he hasn’t sinned simply by having this ability. If he sinned, it would begin with the attitude of the heart and culminate in the action of killing someone.

     So what’s the point of not distinguishing action and ability? You want that abilities should be declared morally “good” or “bad” like actions are?

     JRC

     LikeLike

116. If you want to make the case that I’m running roughshod over necessary distinctions, then spell out those necessary distinctions.

     That is what has been going on since November, Jeff.

     For starters, it might be helpful if you could explain what you mean by “The law is the structure of our sanctification (the Spirit the power), third use of the law, gratitude and all that” and how it differs from the Framework Biblicism I’ve described.

     ‘Cause “the structure of our sanctification” sounds like it’s moving in the direction of “the law is a framework” which is intended to be a restatement of “the law is a rule of life.”

     Law as structure of sanctification = you can’t break the law of God while God is sanctifying you behind the scenes. Obey the commandments while you wait for the veil to be lifted.

     Framework Biblicism = there is a Christian way to do everything even if it has no moral dimension to it (i.e. worship is all of life).

     Zrim: The irony is that we believe more than neo-Kuyperians…
     It might be helpful if you saw neo-Kuyperians and others as different from rather than weaker than yourself in faith.

     Short answer: It was meant to point out irony, not suggest spiritual arrogance.

     Extended answer: I was conversing with a cultural redeemer recently. He said:

     “I agree with what [so-and-so] says about football and I think it brings up what we ‘transformationalists’ (if that’s what you would like to call us) understand about the role we see Christianity playing in culture. There are aspects of culture which we don’t care about (i.e. football – OK, at least I don’t care much about this) and there are aspects we do care about. If we are going to talk about where we want to see culture transformed I think it’s a good idea to talk about what is important in culture first. So unlike football, literature really does transform people’s thinking and outlook on life.”

     It always seems to me that there are two sorts of cultural redeemers. While both share the Kuyperian sloganeering about Jesus claiming “ever square inch,” they both take slightly different tacks. When asked if there is such a thing as Christian pottery, the one will try with all his might to bring redemptive principles to bear on this creational enterprise and he will answer in the affirmative. It never works out very well, unless there really is such a thing as a Christian ashtray. The other doesn’t see the antithesis being between things of this age and the age to come. Instead, he puts the antithesis back into this age and, predictably, sets up a ranking of things temporal from the trivial to the enduring. And, of course, it is the latter which gets Jesus up out of his seat, while the former lies outside his range of interests. Then out pops something about literature transforming people and football, well, not so much.

     The irony is two-fold. First, those with a two-kingdom perspective are usually accused of neutrality. That is, evidently, in our haste to make the point that living with a proximate justice is superior to questing after an exact one, we think everything should be a free-for-all. This despite the repeated point that Jesus rules both the spheres but in different ways—the world by law and the church by grace. (I can’t speak for everyone, but this two-kingdomite doesn’t readily understand what is finally so laudable about victims seeking a suspension of justice and a display of forgiveness on their earthly enemies—if my daughter’s classroom gets mowed down by a gunman I want me a sheriff who’ll dole out some justice, not grace.)

     Second, if there is no square inch of human existence ignored by Jesus then what gives on assigning a divine yawn toward football? In point of fact, it would seem that certain cultural redeemers flirt with neutrality. I’m not sure what else to make of the division between “things we care about” and “things we don’t.” After all, when you don’t care about something that is usually the very definition of apathy and neutrality.

     As I by-pass ESPN and pick up Updike’s anthology, I’d love to believe Jesus doesn’t care about football nearly as much as he does the modern short story or Outsider music. But not only is my Calvinism intolerant of my snobbery, I actually believe what Kuyper said about the sovereignty of Jesus over every square inch. The beauty is that even if I don’t care much for certain quarters of creation, he does.

     LikeLike

117. Hey, you guys think I’m weird. Fine. But then again, you think I’m just like your mother and your wife. Aside from the gender issues, what’s so weird about that? Seems like you’d be used to it by now.

     But I digress.

     The point was, I think you two are pretty strange as well.

     I mean, the Confession says that the Law is a “rule for life.” But when *I* say that the Law provides a framework within which we live our lives, you throw up your hands and start bringing out the neo-Kuyperian Finnean Fundamentalist rhetorical arsenal, and tell me that I’m one corner away from legalism and just about to think that Jesus cares more about literature than football.

     I think that’s weird.

     The Confession says that the Scripture is the final authority and the only test for the soundness of doctrine. You say that “biblicism” is a Bad Thing.

     I think that’s weird.

     Jesus says that we are to let our Yes be Yes and our No be No. But when I say that if I promise to put copper pipe in your house, then the Law obligates me to use copper pipe instead of PVC, then you have conniptions about how I’m running roughshod over necessary distinctions.

     I think that’s weird.

     And not just me; I’ve cold-polled some Presby friends and asked questions like this: “True or False, the Bible has nothing to say about plumbing.” And after reflection, they’ve said things like this:

     “False. The Bible has a lot to say about engaging in fair financial dealings and the quality of our work — which impacts the way we do our plumbing. So the Bible has a lot to say about plumbing.”

     Which is pretty much what I’ve said.

     Just so you know — the strangeness is mutual.

     Cordially,
     JRC

     LikeLike

118. Zrim: Framework Biblicism = there is a Christian way to do everything even if it has no moral dimension to it (i.e. worship is all of life).

     No, that’s Exhaustively Mandative Biblicism. You’ve conflated the two again.

     LikeLike

119. Zrim: Law as structure of sanctification = you can’t break the law of God while God is sanctifying you behind the scenes. Obey the commandments while you wait for the veil to be lifted.

     By “can’t” I assume you mean “should not”, yes?

     OK. So now, consider again my definition of “Framework Biblicism”:

     JRC: Scripture is not the exhaustive source of definite mandates. Instead, it provides a framework within which we exercise wisdom…

     The norms provide boundaries within which our common grace wisdom will function. So the process of coming to a plumbing decision … is the process of laying out the boundary stones, and then coming to a decision within those boundary stones.

     How are these different? You say, “We should not break the commands of God as we live our lives.” I say, “The commands of God place boundaries within which we live our lives.”

     What is the difference?

     JRC

     LikeLike

120. Jeff, it proabably wasn’t wise to introduce it, but the Edwardseans did distinguish between natural inability and moral ability in trying to sort through the human response to the law. I was simply wondering if a similar distinction — one that did lead to Finney — was unwittingly in your arsenal. Just a thought, not an assertion.

     LikeLike

121. Jeff, and I think it is wierd to read the law as if it is a guide for plumbing.

     I think it is wierd not to acknoweldge the laws of the universe regarding water and its entrance into and removal from the house and run to the Bible for the laws governing plumbing.

     I think it is wierd to think that goog plumbing simply means honoring your contract. You may be a wrotten plumber and do bad work, but it’s according to contract. Does the word shoddy not come to mind? Do I need a proof text for it?

     I also think it is wierd to think that signing a contract and writing a check are good plumbing. Ink and paper will not stop leaks. I’ve tried.

     LikeLike

122. By “can’t” I assume you mean “should not” [break the law of God], yes?

     Yes.

     You say, “We should not break the commands of God as we live our lives.” I say, “The commands of God place boundaries within which we live our lives.” What is the difference?

     The difference may be that I go on to say the law of God says nothing about the particulars toward common activity, but you do. I think you think my distinctions are tortured. But they are only as tortured as saying “we don’t live the gospel–we believe it and live in light of it.” There is both a fine line and wide distinction between these things.

     I just polled my wife. She says the Bible has nothing to say about plumbing. Actually, she guffawed at the very notion. You should know she thinks I’m a crank generally and weird. She’s also way more Wheaton than Geneva both by nature and nurture. So there.

     LikeLike

123. Jeff, in my insignificant opinion, if the Cagle vs. Zrim/DGH handicap match were on pay-per view, all sixteen buyers would chorus praises of the exchange as the definitive 2k vs. ~2k debate. So I doubt what I can add to what’s been said.

     On the other hand, it strikes me that you’re mostly talking about the “thou shalt nots” of Scripture, which naturally apply 24-7 whether one is plumbing or speaking or doodling. But just because the sixth commandment appears to restrict one’s ability to doodle if your child’s airway is obstructed, that is something else entirely from determining such a thing as Christian doodling.

     I have nothing against the Westminster Larger Catechism, but its labyrinthine expansions of the Commandments are evidence for me of the prudence of concise principles that believers apply in their varied circumstances. It’s impossible to imagine, let alone delineate the permutations thereof, which ultimately renders the Grand Unified Christian Theory of [gerund] a meaningless project.

     Recognizing this does not mean that Christian plumbers are free to hit their customers with wrenches in the name of Christian liberty, but it does constrain the moral law to moral issues instead of those of general equity. I also can’t help but note that your argument that [this] (plumbing) is not utterly divorced from [that] (Christianity), therefore [that] can completely govern [this], echoes the statist form when they argue for greater governmental role in, say, the upbringing of children, because of the social implications of parenting. If you agree that the latter use is fallacious, why not the former?

     LikeLike

124. JRC: You say, “We should not break the commands of God as we live our lives.” I say, “The commands of God place boundaries within which we live our lives.” What is the difference?

     Zrim: The difference may be that I go on to say the law of God says nothing about the particulars toward common activity, but you do. I think you think my distinctions are tortured. But they are only as tortured as saying “we don’t live the gospel–we believe it and live in light of it.” There is both a fine line and wide distinction between these things.

     Let’s note two things now. First, you haven’t alleged any difference between our two statements. (You have noted a difference on what “I go on to say” — more on that later). But should I or should I not take that as agreement that our two statements mean the same thing?

     I hate to get all literalist and nitpicky on this, but there’s a plan in mind.

     And it’s a benign plan, frankly; I suspect that a lot — not all — of your objections boil down to “shibboleth or sibboleth?” And I’d like to make that case.

     So: are we agreed that our two statements are the same in content?

     Alright, now let’s go on to the things that I allegedly go on to say. You go on to say that the Law of God says nothing about the particulars of common activity, but I do. Let’s be specific: what particulars do I think that the Law of God has something to say about?

     As I think down the list of things we’ve covered:

     * If I tell you that I’ll fill your house with copper pipe, we agree that I’m morally obligated to fill your house with copper pipe, yes?
     * If I discover that PVC pipe is harmful to people, I’m morally obligated to take action to prevent harm (whether through disclosure or not installing it or some other means), yes?
     * Even in the hotly contested case of a Christian plumber flooding the house of a fellow believer, we eventually agreed that this could be a matter for church courts — though we disagreed as to the reason.

     So: what particulars have I alleged that you actually disagree with?

     JRC

     LikeLike

125. Mike,

     Thanks for the kind word.

     Mike: On the other hand, it strikes me that you’re mostly talking about the “thou shalt nots” of Scripture, which naturally apply 24-7 whether one is plumbing or speaking or doodling. But just because the sixth commandment appears to restrict one’s ability to doodle if your child’s airway is obstructed, that is something else entirely from determining such a thing as Christian doodling.

     I don’t recall ever saying that there was such a thing as “Christian plumbing”; but if I did, what I would mean by that is “A Christian being faithful to the Scriptures in his plumbing.” Certainly, I would imagine that a Christian’s soldering would have no physical properties that distinguish it from a non-Christian’s soldering.

     What would be different, if anything (the unbeliever does obey the Law through conscience at times, right?) would be the context, the way in which that plumbing was carried out. At minimum would be a difference in motive, which would then possibly drive some particulars.

     Mike: I have nothing against the Westminster Larger Catechism, but its labyrinthine expansions of the Commandments are evidence for me of the prudence of concise principles that believers apply in their varied circumstances. It’s impossible to imagine, let alone delineate the permutations thereof, which ultimately renders the Grand Unified Christian Theory of [gerund] a meaningless project.

     Right. This is why I reject Exhaustively Mandative Biblicism as an option. I mean, what you’re basically describing is the Talmud: an attempt to exhaustively tie all possible permutations into Scripture and say “forbidden” or “obligatory.”

     Having rejected EMB, however, there is more to be said, and I find that a clean separation of issues into “moral” and “common” causes more confusion than clarity.

     Here’s why. Let’s take plumbing, since it’s on our minds. Let’s say that we all agree that (1) plumbing is common, and (2) the Scripture has nothing to say about plumbing.

     Now let’s take George, who slacks his way through soldering classes and never learns how to get the metal hot enough. As a result, he botches several jobs for customers.

     Granted, in a perfect capitalist system, he’ll get fired. But let’s say for the sake of argument that he has a government job and lifetime job security.

     Assuming he becomes aware of his shoddy workmanship, does he have a moral obligation to improve his skills?

     At this point, the pure 2K-er has to fudge. For the Scripture is clear that “working as for the Lord” leaves no room for George to knowingly inflict his bad plumbing on others. There is certainly a moral issue here (even the natural law teaches this, right?).

     But … but … what the Scripture addresses is his plumbing. So the 2K-er has to dodge and say that what the Scripture is addressing is not really the plumbing but something else: the heart attitude, or some other proxy for the plumbing that is (supposedly) the real moral issue involved.

     And I say, let’s make this simple and realistic — and more Biblical. George’s plumbing, if known by him, is sinful; doing a slap-dash job willfully is a sinful action. He needs to repent of his particular practice of plumbing.

     Having said that, I haven’t universalized George and turned him into the grand theory of Christian plumbing. Rather, I’ve applied the Biblical framework to his particulars (or better, I’ve partially discovered what the Biblical framework means in his particular circumstance).

     And oddly enough, I’ve come to the same pragmatic conclusion that 2Kers come to. I’ve just done it without introducing an artificial distinction between “moral” and “common.”

     When the Lord judges us at the end of all things, He’s not going to consider some of our actions common.

     JRC

     LikeLike

126. Camden, I appreciate the distinction. But let’s carry it farther. You say that non-believers often know math and science better than believers. But this would be psychological knowledge. Does this mean that believers know math and science epistemologically better than unbelievers? But how can the epistemology make up for the psychological defect. Johnny may be able to give an account of the math problem by virtue of his presupposing the Trinue God, but Johnny may still be clueless about calculus.

     All of which is to wonder what Reformed epistemology helps us see in this discussion. I would agree with the apologetical aspect. But I’m not sure it really helps with sorting out a school curriculum and teaching subjects. It could actually lure believers into being mathematical slouches simply because they have the correct epistemology.

     LikeLike

127. DGH: It could actually lure believers into being mathematical slouches simply because they have the correct epistemology.

     Or, it could lure believers into studying math more passionately because they think they’re doing something of eternal value — discovering a part of the mind of God.

     JRC

     LikeLike

128. Guys, I want to develop something further. I mentioned to Mike that I find the 2K (or better: REPT) distinction between “moral actions” and “common actions” to be not helpful. And yet, DGH and I discovered some common ground, sort of, in this exchange:

     JRC: “the technical skills of the plumber are neither “good” nor “bad” until they are exercised in context,”

     DGH: isn’t this an admission, in good neo-Calvinist parlance, of neutrality? Plumbing is technically neither good nor bad. I’m glad we finally agree. But somehow I’m sure we don’t.

     Yes, there is an admission of a kind of neutrality, and it’s not through the back door, either. However, it is a neutrality that cuts across an arbitrary distinction between “moral” actions and “common” actions. And, I think it’s (a) Biblical, (b) Confessional, and (c) more sensible to boot.

     So let’s see whether I can accomplish the trifecta.

     Let’s take an action that supposedly falls in the realm of the “moral.” We could take worship, for example. Are the actions of worship (of God) inherently good or evil?

     Well, of course we say that, in general, they are good — except when performed not by faith, or out of hypocrisy, or some other base motive.

     But already, we have coordinated a condition on the action. Worship is no longer always good or always evil, but is one or the other depending on the motive of the heart.

     But there’s more. We all admit the RPW here, so it’s safe to say that worship that arises from (humanly speaking) good motives, but is ignorantly in contradiction to the RPW is … well, at least not as good as it should be.

     And so not simply the actions of worship and the motive of the heart, but also the particulars, affect the goodness of the worship.

     But there’s more. When I come to worship with a “good” heart, but a brother has something against me, then it is proper for me to be reconciled to my brother posthaste. So my situation *also* affects the goodness of the worship.

     In all of this, we discover that our clean, tidy distinction that placed worship in the “moral action” bin is no longer tidy. Worship is sometimes good, sometimes bad — all depending on the actions, the situation, the motive. Worship is not inherently, in a vacuum, always good OR always bad. Sometimes, it is less good than it might be.

     Aside: DGH, I discovered this long before I read Frame. Perhaps this helps you to understand the natural affinity.

     Well, how about eating meat? That ought to be a “common” activity, right? One can hear DGH firing up the charcoal and NOT gas grill (I trust Muether has persuaded you of this point), and speaking of the relative merits of rare and medium, flank and filet, rubs and marination as common things not addressed in Scripture.

     Except that it turns out that eating meat is the wrong thing to do if it doing so causes my brother to stumble. The action of eating meat, Paul says, is sinful if I eat either (a) in such a way as to cause offense (1 Cor 10.23 – 33) or (b) defiling my own conscience with my lack of faith (Rom 14.23).

     So it turns out that eating meat, which we had put in the “common” bin, is actually moral. If I eat to the glory of God, in liberty, then it is good. If I eat with a lack of faith, or in the presence of a weaker brother, then it is bad.

     Eating meat, just like worship, is neither always good NOR always bad, but it is always good OR bad, depending on motive and circumstance.

     What’s going on here? Well, DGH is going to say that I’m just being overly complicated. But I say, I’m being sufficiently cogent. The idea of binning actions into “moral” and “common” overlooks the fact that “common” actions become moral ones when considered together with situation and motive, and that “moral” actions are subject to the same considerations of situation and motive.

     Or put another way: whether “common” or “moral”, an action becomes moral when taken together with situation and motive.

     What then is the point of our two bins? What is accomplished by distinguishing an action as “common”?

     The Two Bins notion (really, the Two Spheres notion in REPT — as opposed to in Calvin) has the advantage of being conceptually tidy, as we can see from the way it has been repeatedly been employed as an instrument of blunt force in this dialog.

     But it has the disadvantage of being an unuseful metric in the real world, because it can’t handle the nuances of motive and situation. Add in the motive and/or situation for plumbing, and all of the sudden, plumbing becomes a moral issue.

     Except REPTers can’t allow that, so they’ll throw the moral issue over to some action in the other bin: the bad attitude is the “real” sin that needs repenting of.

     So what happens when I give my word to plumb with copper and I use PVC instead? Well, on the REPT account, the sin was in making a false promise.

     That doesn’t withstand scrutiny when we roll the videotape in slow motion. The promise wasn’t false until I engaged in the action of plumbing. It was the action, springing from a false heart, that was the sin.

     John the Baptist understood this. When he was asked what should be done to show the fruits of repentance, he waded right over into the common realm and told people to share cloaks and refrain from taking more taxes than were owed. So I guess taxation and cloak-wearing go in the Moral bin, but plumbing goes in the Common bin? Nah.

     One final point that I’ve made before but bears underscoring. When we stand at judgment, all of our actions, down to the careless word, will be reviewed. This is in the Confession (33.1). At that time, nothing will be considered neutral or common, in its context of situation and motive.

     So DGH, there is a kind of neutrality: plumbing with copper is neither always good NOR always bad. The ability to solder a good joint is neither always good NOR always bad. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to find many actions at all that are either always good or always bad. Blasphemy is always bad. Other actions can be found.

     But the vast, vast majority of actions depend upon situation and motive to determine how they fit into any Scriptural norms. And in cases where more specific norms don’t apply, the general norms of liberty within the bounds of faith and love *do* apply to all of our actions.

     The Confession points in this direction. In the chapter on liberty, we find:

     WCoF 20.2,3: God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

     They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practise any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.

     We note that, while the RPW modifies the notion of liberty, nevertheless, liberty applies across the board to both “common” activities and worship. We also note that liberty practiced out of the wrong motive destroys liberty. This includes, presumably, liberty exercised in the common realm.

     As I see it, some kind of coordination of action, motive, and situation is a more cogent approach than having Moral and Common bins.

     JRC

     LikeLike

129. One more possible point of common ground. The Confession says this about good works:

     WCoF 16.1,2: Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.

     These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

     It strikes me, Zrim and DGH, that you wish to (rightly!) resist the idea that any action whatsoever can be elevated into “Good Work” status by waving the “Kingdom Work” wand over it.

     Am I right?

     If so, then let’s explore this idea a bit, because I think it could be profitable common ground.

     JRC

     LikeLike

130. Jeff, what does passion have to do with it? Your experimental/pietistic Calvinism is peeking through.

     LikeLike

131. Or, it could lure believers into studying math more passionately because they think they’re doing something of eternal value — discovering a part of the mind of God.

     Jeff, I think you missed DGH’s point, which actually helps shed more light on what is going on between us. If one has the correct epistemology one understands that math doesn’t, in fact, have eternal value but rather temporal value. If our marriage contracts aren’t following us into the next age,what makes anyone think calculus is? One may think he’s doing something of eternal value.

     (And, it seems to me, that when one mistakenly thinks heaven implies earth there is some good that can come of it: he tends to be pretty good at earth, despite his false assumptions. But this is all it is, being pretty good at it. [It certainly isn’t “discovering a part of the mind of God.” Talk about creature/Creator distinction violation.] “Being pretty good at it” is one comfort I’d take if my situation ever demanded parochial schooling; Catholic schools have a fantastic educational reputation, and Calvin College is a world-class liberal arts institution. I could easily tip-toe around all the transformationalism. The reason is this: the dirty little secret about education is that it’s about learning, full stop. That means anybody can do it, and everyone, converted or not, has an equal shot at doing it well or poorly.

     In this way, my posture toward the neocalvinist transformationalists is different from your posture toward the Enlightenment secularists. You seem to fear your children “buying into the Enlightenment ideals” and you are poised to whisk the kiddies out once you detect their “buying into Enlightenment ideals.” I don’t know exactly how one measures this before whisking away, but be that as it may. But I’d fully expect transformationalist ideals to be the sub-text of my children’s parochial schooling; I’d even risk their “buying into transformationalist ideals” if it meant they got a good education. One would think my “radical 2K” sensibilities would have none of it. But all I ask of education is to educate, even if the meta-pedagogy is Enlightenment, transformationalist or even theological idolatry [Roman Catholic]. Is my 2K more tolerant than your soft theonomy?)

     Also, what is this category of “passion” all about? This is the sub-text of transformationalist views. Somehow, what distinguishes the unfaithful pursuit of temporal truth from the faithful one isn’t faith but passion. Huh? But pagans have passion, so believers have no monopoly on it. The only thing pagans don’t have is faith, by definition. And what of believers, like me, who have very little passion (even disdain) for certain things in the creational order like math? I know God is the author of math, but it’s still a drag. Is that impious or just honest?

     LikeLike

132. Jeff, being a slacker and knowingly inflicting bad plumbing on others is not plumbing. These are acts covered by the 9th commandment, for starters. But they are not of the essence of plumbing. You have yet to offer an example of plumbing moral dimension that takes into account the difference between a Michael Jordan plumber, and a Pat Riley plumber. Both were in the NBA of plumbing. But one’s skills were vastly superior. You have already said admitted that technique is different from moral duty. But then to justify your claims about Christian plumbing you keep introducing the example of Sean Bradley, who despite having size, was an NBA slacker and a great discredit to the Mormon faith.

     So is it a moral failure if someone lacks the brains, brawn, creativity, etc. to be a good plumber, banker, artist, janitor, or even preacher?

     LikeLike

133. Jeff, you’re right, there is little difference between our statements. But you have to remember that I’m trying to read you in context, not proof-text you. You know, Reformed hermenutics? And now you’re talking about “passion” as that which distinguishes faith from unbelief when the category is faith. I mean, come oooooooon.

     Re all this plumbing talk, I fear we have wandered into the no-man’s land of pressing an example too far for any good.

     LikeLike

134. Jeff, I appreciate the effort but I’m not sure that you have said anything new except to indicate some movement in your thinking. I have been saying all along that the Sabbath raises the categories of holy, good/common, and profane, and that an activity that is good during the week is profane on the Lord’s day. So I didn’t use Framean language of situational. I don’t take this point to be all that revolutionary, at least for me.

     Of course, context matters for actions. The biggest context is the person performing the actions. Rather than placing the actions into boxes, I’d place the people — the ones who are justified and the ones who are not. The ones who are justified are capable of performing actions — from eating meat offered to idols to plumbing — to the glory of God. The one’s who are not justified cannot perform such actions.

     But this still doesn’t solve the matter of what is the best way to serve meat or fix a leak, neither of which is addressed in Scripture.

     LikeLike

135. Yes, I agree with the Confession and disagree with Kingdom work. Justification is what makes a sinners works good (which is why it is prior logically to sanctification, and also why justification covers the evil that still clings to our good works which are filthy rags).

     But I’m not sure where you are going to take this. I hope it’s not toward the bathroom.

     LikeLike

136. Zrim, word up on the point regarding the 2k view of transformationalism, and the transformational view of the Enlightenment.

     LikeLike

137. It strikes me, Zrim and DGH, that you wish to (rightly!) resist the idea that any action whatsoever can be elevated into “Good Work” status by waving the “Kingdom Work” wand over it. Am I right?

     My concern, Jeff, is when calling something kindgom work which isn’t kingdom work. Let’s rememeber the theme of this thread (education). When the collection is taken up for missions, this is kingdom work. When the collection is taken up to off set the costs of Christian school tutition, this is not kingdom work. Schooling is a good work, but it’s not kingdom work.

     Kingdom work is very narrowly defined. It hangs, for example, upon the three marks of the true church (gospel, sacraments and discipline). Good work versus kingdom work turns on the distinctions between creation and redemption, simply put.

     But if you want to explore this idea more, I’m giving you a reading assignment first. Digest this bit by Ken Myers. If you don’t get it after this it’s because you don’t want to:

     Click to access ComGrace.pdf

     LikeLike

138. I’m not exactly sure how this impacts school curriculum as of yet. I was clarifying what I thought was a substantial misunderstanding of Van Til’s thought. The epistemological “correctness” of the believer isn’t going to make them better at math or science psychologically per se. They do, however have a foundation and explanation for the very possibility of studying math and science.

     This is perhaps the impact upon education. The unbelieving teacher can only go so far because they cannot produce an adequate foundation or framework for whatever discipline it is that he or she studies. False presuppositions inevitably yield misguided and incomplete knowledge. The truth that is taught on false presuppositions is only incidental and does not derive from a consistent method of study.

     So while I can learn enormous amounts of true information in a public school (I was a public school child – though I’m not saying I learned enormous amounts of information) I will never be taught exactly how the possibility of the study science, math, etc. is even possible or what their end is. There is therefore a built-in limitation to education and a need for correction and supplementation.

     LikeLike

139. Camden,

     So while I can learn enormous amounts of true information in a public school (I was a public school child – though I’m not saying I learned enormous amounts of information) I will never be taught exactly how the possibility of the study science, math, etc. is even possible or what their end is.

     Are you suggesting that this is a burden of education, to know how these pursuits are even possible or what their ultimate end is? Whether you are or not, I’m not sure it is at all; and, whether you are or not, I’m not clear on how education is at all lacking if these questions remain unanswered in the classroom. In fact, I would suggest that these questions do have to be answered. But they are best answered by institutions ordained to do so, namely the home and church.

     And I’m not clear on why education is burdened to answer these things when so many other creational projects aren’t. I mean, nobody says banking is lacking if it doesn’t tithe a percentage. Nobody says the arts are impoverished if Yahweh isn’t implicitly or explicitly acknowledged. Even PBS tells me their programs are “made possible by grants from the Orfalea Foundation and viewers like me (thank you),” not Yahweh, and nobody seems bothered. I realize education is different from other pursuits. But is it really so different as to be elevated to be in the service of true piety? This is what I fail to understand, why any educational endeavor may be faulted for not answering questions others were ordained to answer. I can’t help but think there is an over-realization of education going on, which seems to suggest an abiding modernism.

     LikeLike

140. Double-take … oh, he’s making a plumbing joke. Careful with those jokes over the ‘Net, man.

     I’m perfectly happy to limit “kingdom work” to the Great Commission; I just thought there might be a deep connection between your general resistance to “neo-Calvinism” and your take on WCoF 16.1. But since you guys aren’t jumping up and down and saying, “Yes, exactly!” then I won’t go there.

     JRC

     LikeLike

141. Van Til says:

     “Non-Christians believe that the personality of the child can develop best if it is not placed face to face with God. Christian believe that the child’s personality cannot develop at all unless it is placed face to face with God. Non-Christian education puts the child in a vacuum. In this vacuum the child is expected to grow. The result is that the child dies. Christian education alone really nurtures personality because it alone gives the child air and food.”

     “Non-Christians believe that authority hurts the growth of the child. Christians believe that without authority a child cannot live at all.”

     “At this point I may interject that when I thus emphasize the absolute antithesis, I am not denying or even for a moment forgetting the doctrine of common grace. That doctrine does not militate against the doctrine of the absolute antithesis, but here as elsewhere confirms it.”

     “No educational content that cannot be set into a definitely Christian-theistic pattern and be conducive to the development of covenant personality has any right to appear in our schools.”

     “Now, just in this way the whole of ‘space-time facts’ is to a Christian a mere abstraction, wholly unintelligible and therefore altogether unteachable unless it be seen in its relationship to God as its presupposition…no ‘fact’ is seen as it really is unless it is seen in its correct relationship to God.”

     “…it is not really enough to say that the most important thing to know about a ‘fact’ is its relationship to God because that very relationship to God exhausts the meaning of the fact.”

     “…only a Christian theist has the facts because there are none but theistic facts…the nontheist refuses to acknowledge the Creator who alone can be the proper context for interpreting any fact. Therefore, nontheists deal only with ‘bare facts’, that is, with abstractions that have no meaning.”

     “But it is a satanic falsehood to say that a fact is a fact for everybody alike, if it is taken to mean, as it is usually take to mean, that there is a realm of space-time fact that is known to all men alike.”

     “What sens is there in spending money for teaching arithmetic in a Christian school rather than in a so-called neutral school unless you are basically convinced that no space-time fact can be talked about about taught unless seen in its relationship to God? When speaking thus of the absolute antithesis that underlies the education policies of our schools, it is not too much to say that if any subject could be taught elsewhere than in a Christian school, there would be no reason for having Christian schools.”

     “The only reason why we are justified in having Christian schools is that we are convinced that outside of a Christian-theistic atmosphere there can be no more than an empty process of one abstraction teaching abstractness to other abstractions.”

     “NO TEACHING OF ANY SORT IS POSSIBLE EXCEPT IN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS.”

     “The ground for the necessity of Christian schools lies in this very thing, that no fact can be known unless it be known in its relationship to God. And once this point is clearly seen, the doubt as to the value of teaching arithmetic in Christian schools falls out of the picture. Of course arithmetic must be taught in a Christian school. It cannot be taught anywhere else.”

     “…if you cannot teach arithmetic to the glory of God, you cannot do it any other way because it cannot be done any other way by anybody.”

     “On the basis of our opponents the position of the teacher is utterly hopeless. He knows that he knows nothing and that in spite of this fact he must teach. He knows that without authority he cannot teach and that there are no authorities to which he can appeal. He has to place the child before an infinite series of possibilities and pretend to be able to say something about the most advisable attitude to take with respect to the possibilities, and at the same time he has to admit that he knows nothing at all about those possibilities. And the result for the child is that he is not furnished with an atmosphere in which he can live and grow.”

     “In contrast with this the Christian teacher knows himself, knows the subject, and knows the child. He has the full assurance of the absolute fruitfulness of his work. He labors in the dawn of everlasting results.”

     LikeLike

142. I agree with Van Til’s basic approach to presuppositional apologetics. However, I find his application of his antithesis to education in the way that he does nothing short of irrational. He apparently fell in love with his grand idea and elevated it to a central dogma. That doesn’t mean he didn’t genuinely come up with a good idea. It means he over-applied it to ludicrous results.

     LikeLike

143. By the way, the above quotes come from “Foundations of Christian Education: Addresses to Christian Teachers” by Louis Berkhof and Cornelius Van Til, edited by Dennis E. Johnson, published by P&R, 1990. They all come from the first essay in that volume titled “Antitheses in Education” by Cornelius Van Til, pp.3-24.
     ISBN 0-87552-114-2

     LikeLike

144. Zrim: But you have to remember that I’m trying to read you in context, not proof-text you. You know, Reformed hermenutics? And now you’re talking about “passion” as that which distinguishes faith from unbelief when the category is faith. I mean, come oooooooon.

     I’m delighted that you want to read me in context.

     Unfortunately, what you gave with the first sentence, you took away with the third. “Passion” as that which distinguishes faith from unbelief? That’s an amazingly tortured rendering of what I actually said.

     What I said was,

     JRC: Or, [Reformed epistemology] could lure believers into studying math more passionately because they think they’re doing something of eternal value — discovering a part of the mind of God.

     It’s not the math that has eternal value; it’s the action of studying math — because that action glorifies God.

     The passion doesn’t “distinguish faith from unbelief”; the passion is the result of Reformed epistemology.

     I recognize that I write densely. My teachers complained about this since 8th grade; and all I can say is, it’s a lot better now than it was then.

     But there is some burden on you to read more carefully than you do. Or perhaps, more literally.

     I find that I often write sentence A and it comes back to me as sentence Z, with commentary on what my Real Problem is and how I’m only a step away from some heresy or another.

     I continually feel that I’m saying words, but they’re being analyzed on the basis of what they remind you of, rather than what they actually say. So here, my words reminded you of, perhaps, your conversation with the neo-Calvinist friend about the value of literature over football. And so you just lumped my words in with his, and reacted against him. *He* values literature over football, so *I* must think that math has eternal value. Never mind that I didn’t say that.

     As it stands now, we’ve spent months just getting to the point where you understand that my kind of biblicism is not the view that the Bible has exhaustive theories of everything.

     And even there, you don’t really believe me. You suspect a trick, because you just know in your heart of hearts that I’m some kind of neo-Kuyperian Finnean Edwardsian soft theonomic almost-legalist Fundamentalist.

     I’ll take some blame here. I don’t write as well as I should, and I can be obtuse at times.

     *grump*

     JRC

     LikeLike

145. DGH: I’m not sure that you have said anything new except to indicate some movement in your thinking.

     No, no movement in thinking. What is new here is the possibility that we might come to some common ground by agreeing that abilities are morally neutral, while actions are not.

     DGH: I have been saying all along that the Sabbath raises the categories of holy, good/common, and profane, and that an activity that is good during the week is profane on the Lord’s day. So I didn’t use Framean language of situational. I don’t take this point to be all that revolutionary, at least for me.

     Yes, you have been saying that. In using Frame’s language, I’m not trying to say something new; rather, I’m trying to show that you already agree that actions cannot be cleanly binned into Moral and Common, in vacuuo.

     And it turns out, we’re tracking right along together (halleluia!):

     DGH: Rather than placing the actions into boxes, I’d place the people — the ones who are justified and the ones who are not. The ones who are justified are capable of performing actions — from eating meat offered to idols to plumbing — to the glory of God. The one’s who are not justified cannot perform such actions.

     Exactly so.

     DGH: But this still doesn’t solve the matter of what is the best way to serve meat or fix a leak, neither of which is addressed in Scripture.

     Exactly. They are not specifically addressed in Scripture. And why is that? Is God unconcerned with how we serve our meat or fix our leaks?

     No. He addresses our actions *in general*, and those generalities apply to all of our actions, including meat-serving and leak-fixing.

     And then we have liberty to accomplish those generalities using wisdom.

     Do you disagree with anything I’ve said here?

     JRC

     LikeLike

146. It is hard to read those quotes and not think you have a point.

     LikeLike

147. Thank you Dr. Hart. You made my day.

     LikeLike

148. I’m not sure my comment is worthy of such significance. Have you considered getting a life?

     LikeLike

149. Jeff,

     It should go without saying, but I don’t have a problem saying what believers do glorifies God.

     But the context of the conversation is really one that is trying to distinguish believers from non-believers. The only thing that does that is faith. And the resultant work isn’t “passionate studying” but true worship. Both believer and pagan can passionately study, but only the former can worship truly.

     Again, though, if passion is the result of Reformed epistemology (as you say), then what of believers like me who have a disdain for the study of math? Yes, I’m being serious. I’d rather say that instead of “Reformed epistemology resulting is passionate study” that “true faith results in true worship.”

     LikeLike

150. I feel like a kid in a candy store. But here’s a good one:

     “Non-Christians believe that authority hurts the growth of the child. Christians believe that without authority a child cannot live at all.”

     My daughters attend a statist school along with a pair of Hindi siblings. The obedience displayed by this immigrant family outpaces the assimilated Dutch by lots of square inches. My hunch is that CVT is working with very particular stereotypes of very certain “non-Christians.” At least, the larger balance of unbelieving middle-easterners and Asians are nothing if not models of the notion that authority is life giving. But I’m sure the answer will be something like, “Yeah, but it’s not a Christian obedience.”

     LikeLike

151. Jeff,

     One more thing. It just strikes me that all this talk of passion is just so New School-y. I don’t have anything at all against passion (since God made it). But passion is something that really appeals to certain sub-cultures within our larger culture. I know this will go into your holster for future claims of weirdness on my part and verklempt on yours, but it seems like a variation on a theology of glory for those more cultured and better educated, those who like their prosperity gospel much more subdued and understated but no less glorious: “Being Reformed will make you love all things right, true and good.”

     I’ll freely admit, the Reformed tradition is the superior expression of the biblical and historical Christian witness. Nothing surpasses it. And I believe we should jealously guard the intolerance of Presbyterianism. But it’s not because it makes us better Christians, or “more passionate than pagans,” but because that’s just what the what faithful do.

     LikeLike

152. Zrim,

     The words “ivory” and “tower” come to mind.

     E

     LikeLike

153. Dr. Hart,

     I’m just glad someone with academic credentials admitted that I’m not crazy.

     E

     LikeLike

154. Zrim: And now you’re talking about “passion” as that which distinguishes faith from unbelief when the category is faith. I mean, come oooooooon.

     JRC: “Passion” as that which distinguishes faith from unbelief? That’s an amazingly tortured rendering of what I actually said … It’s not the math that has eternal value; it’s the action of studying math — because that action glorifies God…

     I find that I often write sentence A and it comes back to me as sentence Z, with commentary on what my Real Problem is and how I’m only a step away from some heresy or another.

     Zrim: It should go without saying, but I don’t have a problem saying what believers do glorifies God.

     But the context of the conversation is really one that is trying to distinguish believers from non-believers. The only thing that does that is faith. And the resultant work isn’t “passionate studying” but true worship. Both believer and pagan can passionately study, but only the former can worship truly…

     One more thing. It just strikes me that all this talk of passion is just so New School-y. I don’t have anything at all against passion (since God made it). But passion is something that really appeals to certain sub-cultures within our larger culture…

     Zrim, if I thought for one instant that you were not intellectually capable of reading carefully, I wouldn’t have said anything. But you are quite capable — you write test questions for an educational testing service, for crying out loud.

     Or if I thought you were an incorrigible jerk, I wouldn’t have said anything. But you aren’t.

     I expressed an ongoing offense here that is interfering with our ability to discuss charitably. I’ve (mostly) ignored it, but I really have gotten to the point where my options are to (a) say something or to (b) shake my head and walk away.

     When you, a very bright person, twist my statements into knots, it comes across as an expression of contempt.

     When you make jokes at my expense, it comes across as contempt. In my Southern upbringing, funny jokes are ones made at one’s own expense; jokes at someone else’s expense are deliberate insults. I’ve tried to play along a bit (When in Rome…), but it actually grates pretty harshly.

     When you diagnose my Real Problems across the Internet, it comes across as contempt.

     When you are unable to even offer a small apology for your misreadings, it comes across as contempt.

     The persona I encounter here (which is likely different from the real Steve Zimrich) treats me as an inferior whose statements are not worthy of careful consideration, and I’m having trouble being in charity.

     Especially when you assign me 30+ page reading assignments (although the Ken Meyers article is quite good…).

     Where do we go from here?

     Sincerely,
     Jeff Cagle

     LikeLike

155. Jeff,

     Perhaps we take it off-line? I’m not much for airing the sorts of grievances you are suggesting publically. I will say that I feel your pain when it comes to these blessed forums and things not translating the way we always intend. (If you’d like to take it off line, leave your addy in the next response.) But my responses to you are honest, even if tempered with some cheek. I really do see problems in your statements.

     I am saying that I am glorifying God as I either struggle through or happily pursue calculus. What you seem to be saying is that my glorifying God is relative to my passion. I am saying that everything a believer does glorifies God because of faith, the only qualifier being that the thing is lawful. You seem to be suggesting that what a believer does is probably really only glorifying God more if it’s enjoyed, etc. I perceive things much more categorical than that. I’d like to glorify God doing calculus with a smile, but I can’t. Now what? I take comfort knowing that “my” faith is actually what glorifies God, not my disposition. What you suggest seems to also deny my varied and complex humanity.

     LikeLike

156. I don’t doubt your sincerity, and I’m sure I don’t project as much charity or respect as I might like.

     If you would like to go offline, my email is

     jr + last name (at) juno [dot] com.

     Jeff Cagle

     LikeLike

157. Jeff,

     You have correctly described what interacting with Zrim is often like. Others, including me, have tried to point that out to him, to no avail.

     My advice – don’t bother. The blogging medium tends in this direction anyway.

     Echo

     LikeLike

158. Jeff, don’t bother: have you noticed that both Hart and Zrim have responded to you using fictional examples from TV to show us what the real world is like? And they wonder why we don’t them seriously when it comes to philosophy!

     LikeLike

159. Josh, so nice of you to show up at the party late, and then crash. You may notice that the discussion started with a biblical case for Christian schooling. I know you like philosophy and all. Then again, I don’t know of too many philosophers who are theonomists.

     LikeLike

160. Actually, Zrim just sent me a nice kind note and I look forward to returning to our regularly scheduled dispute (!)

     JRC

     LikeLike

161. Could he write one to me and sign it for Josh Smith?

     LikeLike

162. He could, but then he’d also have to do that for lots of others, and he doesn’t really have that sort of disposable time.

     LikeLike

163. boo hoo.

     LikeLike

164. DGH: Jeff, being a slacker and knowingly inflicting bad plumbing on others is not plumbing. These are acts covered by the 9th commandment, for starters. But they are not of the essence of plumbing. You have yet to offer an example of plumbing moral dimension that takes into account the difference between a Michael Jordan plumber, and a Pat Riley plumber. Both were in the NBA of plumbing. But one’s skills were vastly superior. You have already said admitted that technique is different from moral duty. But then to justify your claims about Christian plumbing you keep introducing the example of Sean Bradley, who despite having size, was an NBA slacker and a great discredit to the Mormon faith.

     So is it a moral failure if someone lacks the brains, brawn, creativity, etc. to be a good plumber, banker, artist, janitor, or even preacher?

     There are several points here worth considering.

     First, is it a moral failing to have lower abilities? Absolutely not. Recall that abilities are morally neutral; actions never are.

     Is it a moral failing to fail to exert one’s abilities out of love for God and neighbor?

     Yes. And in my example, that’s exactly what happened.

     Is this moral failing “of the essence of plumbing”?

     First of all, Essence of Plumbing sounds like either a really awful perfume or else a blues-rock band.

     More seriously, I don’t accept an Aristotelian framework in which we can divide objects or actions into “substance” (or “essence”) and “accident.” In the common-grace study of the physical world, the Aristotelian framework has been decisively abandoned. (Yet another reason to deny transubstantiation!)

     So it may be that statements like “bad plumbing is not plumbing” make sense in an Aristotelian framework, but they don’t make sense in mine. For me, plumbing is a series of actions (NOT skills) that have pipes and toilets as their direct objects. So bad plumbing

     Since the Scripture gives a general framework for our actions (i.e., in all of our actions, we are not to bear false testimony), I would affirm that the Ninth Commandment covers bad plumbing, as do you, but I would see that as an example of what I’m talking about. The Law is a rule of life. Intentionally bad plumbing is a moral failing, not because of abilities, but because it is not of faith and the love that flows from that faith.

     Unintentionally bad plumbing, on the other hand, would not be a moral failing.

     Negligently bad plumbing, on the third hand, would be.

     JRC

     LikeLike

165. Oops, left a sentence hanging. “So bad plumbing, if intentional, is an action that is covered by the 9th commandment as well as the 8th.”

     LikeLike

166. Intentionally bad plumbing is a moral failing, not because of abilities, but because it is not of faith and the love that flows from that faith.

     Unintentionally bad plumbing, on the other hand, would not be a moral failing.

     Negligently bad plumbing, on the third hand, would be.

     I still want to make the point about what it means to live by faith:
     I agree that in the course of plumbing if one lies, steals or bears false witness it is a moral failure and is not of faith.

     But “negligently bad plumbing” seems a lot like my bad math skills, and I have hard time saying my poor math performance is somehow a moral failing, Jeff.

     If I cheat on my exam that is a moral failure, but is slacking on my studying, not quite “pursuing it with passion” and getting a D really the same thing? Should I be disciplined for my slack studying or for my cheating on the test, or both? Can I not still glorify God when I’m a bad math student and not glorify God when I cheat, or does glorify mean “only when I’m a passionate winner”? Can losers and slackers still be said to live by faith and glorify God?

     (For any who might be wondering: NT Greek is a math course, despite its being listed as a language course. I like to think that my in and out efforts at it were always God glorifying, though Jefferey A.D. Weima might be tempted to think otherwise.)

     LikeLike

167. Best wishes on the Greek. I agree: it’s a lot more analytic than English.

     As it turns out, I take the opposite approach — “math” is a language that we use to model and manipulate the physical world (and the structure of ideas, taking “logic” to be a subset of math).

     Zrim, I can’t speak to your particular math situation because I don’t know it. But in general, would you not say that sloth is a sin? Surely I got that impression from reading Proverbs rather than from my non-existent Catholic upbringing.

     Zrim: I agree that in the course of plumbing if one lies, steals or bears false witness it is a moral failure and is not of faith.

     Hey, we have common ground. WooHoo!

     JRC

     LikeLike

168. I almost overlooked — Should we be disciplined for slacking? I think there are a lot of sins that we are not disciplined for; that’s a part of what it means to “not be under the Law.”

     So we can’t move from “shouldn’t be disciplined for” to “isn’t a sin.”

     JRC

     LikeLike

169. Jeff,

     It seems clear that sloth is a sin. But I’m not sure that what I am describing is sloth, but rather struggle as opposed to victory (yes, I am hinting that this may have a lot to do with struggling with indwelling sin than being victorious over it–and my understanding of sin is more organic than therapeutic, which is to say, God confroms us to the image of Jesus, not more excited or studious students).

     I still want to know if one of faith can be said to be glorying God even when he doesn’t pursue something very good with passion.

     And I’m not sure that escaping discipline has as much to do with “not being under law (but under grace)” so much as the difficulties involved with disciplining private indwelling sin and those done outwardly in the body (and mind). Your formula could be a recipie for antinomianism.

     LikeLike

170. Can one of faith be said to be glorifying God if he does not pursue something very good with passion?

     Hm. Isn’t it rather that whatever God sets before us — our calling — is what we should do with passion? Or more Biblically, with heart, soul, mind, and strength?

     There are too many good things out there for us to be responsible for all of them, “with passion.” Faraday taught himself chemistry. These days, a professional chemist can only know one small corner of the discipline, after graduate study.

     So yes, it’s acceptable, I think, to decide that math is not your calling (can’t believe I’m writing this … 🙂 ). But having been called to math (say, as a high-school student), it would be sinful to blow it off in favor of other priorities that one is *not* called to.

     Speaking of .. I have have parking-lot duty.

     JRC

     LikeLike

171. Isn’t it rather that whatever God sets before us — our calling — is what we should do with passion? Or more Biblically, with heart, soul, mind, and strength?

     But, as much as math isn’t my calling, one of my callings is as a husband and father. And I have days of passion and fatigue (and indifference). And most days I can’t say that I have lived up to this vocation with all my heart, soul, strength and mind. I think you’re reading my point about being frail as to mean “blowing something off.” Again, I’m not suggesting sloth. Sloth would be neglecting my family, rather than just trying to breathless keep up with them. It sounds like you are suggesting my frailty is sloth is sin. Yeow.

     LikeLike

172. No, no, no. Not at all. I’m suggesting that if math isn’t your calling, then you can walk away in a good conscience. But if or when it is, then all oars out.

     JRC

     LikeLike

173. And in particular, if it comes to “math or family”, we both know which one has priority.

     LikeLike

174. Jeff,

     What is happening on my husbanding and fathering days when all my proverbial oars aren’t out? Am I still doing these things in faith, or would you describe it differently (like, sort of in faith but not as in faith as on my better days)? I say the former.

     And as long as you are bringing up priority in vocations, yes, I am a hopeless family man (the upper midwest does that). But I also think our vocations are in constant flux and competition with each other, and I don’t think that is a bad thing at all. Sometimes family wins, sometimes it suffers sacrifice. Same for other vocations.

     LikeLike

175. Zrim: What is happening on my husbanding and fathering days when all my proverbial oars aren’t out? Am I still doing these things in faith, or would you describe it differently (like, sort of in faith but not as in faith as on my better days)? I say the former.

     What happens on the days when I’m not loving God with heart, soul, mind, and strength; and my neighbor as myself?

     I think on those days (read: every day), I’m revealing just how deep the rabbit hole called “sin nature” goes.

     I don’t know whether we’re describing the same phenomenon; obviously, we get tired and stuff. Among other things, I think that’s why the “rest” part of Sabbath-keeping is really important.

     But I do think that the command to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” is deliberately open-ended and calibrated above our level to actually accomplish; not (as the liberals would have it) so that we keep striving, but rather to reveal just what it means to be a sinner.

     JRC

     LikeLike

176. Careful, Jeff, now you’re starting to sound way less New School than all that “passion” jazz seemed to imply (liberals strive, New Schoolers pursue with passion). You even used the s-word a couple of times, and in ways that might go as deep as total depravity aims.

     Maybe my kind note helped? Who’d’a thunk?

     LikeLike

177. Darryl, you give an example of how the term neocalvinist is applied outside meaningful restriction. OK. Did you know that, historically, the term has also been applied to Barthians as a sort of synonym for neo-orthodoxy? The term has now been misapplied to predestinarian baptists of various sorts too.

     Well, some people might refer to Darryl Hart as an Evangelical. It might even appear in print somewhere. I’m not unaware that the label neocalvinist has been given various misapplications, but we orthodox “Kuyperians” (who are also confessionally reformed) are not letting it go. What the Lord Jesus says of creation’s every square inch, we say of the term neocalvinist. 😉 You can discern how we are using the term by how we define it.

     The distinction Calvin makes in Institutes, II.2.13 is not at all problematic for neocalvinists. If, however, one was to confuse Calvin’s pragmatic use of the terms for Paul’s use of ‘earthly’ as sin vs. ‘things above’ (e.g. Colossians 3), then you have the antithesis, and not the distinction Calvin is making here. In any case, nothing in Calvin’s distinction or his treatment of the issue precludes a Christian cultivation of earthly things (e.g., liberal arts, etc).

     As to our undisputed and unembarrassed use of the prefix “neo,” we hold this in terms of a (non-ecclesial, non-theological) worldview and social philosophy indicating a consistent, but genuine development in Calvinistic thinking along these lines (e.g. sphere sovereignty). In things ecclesial and confessional, we simultaneously and without tension hold to the prefix “paleo” (even though, like you, many of us hold to the 1789 American Revision).

     LikeLike

178. Yes, I can see how my approach here lacks certain qualifications. I think I’ll come back to that point when I finish digesting Ken Myers.

     Still, I want to emphasize that zeal (“passion”) in executing one’s calling is laudable, not contemptible, under the aegis of faith. It is eminently Scripture and has Reformed historical precedent. To use an old-school term, I care not one whit whether it make me New-Schooly or not.

     Can call this a point of common ground also?

     JRC

     LikeLike

179. Still, I want to emphasize that zeal (”passion”) in executing one’s calling is laudable, not contemptible, under the aegis of faith. It is eminently Scripture and has Reformed historical precedent. To use an old-school term, I care not one whit whether it make me New-Schooly or not.

     Can call this a point of common ground also?

     I hope I never conveyed that passion is contemptible under the aegis of faith (since God made passion, it’s quite laudable, or “very good”). I just take issue with it being normative to living by faith, especially given that my humanity as a sinner is just way more complex than that.

     But, for my part, I’m doing all I (miserably) can to be faithful to the Old School, so, where you may not, I do care a few whits about these distinctions and which school recongizes me as a student–I’ve paid good money in tuition fees.

     LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.