Nelson Kloosterman, professor of Ethics and New Testament Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, is laying it on thick in a series for Christian Renewal, a Dutch-Canadian Reformed news and opinion magazine. The series is entitled, “The Bible, The Church, and the World: A Third Way.” In it, Kloosterman attempts to forge a middle ground between theonomy on the one side and two-kingdom theology on the other. Dr. K tips his hand by calling two-kingdom advocates such as Misty Irons, Meredith Kline, and D. G. Hart “religious secularists.” (“Secular” is to “secularism” what “behavior” is to “behaviorism” or what “material” is to “materialism.”)
In his most recent articles, Dr. K. has taken a detour into the subject of Christian schooling (though the skeptic might wonder if Kloosterman determined to go after two kingdom theology specifically to score points in current debates within the URC about requirements for church officers to support and send their children to Christian day schools). Three of the articles in what is so far a fourteen-part series in this interlude on Christian education are called, “Mandate or Millstone: The URC and Christian Education.”
Several aspects of Kloosterman’s arguments are highly objectionable even if predictable among neo-Calvinists and their theonomic cousins. First, he engages in fear mongering. In addition to using “religious secularism” instead of “paleo-Calvinism,” “two kingdom theology,” or “Reformed confessionalism” – all terms or phrases that would be less provocative – Dr. K. invokes “Lutheran” to show that his adversaries are not Reformed. I am not sure when “Lutheran” became a four-letter word, but a time existed when the Dutch Reformed recommended Lutheran churches to Dutch Calvinists who could not find a Reformed church if moving to a new location or while traveling. In addition, he asserts that public schooling is “the most consistent” option for two-kingdom proponents. Mentioning public schools is always like throwing a piece of red meat to the opponents of “Heather Has Two Mommies” or “Gay-Lesbian-Transgender” Month at Ralph Waldo Emerson Junior High. Dr. K. also alleges that two-kingdom advocates oppose “the validity of Christian schools.” Huh? I know of several professors at a certain seminary in the southwestern region of the United States who argue for the two-kingdom view, are strong Klineans, send their children to Christian schools, and even serve on the board of a Christian day school. But Dr. K. does not let facts get in the way of a good two-kingdom scare; many godly Reformed Christians believe in Christian schools and assume that anyone who does not share this belief is an enemy or worse, a liberal.
And this is exactly the problem with Dr. K.’s argument. He says he is offering a third way. But on Christian schools he offers only two options – either Millstone or Mandate. The two-kingdom view is actually a third way, one that neither sees Christians schools as a rock or a hard place.  In the two-kingdom scheme as it is in the sphere sovereignty outlook, education is the responsibility of parents, and they need to have wisdom about how best to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. For some children a Christian school is a welcome alternative, especially for those whose parents have the means to afford tuition. For other children, home schooling is the best option. For others still, public schooling is the most conducive to the circumstances of a family in a particular community. In all of these cases, parents cannot turn over their kids to the teacher and let educators do the vital work that God assigns to parents, namely, to pass on the faith once delivered. But saying that God requires parents to pass on the faith is not the same thing as saying that God requires Christians schools for those who would be officers in the church. It’s akin to saying because God opposes injustice, he hates capitalism. Capitalism may be what I hate, and I may desire to have God on my side, but I need to fill in a few premises before getting to the conclusion involving God’s will.
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.”
Dr. K. even seems to be aware of the wobbliness of his argument. At one point he concedes that “worldview Calvinism did not exist as such in the seventeenth century.” That would be one reason for calling his version of Calvinism “neo” and the two-kingdom version “paleo.” But this does not stop him from claiming that on the basis of Dutch Reformed history, Christian schooling is a mandate for the URC.
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. The fundamentalist thinks that he knows that smoking destroys the temple of the Holy Spirit so he believes that all Christians should abandon tobacco products. The Pharisees knew that adding a few extra statutes – they took some cues from Eve here – would help to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath. Likewise, Dr. K. thinks Christian schools are good for his children, he knows that his parents and grandparents thought the same, and so he makes Christian education a mandate for all Reformed Christians (why he spends so much time going after Orthodox Presbyterians is a real conundrum).
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.
177 Comments
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.”
It might be helpful if you saw neo-Kuyperians and others as different from rather than weaker than yourself in faith.
JRC
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.
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
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.â€
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.â€
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.
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
No, that’s Exhaustively Mandative Biblicism. You’ve conflated the two again.
By “can’t” I assume you mean “should not”, yes?
OK. So now, consider again my definition of “Framework Biblicism”:
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Mike,
Thanks for the kind word.
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.
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
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.
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
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:
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:
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
One more possible point of common ground. The Confession says this about good works:
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
Jeff, what does passion have to do with it? Your experimental/pietistic Calvinism is peeking through.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Zrim, word up on the point regarding the 2k view of transformationalism, and the transformational view of the Enlightenment.
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:
http://www.marshillaudio.org/resources/pdf/ComGrace.pdf
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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
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,
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
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.
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!):
Exactly so.
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
It is hard to read those quotes and not think you have a point.
Thank you Dr. Hart. You made my day.
I’m not sure my comment is worthy of such significance. Have you considered getting a life?
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.â€
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.â€
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.”
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.â€
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.
Zrim,
The words “ivory” and “tower” come to mind.
E
2 Trackbacks