David Koyzis, over at Notes from a Byzantine-Rite Calvinist, takes issue with the two-kingdom critique of neo-Calvinism. The particular piece that provoked him was first published here.
Koyzis is not moved by arguments about what the Bible does and does not reveal, or by what properly belongs or does not belong to the church’s authority. He concedes that the Bible does not speak to a host of matters, and that the church as institution should not regulate a wide swath of human endeavor. But because the Bible teaches that everything we do should be done to the glory of God, and because Scripture also prohibits idolatry, something that clings to everything human beings touch, the neo-Calvinist project is still in order. We still need, Koyzis argues, to find a Christian outlook on politics, the arts, economics, and the rest of subjects taught and studied in modern learning. He writes, “Disparage as he might the supposed pandemic of world-and-life-viewitis amongst evangelical Christians, Hart’s approach does not represent a workable alternative.” If we want discernment “with respect to the idolatries afoot in ‘secular’ areas of life,” Koyzis recommends turning away from two-kingdom thought to neo-Calvinism.
Part of the basis for this critique is the drift of secular culture, its influence upon universities, and neo-Calvinism’s apparent capacity to remedy the situation. (One point that neo-Calvinists don’t seem to understand about two-kingdom thought is that the two-kingdom view is not a solution to this world’s problems; two-kingdom folk actually don’t believe solutions will come in this fallen world until the consummation.) So Koyzis complains about the toxic mix of secularism, idolatry, and Christians who simply stand back and watch the accident happen.
Many two-kingdom advocates are not pleased with the way the West is going, or the state of higher learning in North America. But we are befuddled that folks like Koyzis do not seem to notice that most of the places where neo-Calvinism has tried to remedy secularism have also brought liberal Protestantism (or at least a movement away from Reformed Christianity) with it. Frankly, I like the Dutch, maybe even more than hard-core Vossians and Van Tillians. I spent four great years in the Christian Reformed Church. They even ordained me as an elder. And for that reason I do not write with glee about the effects of world-view thinking on communions like the CRC, where in seeking to establish the Lordship of Christ over all spheres of life, his Lordship over the keys of the kingdom seems a lot less firm. And what has happened in the CRC only seems to follow what happened in the Netherlands to many of the institutions that Abraham Kuyper, the granddaddy of neo-Calvinists, founded.
If the record of neo-Calvinism was strong in preserving both the Canons of Dort and a Christian view of medicine, then I would be much less inclined to be critical of the Kuyperians. But precisely because Koyzis does not seem to notice the problems for churches that embrace neo-Calvinism, I will continue to have my reservations. In fact, I often wonder if neo-Calvinist views of the keys of the kingdom are so inconsequential that they start the search for signs of Christ’s Lordship almost anywhere but the church.
Old Life 
If we must find a “Christian outlook on politics, the arts, economics, and the rest of subjects taught and studied in modern learning”, then it would follow that there is only ONE such outlook and thus Christian world view. The question then would be is my world view Christian if it is diametrically opposed to another Christian’s world view. If Koyzis wants a Christian outlook, then it is simple: simply adopt mine.
Obviously, politics, economics etc. is shaped more by our cultural upbringing than by the Bible. Is living in a constitutional monarchy as I do more biblical than living in a republic? Does God really care if our political parties are left or right of centre? Living in a free country allows us choices that many Christians around the world do not have. I appreciate this, but the politics, economics etc. of the country I live in here do not and should not affect my citizenship in His Kingdom. It is truly sad that so many Christians cannot grasp this.
LikeLike
I’ve inhabited the CRC four times longer than the author (don’t ask). To the extent that world-viewitis revolves around education, if only the Dutch Reformed took their confessional heritage half as seriously as they do day schooling, well, if only.
I wonder what it says to the neocalvinists that here at ground zero the local day schools require comparative religion and relegate doctrinal instruction an elective at best. Likely it is explained as an unfortunate way to do neocalvinism. But, presuming the notion that we can have it all is indeed erroneous, when asked to choose between confessional fidelity and dominating the world, that arrangement seems only natural to me (“Tears for Fears†were onto something). I recall my “Bible as Literature†course at the secular university and having to endure the world-and-life evangelicals openly denigrate the very conception of the class. Sure is ironic that their kids can compare world religions but think the construction of guilt, grace and gratitude is an example of alliteration.
LikeLike
I don’t know if Koyzis would agree, but as a neocalvinist, I don’t think neocalvinism is something for churches to embrace at all, except in so far as they confess a part of sphere sovereignty taught in the Bible, sometimes known as the “spirituality of the church” (and the distinction of things ecclesial from things civil).
And the CRC (and/or any related church in the Netherlands) is about as good an example of neocalvinism as they are Reformed confessionalism. If CRC’ers claim to be neocalvinists, well so what? They claim to be confessional too. Fact is they are neither.
Anyway, the “solution” that neo-twokingdom’ism (like Hart’s) fail to represent –but that neocalvinism does represent– is not one of bringing the consummation before final judgment, but of how Christians can better understand what glorifying God and idolatry mean in terms of the non-ecclesial. Koyzis’ book on political ideologies offers a neocalvinist evaluation that neo-twokingdom’ers should consider seriously.
LikeLike
It’s been a while since I looked at Koyzis’ book and I will do so again. But I fear — and this is one of my complaints against neo-Calvinists — that Koyzis will not give credit to other secular critiques of modern politics, like those from Robert Nisbet, Eric Voegelin, Wendell Berry, and others. My own sense is that because these guys are not the right kind of Christian, they engage in a kind of idolatry themselves, or their critiques of the modern state do not measure up to glorifying God. Since when does politics have to do that?
LikeLike
“… now therefore be wise O kings,
be instructed you judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry …”
This might be prooftexting if it weren’t for all the other places God shows concern for justice (unwieghted to either the rich or the poor), condemns bribes and dishonest wieghts, and promised judgement on perpetrators of bloodthirsty unjust war. When non-Cavinists recognize these moral obligations, I’m happy, and when they deny them, I know they’re wrong because God says they are.
To Wout, I don’t think that Kuyperian/VanTillian Calvinism means there is a single best form of government, any more than there is a single best automobile, or printed T-shirt. We judge all these based on their intended and actual consequences. Certain biblical injunctions (see above) and realities (fallenness of man, etc.) inform our intended goal for government, and how we reach it; they don’t proscribe it in detail any more than Newton’s Laws proscribe the blueprint for the Space Shuttle.
LikeLike
Here’s just a random example of how Koyzis credits non-neocalvinist thinkers (in this case political theorists), in his obit for Bernard Crick:
http://byzantinecalvinist.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html#2766600136379417895
Per Hart’s criticism of neocalvinism as trying to bring consummation before judgment, Koyzis interestingly writes:
“Influenced by Aristotle and Hannah Arendt, Crick views politics as an irreplaceable and irreducible activity that peacefully conciliates the diverse interests in society. Politics in this sense is untidy and rarely conforms to every aspiration people would impose on it. It is necessarily limited and cannot solve every problem. Yet we cannot do without it.”
So, here is Koyzis both appreciating “common grace insights” and affirming that politics is not messianic. Now, what honest impression does this give you of neocalvinism? I cannot imagine it is in accord with the impression you seem to have (and give) of it.
LikeLike
Oh, and Darryl, we neocalvinists believe that believers’ political activity has to “measure up” to glorifying God ever since God required that whatever we do be for His glory.
Was your question a serious one?
LikeLike
Baus, if politics is as compromised as Koyzis concedes, why would you call for a Christian view of politics? The very word “Christian” implies normativity and solutions, not compromise with messiness.
LikeLike
Baus, It was serious and shows how neo-Calvinists will take one text and use it selectively, which is not to follow a Reformed hermeneutic. That hermeneutic says that clear texts should interpret obscure texts. Doing everything to the glory of God and applying that to politics is pretty obscure. Punishing evil and promoting good (Rom. 13) is less obscure. Which is to say, I’m much more content to use the language of justice (proximate that is) in relation to the state and politics, than I am the redemptive categories of idolatry and blasphemy. But for all the apparent deference to sphere sovereignty, neo-Calvinists do a fine job of committing sphere-creep.
LikeLike
I not sure how you got the impression, as it seems you have, that Koyzis or neocalvinism supposes politics to be irredeemably dirty; as though it necessitates compromising one’s moral and/or political principles. The point made was that exercising one’s political responsibilities can be complex, involved, often ‘unsystematic,’ and yields mixed results.
Yes, these responsibilities are normed, and these are rightly understood and discharged Christianly, even if it is exercised fallibly.
LikeLike
The Reformed hermeneutic of analogy of Scripture does not imply that every text unclear to you is therefore an obscure text.
It is perspicuous enough to many Reformed interpreters that one can and should do proximate justice to the glory of God. Do you suggest that Christians should seek a proximate justice that fails to glory God or that dishonors Him? How odd.
As for “sphere-creep” (good term, but too “accidental” in connotation), the violation of a principle is no evidence of its being false.
LikeLike
Yes, these responsibilities are normed, and these are rightly understood and discharged Christianly, even if it is exercised fallibly.
I (still) wonder what this looks like, to discharge a secular duty “Christianly.” My impression is that this really means nothing more profound than to do a common thing well. But my Hindi and Mormon neighbors do things at least as well as my neo-Calvinist neighbors.
It seems to me that when something is done “Christianly” it must be something only a Christian can do, which is to say a sacred duty. Believer and non- can honestly pay their taxes, but only the former can (fallibly) utter the Creed. All men can pursue justice, but only a few can (fallibly) attend the means of grace. Instead of “doing a thing Christianly” why can’t it be “doing a Christian thing”?
LikeLike
Zrim, as I’ve tried to emphasize with you and Hart before, let me suggest again:
frankly admitting your ignorance of what it means to do culture Christianly is an important first step. It would be a very bad second step to jump to the conclusion that what you are ignorant of must therefore not exist.
You aren’t able to hear the answer (to what you’re ostensibly wondering about) if you cling to the ignorance-grounded assumption that everything non-ecclesial must be non-Christian in every significant sense.
LikeLike
Baus,
I guess I’m much too concrete, but suffer my immaturity. What I need are examples to make the point. I’ve given examples of “doing a Christian thing†(e.g. uttering the Creed, attending the means of grace). What would be an example of “doing a thing Christianlyâ€? How does one know if he’s done something Christianly or done something un-Christianly? Also, what is the principled difference between doing a thing Christianly and doing it well?
My categories would be whether something has been done “in faith†(a believer) or “without faith†(an unbeliever), which would mean every Christian does everything “in faith†and every unbeliever does everything “without faith.†Both have an equal shot at doing a thing well or poorly and right or wrong.
LikeLike
Baus writes: “You aren’t able to hear the answer (to what you’re ostensibly wondering about) if you cling to the ignorance-grounded assumption that everything non-ecclesial must be non-Christian in every significant sense.”
But you aren’t answering our question is you keep assuming that Christianity exists outside the communion of saints where knees are bowed and tongues confess Christ as Lord and savior. You keep asserting we don’t understand. But could it be that you don’t understand another way of considering and construing Christianity? Is the neo-Calvinist ghetto that provincial? Oh, I get it. You have THE worldview (read: epistemology).
LikeLike
I think Zrim’s point on the difference between “Christianly” and “well” gets to the heart of the issue. I would say there is no difference between the two. If our God is the God of our religion and the rest of life, creator of the physical and the spiritual, then to do something well is to do it in alignment with reality (as God created it) and morality (as God dictated it). To worship well/Christianly is to come through Christ alone – other worship is done “badly”. To build a rocket well/Christianly requires an acknowledgement of the physical laws God dictated on day 1. Of course, in the latter case, further spiritual benefit is gained by acknowledging the Creator, while the atheist is blinded and ungrateful. If the ability of unbelievers to do something means it cannot be done “Christianly”, then caring for orphans and widows, forgiving one another, and loving your wife cannot be done Christianly. Which, in a strange twist, makes a whole lot of the Bible irrelevant to living Christianly.
LikeLike
Andrew, I could not disagree more. Your comment leaves no category for judging brilliant the likes of a Leon Kass’ book, A Hungry Soul. It is more than done well. And he’s not a Christian. It could be that to conform to the truths of God the creator and those of God the redeemer are two different (though overlapping) things. Same God, two orders. Which is why Paul could contrast the (real) wisdom of the Greeks with the superior wisdom of the cross. Both are wise. But only one saves.
LikeLike
Andrew,
54,000 points for forthrightly admitting the two adverbs are analogous.
Deduct 60,000 points, however, for logic forcing me to have to violate the fifth commandment. I was not reared by a believing set of parents, but their parenting sure gave the other fellow pagans (and Christians) I knew a run for their money. By your logic, I have to say to not be “Christianly†in parenting is not do it well. That is both untrue and disparaging of my folks. For shame.
LikeLike
In the spirit of rapprochement, I will agree with both Hart and Zrim. The overlapping categories of Creation and Redemption are convenient, and allow us to acknowledge Kass is brilliant in one area and blind in another. To say the Created order is unified is not to deny categories and gradation wholesale. Alexander the Great was a brilliant tactician and a debauched megalomaniac. Non-Christian parents may do their job better on the whole than many Christian parents, and it is our Christian duty to honor them for that. My point in unifying “Christian” and “well” is that all standards derive from the same source, the One Creator and Redeemer, who is the God of the Bible. As Jesus points out in the parable of the two sons (Matt. 21:28), to acknowledge a command and to follow it are two different things. Many secularists are better “doers” in many areas. So be it. But they are better on God’s terms.
LikeLike
Andrew,
My point in unifying “Christian†and “well†is that all standards derive from the same source, the One Creator and Redeemer, who is the God of the Bible.
Yes, I think that is what many might mean when they conflate the two, namely that everything right, true and good derives from the one true creator and redeemer God. What 2Ker could disagree?
The problem, however, is that to collapse the terms is to really confuse what may be intended; it is actually to sabotage yourself. That’s the optimistic take. The pessimistic one is that you actually mean to convey that there really is a Christian way to bake bread, raise kids or conduct statecraft. Most neo-Calvinists, at least mine, seem regularly confused as to which way they want this all to go. There is both a fine line and wide distinction between these things. And if one is unwilling to make these distinctions I fail to see how one isn’t saying there is such a thing as a Christian salad.
LikeLike