For Doug Wilson Apparently Being Reformed Means Evangelicalism That Is Effective
March 1st, 2010 by Darryl G. Hart
Doug Wilson joins the Bayly Bros in heaping scorn on our good friend Scott Clark and the case for recovering the Reformed confessions. To Doug’s credit, he avoids the vituperative edge that characterizes the Baylys’ outbursts.
What unites Wilson and the Brothers Bayly in their criticism of Clark, apart from disdain for Meredith Kline, mind you, one of the true geniuses of twentieth-century Reformed Christianity, is nostalgia for Geneva. Of course, this is not the Geneva that sent Castellio packing or Servetus to the flames – well, it is, but most contemporary pining for Geneva manages to overlook the downside of Constantianism even when practiced by Reformer pastors.
Wilson is writing in response to a piece that Clark did for Table Talk on what evangelicals should expect from a Reformed church. Clark tries to cushion the blow that might come from the doctrinal, polity, and liturgical trappings that disorient the average born-again Christian. When Clark explains that “confessional churches are isolated from both the old liberal mainline and the revivalist traditions” and so offer an alternative to liberal and evangelical Protestantism, Wilson goes off.
First, Wilson laments Clark’s isolationism. Not only are Reformed confessionalists separated from evangelicals and liberals, but also “from the cultural potency of Reformed theology and piety.” This is lamentable because for Wilson, the Reformed theology that he has read and studied “built a great civilization.” In contrast, Clark’s brand of Reformed theology, that of “the truncated brethren,” “would have trouble building a taco stand.”
Wilson also takes exception to Clark’s claim that confessional churches today approximate the churches of the sixteenth century more than other Protestant congregations. For Wilson, this is patently untrue because the sixteenth-century Reformed churches were actually Reformed cities – that is, they were more than merely religious institutions. They were civil polities where supposedly Calvinism shaped all of Geneva’s or Strasbourg’s or Edinburgh’s life (tell that to the magistrates who stuck their neck out against the Holy Roman Empire and hired the Reformed pastors). This suggests that Wilson regards Reformed Protestantism as a way of taking names and kicking butt.
Furthermore, when Clark claims that evangelicals coming to Reformed churches will need time to acclimate to the new spiritual environment, Wilson retorts that Clark has the picture “exactly backwards” because Clark’s otherworldly version of the Reformed faith turns out to be warmed over evangelicalism (read: pietism). According to Wilson:
As an evangelical, and the son of an evangelical, allow me to give my testimony. I was part of the exodus from pop evangelicalism (not historic evangelicalism). I was sick of the cultural irrelevance and impotence of “believe in Jesus, go to Heaven when you die.” I was sick of a pietism that couldn’t find its way out of the prayer closet. I wanted to stop confessing that Jesus was Lord of an invisible seventeenth dimension somewhere. Why not here? Why not now? It was a long story, but the trail to historic evangelicalism, God-honoring worship, and a culturally potent and world transforming faith led me straight to the Reformed faith — the same faith that John Calvin and his successors confessed. Calvin preached to milkmaids and Calvin wrote letters to princes. Calvin drafted catechisms, and he drafted ordinances for the city council. Calvin thought that the idea of a civil society without enforcement of the first table of the law was “preposterous.” Calvin was a loyal son of Christendom, as am I.
It is remarkable that Wilson would seemingly dismiss the idea of people going to heaven, unless he thinks that this world is more than a foretaste but an actual embodiment of the world to come. I mean, people who milk cows to the glory of God still die, at which point the realities of the after life become fairly pressing compared to a Reformed way to pasteurize milk.
Also odd is Wilson’s sleight of hand regarding “pop” and “historic” evangelicalism. My own testimony (both from experience and study) instructs me that appeals to historic evangelicalism generally depend less on historical realities and more to the point the appellant is trying to make. Does Wilson really mean to suggest that Clark has more in common with Joel Osteen than Carl Henry? Let me testify again and say that I’ve spent time with Clark and know that his locks cannot compete with Osteen’s.
But the really arresting aspect of Wilson’s critique of Clark is the idea that cultural relevance and effective change of this world is what characterizes Reformed Christianity. I get it that post-Niebuhr and post-Kuyper Wilson’s brand of transformationalism is par for the course. But what is shocking is the conceit that Reformed are more effective than evangelicals in changing things.
The history of Protestantism in the United States shows that the groups that were most influential in creating the Protestant establishment and its many institutions, along with a civil religion that made the greatest nation on God’s green earth unfriendly to Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and other forms of infidelity, were those evangelicals like Charles Finney and Lyman Beecher, or the ecumenical and liberal Protestants like Josiah Strong and Reinhold Niebuhr. Funny how Calvinism did not characterize those influential voices.
The reason for evangelicalism’s can-do body (as well as spirit) has to do with the inherently activistic and this-worldly faith of born-again Protestantism. Here I am reminded of Mark Noll’s response to a paper by Nick Wolsterstorff about the need for evangelicals to become more engaged in cultural and social matters. Noll said that telling evangelicals to be more active was like pointing an addict to dope.
So Doug Wilson may be the real evangelical. He may be more culturally relevant and effective than Clark and other two-kingdom proponents, though I hear that even in Moscow, Idaho the work of cultural clean up is not perhaps a model for taking on the rest of the nation, globe, or cosmos. Granted, if Wilson can rid the United States of automobiles, Walmart, and illegal drugs, I won’t complain. But I would ask that he put church reform higher on his list. All the infidelity among churches that claim to be Christian (even some Reformed communions) certainly appears to be a matter of greater alarm than getting non-believers to conform outwardly to the manners and customs of Credenda Agenda ‘s readers.
Which means that if Wilson think’s Reformed confessionalism’s dualism is bad ju ju, his works righteousness is bad do do (is the works righteousness of do doism ever good?).
Tags: activism, Calvinism, Confessionalism, culture wars, David Bayly, Doug Wilson, evangelicalism, Scott Clark, Tim Bayly, two-kingdoms
Speaking of sounding modernist, what’s up with insisting that there has to be a common book to which we can appeal?
I’m Presbyterian. We like books, polity, rules, order, institutions, etc. You are now sounding like the modern spiritualist who has Jesus in his heart and wonders what gives with organized religion. Have you heard that phrase “people of the Book”?
DGH: Okay, Jeff, how do you square II.2 with IV 20, especially when Calvin introduces the entire discussion in IV 20 by distinguishing sharply along the same lines in II.2, as in between earthly and heavenly things, and that to fail to distinguish them is to commit a Judaic folly.
OK, but take a look at where he goes with it. The “failure to distinguish them” is leveled against Anabaptists, who wrongly imagine that there is the same degree of liberty in the civil government as there is in the gospel.
So how do you get from there to REPT?
It seems to me that Calvin is saying religion is important to a regime, and that the Christian religion is the best. I see that anti-2kers get that. But they don’t generally get the point about distinguishing between the things of the spirit and the things of the body, and so locating redemption in the former.
OK, I can understand that criticism towards those who confuse service with redemption.
But that’s not where we are…
If that premise is accepted, Calvin is on the road to WCF 1789 and a revised understanding of the magistrate.
Possibly so. But since I’m not arguing against WCoF 1789 …
BTW, the French Reformed who stayed in France argued differently. They didn’t want the king enforcing the true religion because that meant killing Protestants.
Yes, well, freedom of religion always looks better to the minority and not so good to the majority.
A positive feature of REPT is that it asks the majority to restrain itself in this regard.
Zrim: Pardon the potential but unintended put-down, but now you’re sort of behaving a little sophomoric, like my children when they claim they have no idea what I’m talking about when I point out their misdeeds: “you’re telling me to behave, but you haven’t defined that.” More fubar.
This would be an appropriate response if you were my parent.
But between peers, asking for and giving definitions of terms is standard procedure.
Jeff,
I’m a bit confused by your use of “modernist.” It seems that you’re criticizing any realist notion of truth. In so doing, you seem to be equating epistemic realism with epistemic foundationalism. Because of the fall, any Christian would have to reject a theory of NL that rested on a foundationalist view of truth. But a Christian can appeal to NL based on a coherentist view of truth, as evidenced by the work of Anscombe, Plantinga, Wolterstorff, etc.
In contrast, you seem to deny the possibility of coherentism. In doing so, you appear to believe that the Christian must elect between two options: (1) a foundationalist NL approach, and (2) a type of Christian antirealism. We both agree that the former is untenable. Therefore, you suggest that your Christian antirealism wins by default.
But here’s the rub: You never explain why a coherentist approach to NL must fail. Instead, you skirt the issue by pretending that Zrim’s coherentist arguments are actually foundationalist arguments. Well, I think that he’s made clear what he means.
Sorry for not using the language of 2K. Maybe, as an Anglican, I’m just not comfortable with the terminology of covenant theology. But it seems to me, that this debate revolves around whether natural revelation can provide a sufficient or coherent basis for a just society, or whether the fall renders us incapable of having a just society in the absence of divine command. Jeff, I won’t begrudge you if you believe that the divine command is necessary for justice. But at least explain why you believe that it’s necessary without resorting to straw-man arguments.
Jeff, you wrote, “My question is, ‘To what standard am I as a Christian accountable in my common endeavors?” Yours appears to be, “How can we build a common society?’” Sorry but it seems you are working at cross purposes. At some points you’ve been saying what is the Christian magistrate to do. That involves governing a common society. Now you shift ans say it is about the standard you use for common endeavors.
You also say that you are not arguing against the American revision of the WCF. But by denying the sufficiency of NL you are implicitly, since the only way that the work of governing a religiously diverse society proceeds is by using NL. Again, you seem to exist in some sort of Roger Williams land of your own making, neither 2k nor 1k, neither NL nor biblicist, neither Clark nor Frame. But where it is no one can say.
I also don’t think that Calvin was simply arguing against Anabaptists when he wrote “whoever knows who to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. Since, then, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and enclose Christ’s Kingdom within the elements of this world, let us rather ponder that what Scripture clearly teaches is a spiritual fruit, which we gather from Christ’s grace . . . ”
Funny how he says that recognizing the difference between earthly and spiritual things makes it easy to deny the kingdom theology implied by looking for the kingdom in the city, the United States, or the right side of the culture wars. But it is precisely that distinction, easy for Calvin, that neo-Calvinists reject as fundamentalist dualism.
But between peers, asking for and giving definitions of terms is standard procedure.
Jeff, my pointed point was that it has indeed been done, over and over. Your procedure has been to act like it hasn’t. This is because you essentially deny that the law is written on the human heart. As Bob suggests, and as I have indicated, this is the key difference between us. And I am stumped as to how you don’t see yourself at odds with Paul and the Reformed understanding of the first use of the law.
And to reinforce dgh’s point, it seems to me that yours is a sort of no-man’s land. It’s a bit like that fellow who wants to straddle soteriologically between Calvinism and Arminianism, but neither Gomarus nor Arminius would know what to do with such a creature. Sometimes moderation works, sometimes it just doesn’t make much sense.
Bob: I’m a bit confused by your use of “modernist.” It seems that you’re criticizing any realist notion of truth.
No, I was just yanking Zrim’s chain a bit. Previously, he had leveled the charge of “modernism” at me; I was just pointing out that the desire to build the city of man on a common denominator is essentially the modernist project.
I have no problem with cohericist theories of truth; Frame, for example, would probably count as a kind of cohericist, and I’m comfortable with his epistemological approach.
DGH: Jeff, you wrote, “My question is, ‘To what standard am I as a Christian accountable in my common endeavors?” Yours appears to be, “How can we build a common society?’” Sorry but it seems you are working at cross purposes. At some points you’ve been saying what is the Christian magistrate to do.
My concern is, a Christian magistrate walks into the office on Monday. His goal is to love God and neighbor and to glorify God in his common calling. He is accountable to God for this goal. How does he accomplish it?
I don’t see that I’ve moved away from this concern.
Zrim: Not sure what to say. On this side of the keyboard I’m seeing evasion, not repeated definition. It’s just wrong to say that I “deny that the law is written on the human heart.” I *do* deny, at this point, that Scripture teaches that the law written on the human heart is sufficient for governance.
Jeff,
If the Law written on our hearts is insufficient for governance, that is to tell humans how they should live, why is it sufficient to condemn those who do not have the privilege of special revelation? It seems that you arguing that this general revelation is insufficient to inform men through their consciences as to how they should behave as individuals and as corporate groups. How do you square this with Romans 1-3?
Again, define “sufficient.” I’m not trying to be pedantic here. The problem is that you’re asking me to accept that Natural Law is (warm fuzzy word) without telling me what it means.
Ok, Jeff, here is the definition of natural law per Van Drunen:
“Natural law refers to the basic moral obligations that God makes known to all people through his natural revelation, even apart from Scripture. This law is made manifest in creation itself and is perceived through the testimony of conscience. All human beings know this law of God, though as sinners they also actively suppress its truth. See for instance passages Romans 1:9-20, 32; 2:14-15.”
And per Reformer Girolamo Zanchi:
“Natural law is the will of God, and consequently, the divine rule and principle for knowing what to do and what not to do. It is, the knowledge of what is good or bad, fair or unfair, upright or shameful, that was inscribed upon the hearts of all people by God himself also after the fall. For this reason, we are all universally taught what activities should be pursued and what should be avoided; that is, to do one thing and to avoid another, and we know that we are obligated and pushed to act for the glory of God, our own good, and the welfare of our neighbor both in private and in public. In addition, we know that if we do what should be avoided or avoid what we should do, we are condemned; but if we do the opposite, we are defended and absolved.”
And according to Webster-Merriam “sufficient” means “enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.” It is synonymous with “enough” and “adequate.”
The natural law, as defined above, is enough or adequate to build a civil and just society. And by civil or just I don’t mean perfect. I mean something adequate, proximate, enough. And if you believe that the natural law is indeed written on the human heart, I fail to see why it is inadequate to do its job, unless you are presume something different from me by civil and just, which is to say, perfect or exact. That is what I think you mean, which explains why we are at odds. Special revelation is sufficient to create and maintain a fallible church, and natural revelation is sufficient to maintain a fallible world.
Jed, what exactly does Rom 1 – 3 teach? As I read it, Paul says
(1) That men are without excuse because God’s divine nature is clearly seen from what is made.
(2) That conscience condemns and excuses us, so that we are without excuse.
Where in here is “natural law is sufficient for governance”?
The purpose of the natural law, articulated in Rom 1 – 3, is condemnation. And the condemnation happens because men have some sense that they have an obligation to God, to worship him. And they suppress this truth.
Further, Paul goes on to say that
(3) God has given mankind over to foolishness.
So what remains is a reason to believe that Paul is intending to say that this natural law is a sufficient basis to construct the laws of nations.
I just don’t see it. And Calvin, at least, appears to deny it, since he requires that laws be tested against the two tables of the law.
Jeff,
Thanks, these are some tough questions, and warranted. Simply, if the NL is sufficient to condemn the whole of humanity in their sin, then it seem reasonable to infer that it is sufficient to govern them, otherwise it looses all juridical power.
As I understand it, God gave his law to Israel to give further clarification, and legal definition to his kingdom that was irrupting into the fallen kingdoms of men. It gave the legal perameters whereby His Kingdom was to be governed, and despite it’s new covenant modifications, it continues to govern his kingdom today and beyond. The NL attests in a general way to the special revelatory specificity of how God’s creation is to be governed. Post-fall, and pre-judgment however, the Law seems to be the effective rule for his kingdom.
As for the fallen kingdoms of men, it is not as if they have descended into utter chaos, otherwise we would have killed each other off a long time ago. There is a law present and active in civil government that keeps some semblance of order and civility in the kingdoms of men that enables God’s kingdom to grow as he in-grafts some from every nation to be his pilgrim people until he consummates his kingdom visibly and without resistance. The very fact that we have not nuked this planet into a level sheet of molten rock testifies to the effectiveness of the NL to serve it’s purpose. Maybe NL hasn’t been perfectly applied, but we live in a fallen world, but it has been sufficiently applied for God’s purposes for redemption to be accomplished through it.
Simply, if the NL is sufficient to condemn the whole of humanity in their sin, then it seem reasonable to infer that it is sufficient to govern them, otherwise it looses all juridical power.
I sensed that this is where you were going, and it is the strongest argument in favor of natural law that I can think of.
Two objections spring to mind, and I’ll try to give your comments some more thought this weekend.
(1) The argument makes a jump from individual governance — conscience — to corporate governance. Perhaps this is justifiable, but it needs to be justified, especially since we tend to make a lot of personal / corporate distinctions in this conversation.
(2) If the natural law written on the heart is sufficient for governance according to your argument, then why is it not also sufficient for the common-life behavior of individuals?
And yet, we find that Paul and others find it necessary to give Christians additional instruction about common-life topics.
This fact suggests that perhaps the natural law is a minimum floor, but not necessarily “good enough” or “sufficient.”
Thanks for the thoughts.
Zrim, just noticed yours … gotta run, but thanks for the definition.
Jeff,
Some more food for thought:
Re: Objection 1) In Romans Paul is not speaking to individuals standing under the wrath of God, he is speaking to the whole of humanity. So we have it reversed if we are trying to make the flow of his argument individual->humanity; we derive our individual predicaments by unpacking it humanity->individual. The presence of conscience or NL is a collective phenomena.
Re: Objection 2) You have a point here, common life issues under the universal authority of the NL to both individuals and humanity collectively, since this is going to be the basis for God’s judgment of any non-Israelite. How the NL ought to be applied in our fallen system is the real hornets nest. Rest assured theonomists and everyone in-between faces the same challenge though. NL and Moses address adultery, many ancient governments recognized this and the modern state is one of the first to ignore this. Do we outlaw adultery, place it in our penal system? Do we outlaw blasphemy? The stance that I think the 2k-NL rightly maintains is that we do not expect perfect application of the NL in a fallen system, otherwise we wouldn’t be in a fallen system. Frankly, how society is ordered is not a hill I will die on, now if we don’t seriously think rightly through how the church should operate in a secular society that might be a hill we might all die on someday.
I absolutely agree that Paul gives Christians additional common-life instruction, that’s why his letters are addressed “to the saints who are in ______” and not “To all individuals living in the Roman Empire”. It would be a bit silly, and absurdly anachronistic to insist that a pagan must lay his life down for his wife like Christ did for the church if he had not first come to faith in Christ. I think that Paul eschews the notion of imposing a distinctively Christian morality on pagans, he seems very astute however in instructing Christians how they should live out their faith in the common sphere.
I think Zrim’s definitions of sufficient suggests a minimum standard (BTW – thanks Zrim). It seems to me that you have a vaguely defined inclination to have that bar raised in the common realm through an infusion of biblical madates, I am not sure to what though. If there are bars to be raised under the auspices of NL, such as the abortion issue, the due process of law needs to be employed, not a carefully crafted religious argument, as we all know all too painfully, all that the latter results in ineffective preaching to the choir, or Christians pining like Don Quixote for a bygone era when their self-understanding was culturally relevant, always meddling in affairs that are not their immediate concern.
Jeff,
While you’re chewing on Jed’s comments, throw this in for good measure. Muller describes the first use of the law per Reformed (and Lutheran) formulations thus:
“The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis). That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).”
In everything you are saying it doesn’t seem like you have much use for the first use; in point of fact, it suggests you are at relative odds with the greater balance of the Reformation tradition on this score. Maybe not, but maybe you could take pains to explain how exactly do you understand the first use in light of your explicit denial that the law is sufficient for civil governance.
Jeff,
While you’re chewing on others’ related questions, please give additional consideration to my comment regarding a coherentist approach to NL. I found your response, above, to be a bit coy and evasive.
You’ve only acknowledged that coherentism is useful. That doesn’t answer my question. You appear to aver that natural (or general) revelation–alone–cannot serve as a sufficient or coherent basis for corporate justice. Because of this alleged insufficiency, you suggest that we also need to interject some measure of divine command, and to apply that divine command to society as a whole. To the extent that I’ve accurately restated your views, please help me understand why you’ve arrived at this conclusion.
My real concern here, Jeff, is whether your view doesn’t implicitly undercut the need for Christians to pursue wisdom. Attaining wisdom is hard; it is an incremental enterprise that takes diligence, patience, experience, humility, and the like. In my observation, too many in the PCA are prone to rely on biblical mandate as a sort of faux wisdom. See, e.g., World Magazine, BaylyBlog, etc. We recognize (with Paul) that wisdom based on general revelation cannot explain the redemptive significance of Christ. But nowhere does Paul make the Barthian leap and further suggest that Christ’s uniqueness somehow renders all natural reasoning suspect. Yet too many in our communion (I am now in the PCA) have joined with the Barthians in proclaiming the need to “speak truth to power” without regard to how unwise or poorly reasoned their messages are. Whether they intend to or not, these messengers imply that objective reality is altogether untrustworthy, and that we can never hope for any realist notion of truth. What they pander might aptly be called “Christian antirealism”.
I give World Magazine as an example. In years past, I would direct comments to individual journalists at World to alert them to factual misstatements in their stories. In many cases, the these misstatements were pretty egregious, such as misquoting key portions of a judicial opinion. When I did get a response, there was never a retraction of the false statements. There would just be some rambling statement that made generic appeal to Kuyper’s rejection of purely objective fact. I fear that this highlights the dangers inherent in your view. You appear to believe that general revelation is reliable in a very limited way, while World’s editors seem to suggest that it is almost wholly unreliable.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the thoughts.
The nature of the discussion here can lead to some one-sidedness, and if I were step back and evaluate all of my comments by themselves, they would probably suggest a kind of “Christian antirealism” — or what I would call, “incipient Gnosticism.”
In real life, this is not my view. When I taught ethics, for example, to high schoolers, I challenged them to make robustly wise decisions (and actually, I found Frame’s work helpful in doing so).
So I share with you a recognition of and abhorrence of faux wisdom in the form of superficial exegesis.
You appear to aver that natural (or general) revelation–alone–cannot serve as a sufficient or coherent basis for corporate justice. Because of this alleged insufficiency, you suggest that we also need to interject some measure of divine command, and to apply that divine command to society as a whole.
There are two points I’m trying to get across.
First, the version of 2k represented here has immediate application to Christians working in government. It directs their attention to the natural law as the source of their norms in their work.
I’m questioning whether this is an appropriate, Biblically grounded approach to the Christian magistrate.
My own current take on the question is the Scripture provides a normative framework, within which we have the freedom to use natural wisdom.
As far as this point goes, I’m not concerned with sufficiency but normativity: ought we to step away entirely from Scripture’s framework of right and wrong in making decisions in the common realms, OR are we bound by that framework in all of our decisions, sacred and common?
Zrim and Dr. Hart have assured me that in personal matters, Scripture remains normative in both realms, and I believe them.
But in public decisions, we appear to disagree.
Here’s an example: suppose a pediatrician is morally opposed to abortion. If the federal government passes a law requiring her to refer for abortions (such a law was in fact in one of the many iterations of the health-care reform bill), should she obey or quit?
In my view, the Scriptural norm against murder is controlling here. Thus, obeying is simply not an option. Since quitting *is* an option, there’s a solution at hand.
So if the pediatrician is asked “why did you quit?”, the answer would be, “Because the government ordered me to do something contrary to God’s word.”
Zrim, I think, would probably choose the same option; but if asked, his answer (if I understand) would be, “Because the government ordered me to do something against my conscience.”
The problem I have with that is that it makes the conscience the determiner of right and wrong, when in fact Scripture is supposed to train and inform our consciences.
The second argument about sufficiency is really the subordinate argument. Unlike flaming transformationalists, I don’t view the church’s job as the reformation of society, so I’m not concerned as to whether NL or Scripture is the best tool for that fool’s errand.
But the argument came about because I pointed out (about a year ago?!) that the natural law is not ever affirmed in Scripture as the proper basis for civil law; and that in Calvin’s writings, he believes the magistrate and laws in general to be obligated to the decalogue; and that in the Confession, the “general equity” of the moral law is said to be still binding.
Zrim in particular sees in my line of reasoning a threat to the “sufficiency” of the natural law.
And my response is to ask, “Well, what reason to we have to believe that the natural law is sufficient?”
—
I hope this answers your question. To sum up: I’m not afraid that the Christian will adopt natural law and then have an inferior tool for the job. Rather, I’m afraid that the Christian will adopt natural law and never notice that he’s denying the norms of Scripture, because he’s created two separate worlds of thought: sacred and secular. It’s normativity, a la van Til, not sufficiency, that has me worried.
Bob, more about realism, foundationalism, and cohericism:
I hold that truth is seeing things as God sees them. That is, truth is relative to one particular reference frame, namely God’s.
Because we are created in His image, we have a reflection of truth within us, limited by (1) our creatureliness, and (2) sin.
Because of this, humans are limited in their ability to grasp truth, and must approach the question of knowledge with a recognition that their best efforts are going to be approximate. For example, in the physical world I conceive of the scientific enterprise to be creating models that provide predictive power against empirical evidence. This is the best we creatures can do.
Scripture occupies a special place here because it is given to us to guide us first and foremost, with regard to salvation; and secondarily, in regard to what is good and wise. Its function is distinct because it speaks in sentences, over against natural revelation that requires us to formulate sentences about it.
As we approach Scripture we also employ a method of trying to account for all of the data, to provide maximally cogent accounts of the meaning of the text. Here I’m appealing to the Old Princeton method, as well as the Vosian harmony between systematic and biblical theology.
Nevertheless, our creatureliness and our sin imply that our exegeses also are approximate. In this regard, I reject Gordon Clark’s approach and endorse van Til’s, if that makes sense. As a result, we have a need not only for Scripture, but also confirmation of our exegeses through the wisdom of many counselors — namely, the Confession.
From this, I hope that you can see that I take a stance that is staunchly in the “correspondence” camp; partakes somewhat of a foundationalist axiom in terms of Scriptural inerrancy (and also of the validity of the laws of logic); and partakes somewhat of a cohericist method in terms of bringing together multiple lines of evidence to come to a best inference.
Does that answer your question?
Zrim: The natural law, as defined above, is enough or adequate to build a civil and just society. And by civil or just I don’t mean perfect. I mean something adequate, proximate, enough. And if you believe that the natural law is indeed written on the human heart, I fail to see why it is inadequate to do its job, unless you are presume something different from me by civil and just, which is to say, perfect or exact. That is what I think you mean, which explains why we are at odds.
This is helpful. The reason that I’ve pressed the question about the Christian magistrate is this: Is the job of the Christian magistrate to build a just society, or to glorify God in his common calling?
The assumption I’ve been bringing to this is not that we must build an ideal society, but rather that the Christian magistrate has an obligation as a minister of God to glorify God.
And the question now is, does deriving one’s sense of Good from the natural law satisfy that obligation?
It seems to me that Calvin moves in a radically different direction from this. On his account, we know how to glorify God from the Scripture; as a consequence, he glorifies God as a magistrate by testing his laws against the decalogue and the law of charity.
So yes: I think we have been talking about different goals. NOT “good enough” v. “utopia” but rather “building a city” v. “glorifying God in one’s common calling.”
Jed: Objection 1) In Romans Paul is not speaking to individuals standing under the wrath of God, he is speaking to the whole of humanity. So we have it reversed if we are trying to make the flow of his argument individual->humanity; we derive our individual predicaments by unpacking it humanity->individual. The presence of conscience or NL is a collective phenomena.
Interesting. I’ve never read Romans in quite that way. I see the collective as obtaining for all individuals taken together, not for the whole of humanity, distributed.
Or put another way, it appears to me that the role of conscience, the judgment, and the imputation of Adam’s sin occur to each human individual; not to humanity as a group.
Certainly, it is an important feature of Reformed soteriology that Christ died for individuals, not for the collective whole.
I think that Paul eschews the notion of imposing a distinctively Christian morality on pagans, he seems very astute however in instructing Christians how they should live out their faith in the common sphere.
I agree. This is what I’m getting at with the notion of “personal theonomy”: each individual is responsible coram deo for his own life.
Notice that this therefore means that the Bible has something to say to the Christian plumber, and to the Christian magistrate. NOT exhaustive somethings; probably not enough to decide between resoldering a joint or replacing the whole fitting. But the norms in Scripture apply, to the extent that they have anything to say, to both the personal behavior AND the business decisions of the Christian plumber.
It would be a bit silly, and absurdly anachronistic to insist that a pagan must lay his life down for his wife like Christ did for the church if he had not first come to faith in Christ.
Does he lack the obligation or does he lack the ability? That is, when the judgment comes, will the pagan be judged by the Law, or by something else?
Thanks, Jeff.
I would agree with you that Scripture should play a role in informing the conscience of the Christian. For example, consider gossip. NL does not seem to suggest that we should have laws that punish people who gossip (as long as the subject matter of the gossip is true). But that hardly means that Christians are at liberty to gossip. Because Scripture universally condemns gossip, the Christian ought not to do it…whether it pricks the conscience or not.
But when it comes to proposing public policy initiatives, I see no reason why we should reason from Scripture with non-Christians. In some instances, when there is no good NL argument in favor of a proposed law, then it’s a likely signal that such a law is not a good law. For example, that’s why I’m not petitioning my state legislators to criminalize gossip, even though I’d expect my session to discipline an unrepentant gossip within the church.
I’m not sure how this related to inerrancy fits into this. The so-called doctrine of inerrancy rests on epistemological principles that did not even arise before the early modern era. Certainly the Bible can speak clearly and infallibly in the arena of ethics without having to satisfy the tests laid out by Lindsell.
The reason that I’ve pressed the question about the Christian magistrate is this: Is the job of the Christian magistrate to build a just society, or to glorify God in his common calling…So yes: I think we have been talking about different goals. NOT “good enough” v. “utopia” but rather “building a city” v. “glorifying God in one’s common calling.”
Jeff, I don’t see these as separate questions. The Christian’s mandate is to do both. Plug in any common calling and it’s the same. Is the job of the Christian doctor to help sick people or glorify God in his common calling? Is the job of the Christian parent to make human beings or glorify God in his common calling? I don’t understand the need to bifurcate these things. Maybe you could elaborate on why you think these are distinct concerns. For my part, I understand that every believer glorifies God in all s/he does because all that is needed to do so is faith.
Zrim: Jeff, I don’t see these as separate questions. The Christian’s mandate is to do both. Plug in any common calling and it’s the same. Is the job of the Christian doctor to help sick people or glorify God in his common calling? Is the job of the Christian parent to make human beings or glorify God in his common calling? I don’t understand the need to bifurcate these things. Maybe you could elaborate on why you think these are distinct concerns. For my part, I understand that every believer glorifies God in all s/he does because all that is needed to do so is faith.
I fully agree. So now, walk down this road a bit with me.
An unbeliever can build a city. But only the believer can glorify God in doing so (cf. WCoF 16.7). The difference between the two is, as you say, faith.
Both the unbeliever and the believer alike have access to general revelation. So the general revelation is sufficient, adequate, for the building of the city…but not for the glorifying of God therein.
If we glorify God in our common callings by performing them excellently out of faith, it therefore follows that both common-grace wisdom and Scriptural wisdom will be relevant to us in the common sphere.
What this means is that our proposed separation of life into two spheres, sacred (ruled by Scripture) and secular (ruled by natural law) breaks down for the Christian living in the commons. Rather than two separate spheres, he experiences the convergence of two different kinds of knowledge in the same sphere.
So the question is not, “Which sphere am I in? … ah, I should use the knowledge appropriate to that sphere.”
BUT
“How do I coordinate natural wisdom and Scriptural knowledge in one unified manner, so that Scripture remains normative and general revelation remains valid?” (and not Gnostically suspect, as Bob reminds us).
Does this make sense?
In other words, saying that the believer requires faith to carry out his common calling implies that he is to be guided by Scripture in that common calling.
Both the unbeliever and the believer alike have access to general revelation. So the general revelation is sufficient, adequate, for the building of the city…but not for the glorifying of God therein.
Wait. I thought you’ve been maintaining that GR isn’t sufficient for general tasks?
If we glorify God in our common callings by performing them excellently out of faith, it therefore follows that both common-grace wisdom and Scriptural wisdom will be relevant to us in the common sphere.
Well, what I am saying is that faith alone glorfies God, not performing excellently. Indeed, performing excellently, or poorly or somewhere in between, as long as it is done in faith, glorifies God. So when the Christian magistrate or parent or baker or teacher screws up s/he still glorifies God (I am tempted to say weakness glorifies God more than excellence, but it would actually defeat the point of faith alone glorifying God). The unbeliever doing things very well can never glorify God, he can only do things relatively well or not.
But I do agree with you that the believer takes into his common calling both GR and SR. It is as inevitable as it is impossible for the unbeliever to employ SR. But, by definition, SR isn’t immediately relevant to temporal tasks because it is meant for eternal tasks. This brings us back to our fundamental disagreement, I think, which I don’t really want to belabor. What I find interesting is that you seem above to now be saying that GR is sufficient for general tasks. Is this correct? I also find interesting this notion of glorifying God to be faith plus excellence instead of faith alone. Those are two very familiar formulations, if you know what I mean.
Well, we’re both amazed by this turn in the conversation: you because I’m saying that GR is sufficient to build a city; and I because you are saying that the believer will draw on both GR and SR.
I can explain my half. The issue for me is not, has never been, that the Bible provides additional information about city-building or about plumbing that provide the “secret key to building better cities.”
Rather, the issue for me has been that a Christian magistrate sits in the position of being normatively obligated to Scripture, and this normative obligation may well include his common calling in addition to his personal life.
Thus, there fails to be a clean separation between the sacred and secular.
But, by definition, SR isn’t immediately relevant to temporal tasks because it is meant for eternal tasks.
This isn’t true, and it has an uncomfortably Gnostic ring that you probably don’t mean. There is special revelation that directly addresses a variety of temporal tasks.
I think what you mean is that SR doesn’t provide detailed how-to’s about temporal tasks, but that’s different from “being relevant.”
(By way of analogy: the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus doesn’t provide detailed how-to’s for engineers, but it’s pretty darn relevant…)
I also find interesting this notion of glorifying God to be faith plus excellence instead of faith alone.
Think “excellence” in the 3rd Use of the Law sense. As in, “diligent labor in all our callings” (WLC 138). So it’s not being the best under the sun, in the worldly sense, but being the best before God that one can be. This is still entirely compatible with strength being perfected in weakness; the energy for the diligent labor is not of ourselves, but of the Spirit.
Right?
Jeff,
Well, we’re both amazed by this turn in the conversation: you because I’m saying that GR is sufficient to build a city; and I because you are saying that the believer will draw on both GR and SR.
Sorry to be so dense, but if you want to say that GR is sufficient to build a city (which I presume we both agree is a general task) then I don’t understand the relentless need to explicity state that GR is insufficient for general tasks. Huh? But it has never been my intention to say that the believer is somehow hermetically sealed off from holy writ as he goes about his common calling. Maybe I somehow implied that or you inferred it or some combination of the two, but at least I never said “the believer is hermetically sealed off from holy writ” and kept on saying it the way you kept on saying GR is insufficient for general tasks. But wasn’t my point about not worshipping idols or stealing as one goes about his common task enough to show I don’t have the hermetically sealed off sort of view?
Think “excellence” in the 3rd Use of the Law sense. As in, “diligent labor in all our callings” (WLC 138). So it’s not being the best under the sun, in the worldly sense, but being the best before God that one can be. This is still entirely compatible with strength being perfected in weakness; the energy for the diligent labor is not of ourselves, but of the Spirit.
What happens when I’m not “the best that I can be”? After all, sin still clings, my works are but filthy rags and the holiest amongst us (which I am not) make but the slightest advance in this life. Am I still glorifying God? But I don’t see much difference between being better than another and being better than the worst me. They both seem pretty worldly to me.
Jeff, I too am lost in your thoughts. You seem to say that GR is sufficient for building a bridge. But without SR you can’t build a bridge to the glory of God. I don’t see how this in any way is at odds with 2k. GR pertains to the building of bridges and states. SR has to do with the heavenly kingdom. You also write: “Thus, there fails to be a clean separation between the sacred and secular.” Well it depends. For the function of building a bridge there is a clean distinction, and that is why the church is not called to oversee the building of bridges. But the Christian bridge builder does have obligations to GR for getting the bridge right and SR for glorifying God. But just because there is overlap in the being of the believer doesn’t mean the Bible speaks to the mechanics of bridge building. So it looks to me this earthly existence and the one to come are pretty distinct.
Zrim and DGH: Sorry to be so dense, but if you want to say that GR is sufficient to build a city (which I presume we both agree is a general task) then I don’t understand the relentless need to explicity state that GR is insufficient for general tasks. Huh?
The unbeliever builds a city to his own glory. The believer builds a city to the glory of God (hypothetically … sin clouds the picture, I realize).
The difference between them is faith, we agree.
The rule of faith is, of course, the Scripture.
It follows therefore that the GR is sufficient for the unbeliever’s building, but not for the believer’s because building by faith will entail obedience to God’s commands in the building.
So we could address this situation either by making the building and the glorifying two distinct actions (which DGH wants to do); or we could address the situation by saying that the building and the glorifying occur together (which Zrim wants to do). But either way, the building of the city is going to be the occasion for which the Christian is going to employ SR in order to build by faith.
I actually prefer Zrim’s approach here: that the glorifying occurs in the action of building by faith. That seems to be where Scripture and the Confession take us. If we do take that road, the this earthly existence for the believer is in fact a working-out of what the existence to come means, just as sanctification is a working-out of what justification has already declared to be true of us.
That working-out may or may not be obviously different from an unbeliever’s at every point. If I eat to the glory of God, I’m still pretty much eating. But at some points, “eating Christianly” will be obviously different (see for example Ken Meyer’s piece More than Meets the Mouth).
—
Where we’ve arrived is interesting, because we all agree that there is some distinction between cult and culture, and there is some overlap as well. Zrim agrees that SR is not hermetically sealed off from the believer in the common realm. I agree that GR is much more widely used in the common realm.
The problem is describing the nature of the overlap, the circumstances under which SR and GR are jointly used. REPT tends to minimize the importance of the overlap; I’ve tended to magnify the importance of the overlap (once more with feeling … “What about the Christian Magistrate?”
).
The question is, are we looking at black, white, and lots of gray in the middle OR black, white, and a relatively sharp and narrow band of gray in the middle OR something else?
Jeff, I’m not sure about this. You seem to want to conflate the aspects of Christian bridge building so that Scripture is necessary for building a bridge — hence Christian ways to build a bridge. This seems the typical move of Frame. Because something is involved in the other, then you have something other.
But where does the Bible talk about engineering, materials, weight loads, etc.? It doesn’t. And that is why you don’t study the Bible to learn how to build a bridge. Yes, you do study the Bible to learn how to glorify God. But that pertains to every legitimate activity, from building bridges to farming soy beans. In which case, Scripture is necessary for glorifying God. It is insufficient for building bridges to the glory of God because it doesn’t talk about both parts of Christian bridge building.
BTW, the link to Myers didn’t work.
DGH: But that pertains to every legitimate activity, from building bridges to farming soy beans. In which case, Scripture is necessary for glorifying God. It is insufficient for building bridges to the glory of God because it doesn’t talk about both parts of Christian bridge building.
Precisely.
And if Zrim is correct, and I think he is, that the activity of building the bridge is inseparable from the glorifying of God, then we arrive at
P: Scripture is necessary for building a bridge to the glory of God, which is the only kind of bridge-building Christians ought to pursue.
And if Zrim is correct, and I think he is, that the activity of building the bridge is inseparable from the glorifying of God, then we arrive at
P: Scripture is necessary for building a bridge to the glory of God, which is the only kind of bridge-building Christians ought to pursue.
Jeff,
I think I can live with this. But only after reams of exchanges trying to make it clear that nobody, un/believer alike, needs the Bible to build a bridge, which, I think you understand. But I’ve had enough conversations with others who don’t really seem to. They actually seem to think the Bible really is necessary to getting common tasks done, for both un/believer alike. They explicitly say that the Bible should be on the syllabus to medical training, for example.
So, when it is said that “Scripture is necessary for building a bridge to the glory of God, which is the only kind of bridge-building Christians ought to pursue,” I think it means different things to different people. I think some think this means there really is such a thing as Christian bridges. Again, I know what a bridge built by a Christian is, but I’ve no idea what a Christian bridge is. That may sound torturous, but I think that sort of distinction is pretty important. It is not too unlike distinguishing between living the gospel and living the law in response to the gospel, or saying that while it necessarily has a way of life resident to it, Christianity is nevertheless not a way of life. One is a categorical confusion of law and gospel (and subsequently sola fide) and the other isn’t, which is really the point of being Reformed in the first place. You know?
Jeff, so a Christian college that offers a degree in engineering needs to include a Bible scholar in the engineering department?
And what about the illiterate construction worker who is a Christian? He can’t read the Bible. Should he not build bridges?
I myself would rather have a bridge built by Christians who paid more attention to materials and stress loads than to a small group Bible study during lunch break.
If the historic reformed were theocrats, then church reform is precisely what Wilson is engaged in when he exhorts the church toward Christendom.
Ron, pssssst. Christendom wasn’t a theoocracy. It separated the powers of pope and emperor. So what exactly is your point?
My point wasn’t to argue over what qualifies as a theocracy. So, if you will sir, please allow me to rewind and rephrase.
If the historic reformed would reject secularism (had they ever even encountered such a thing), then church reform is precisely what Wilson is engaged in when he rallies the church to reject secularism. My point is that from Wilson’s perspective, the rejection of Christendom/reception of secularism is at least on the list of “[infidelities] among churches that claim to be Christian”, if not pretty high on that list. So, the way I see it, you essentially said, “You shouldn’t be so concerned with x. You should be more concerned with x.”
Ron, so you push the definitional issue to another place. What is secular? Why is it something that needs to be opposed? What if secular society makes room for the church in ways that Rome’s tyranny did not, you know, the pagan Roman authorities to whom Peter and Paul said Christians should be subject.
In which case, if Wilson is Reformed and holds to the sufficiency of Scripture, he needs to find the biblical warrant for opposing secular society or the powers that God has ordained. I’m still waiting for that shoe to drop. Please be advised, “Jesus Christ is Lord” is not an exegetical argument. Jesus Christ was Lord of Iraq before and after the U.S. invaded.
Sorry Dr. Hart, but every man has to decide in any given situation whether to obey the fifth commandment (be he subject to authorities ecclesiastical, civic or other), or obey some *other* commandment. Surely you wouldn’t accuse the reformers or the founders of America with 5th commandment violations. Further, rejection of a secular (or pagan) state is not in and of itself a violation of the 5th commandment. Wilson isn’t telling people to engage in anything illegal here. Paul told Agrippa who was King and prayed for Agrippa’s conversion. How did this violate the fifth commandment or its child, Romans 13?
Oh and a secular society is no more equipped to “make room for the church” than a pagan society. They both oppose the Lordship of Christ.
Ron Smith, how exactly were Americans submitting to the power that God had ordained, namely, King George? Now I like the US and all, but if you’re going to say that Americans were right to throw off the rule of the British monarch and did so with biblical warrant, then I’ve got a very long book on George Washington’s orthodox faith to sell you.
Darryl,
I think it’s “sleight” in “…Wilson’s slight of hand…”
And have you read “Ought the Church to Pray for Revival?” by Herman Hanko?
Dr. Hart,
Let us take the founding of the US which you like and all out of the question. I notice you didn’t address Paul or the magisterial reformers. Was Calvin in violation of Romans 13 for soliciting monarchical support in protecting the purity of the gospel throughout Europe? Should Paul had been preaching the gospel to the king in a public, civil trial? How do these actions square with the modern two kingdom approach?
You have easily dodged the question again. Well done and shame on me.
htm, I’ll fix that. Is Hanko worth reading? What does he say?
Ron, you brought up the US framers and the fifth commandment. Sorry for taking that where you find it uncomfortable.
Where exactly did Calvin seek the aid of the state in the reformation? You seem to have a magisterial reformation mixed up with a theocratic reformation. The magistrates led the reform and hired pastors like Calvin and Zwingli. So the state started the reformation, and without the state’s support, Calvin and Luther would have gone down in history like Wycliffe and Huss.
Technically, I don’t think Paul was preaching in court. I think he was explaining himself. Yes, he disobeyed the state when the state told him not to preach. That should be the reaction of any minister of the gospel. To preach the gospel in violation of a state command is hardly warrant for a revolution.
Exactly. If that sort of thing went on today, wouldn’t you see it as an improper mix of church and state? It’s not as if the magistrates protected any and all religions. They picked one and ran the others out. Imagine a state’s lawmakers legislating all the false religions out of their state. This wouldn’t fly. But this is what happened during the Reformation, and this is in part what Wilson is talking about when he speaks of Christendom: the State bowing the knee to King Jesus, and doing its duty to protect the peace of the Church and the purity of the Gospel by suppressing blasphemies and heresies, calling synods, etc.
I have appreciated this exchange. I am sure you are busy and I am happy you have taken the time to respond. Thank you. The last word is yours, sir. Grace and peace to you in Christ. I am sure I will bother you again some time, but I’ll save it for anothe post
Ron, like I said, you want Obama appointing ministers? May, you theocrats are wild and crazy guys.