Regular readers of Oldlife know about the imbroglio between the Brothers Bayly and those who hold two-kingdoms and the spirituality of the church. The major objection apparently is that these doctrines won’t let the church do what activists on certain moral issues want the church to do in the public square (you know, bad ju ju versus do do). In which case, the spirituality of the church is offensive because it restrains the spiritual and moral dynamic necessary for fighting the culture wars over sex and its illegitimate consequences.
But the Baylys are not alone in wanting the church to be a culture-shaping institution. Tim Keller has recently written (thanks to oldlife reader Zeke Zekowski for the link) at his blog about the need for the church to be engaged in culture making. He writes:
Most of the young evangelicals interested in integrating their faith with film-making, journalism, corporate finance, etc, are getting their support and mentoring from informal networks or para-church groups. Michael Lindsay’s book Faith in the Halls of Power shows that many Christians in places of influence in the culture are alienated from the church, because they get, at best, no church support for living their faith out in the public spheres, and, at worst, opposition.
(A minor quibble here is that I’m not sure Lindsay shows any such thing in a work of sociology that shakes the pom-poms for evangelicals rising in elite sectors without the slightest sense of ambivalence about the theology of glory deeply embedded in [and should be haunting] the evangelical quest for greatness.)
A major kvetch is this: why do Christians pursuing communications and the arts need the church to have their hand held more than plumbers, bakers, farmers, Home Depot check-out clerks, and subway train engineers? How much does the church support the work of the average Mary or Joe? And do these modest workers complain about the church not affirming them? One would think that the perks that come with putting your name on a piece of art or a newspaper column might make up for the lack of gratification that comes with changing the filters in the boiler room of the twelve-floor apartment building.
Keller continues:
At the theological level, the church needs to gain more consensus on how the church and Christian faith relate to culture. There is still a lot of conflict between those who want to disciple Christians for public life, and those who think all “engagement of culture” ultimately leads to compromise and distraction from the preaching of the gospel. What makes this debate difficult is that both sides make good points and have good arguments.
I remain baffled why cultural engagement is a pressing need for the church. I would think it pretty important to shepherd members of Christ’s body in the notion that they are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, whose identity in Christ far transcends the work they do no matter how creative or dull. The church, it seems, has plenty of work to do to confirm Christians in the truth that even when they cease being culture makers or low-level grunts, they are still priests and citizens of a heavenly kingdom with all the affirmation that comes with belonging to Christ, in body and soul, in life and in death. Instead of taking on the task writing a confession for cultural engagement or policy prescription, better is the work of catechizing the faithful in the truths of God, man, sin, salvation, and the church. Those teachings are more important and lasting, even if they do not produce great art or Christian manuals of plumbing.
But without such a consensus on the spirituality of the church and the Christian’s otherworldly identity, communions like the PCA are in danger of becoming balkanized into either the arts-and-culture congregations, or the culture-war churches. Not only are the arts and the politics of nation-states not taught in the PCA’s confessional standards, but very difficult is the task of finding a “thus, sayeth the Lord†for such cultural ambitions.
So irony of ironies, the Baylys and Keller are on the same page in rejecting the spirituality of the church for the culturality of the church. And in so conceiving the church, pastors in the same communion end up driving each other bonkers. Keller doesn’t want the Baylys’ crusading activism and the Baylys don’t want Keller’s urban-chic programming. Wouldn’t the spirituality of the church put an end to these squabbles and make the PCA even more effective than it apparently already is?
Postscript: a good question related to this post is why the OPC does not appear to suffer from the culturality of the church, at least not in the same degree. Maybe it is because the OPC is so small we have enough sense not to beat our breasts about being change agents in the culture. We have enough trouble paying the bills of our standing committees, presbytery committees, and struggling congregations to take on the planet’s policies and art. But it could also be that the spirituality of the church that Machen taught the first generation of the OPC, leavened with the potent supplement of amillennialism taught by Vos, Murray, and Kline, has made Orthodox Presbyterians less impressed with the good, but ultimately fading, culture of this world.
66 Comments
todd: Saying the Scripture supplies no political manifesto is not saying there are no Scriptures that inform our life in the public square as believers, which you seem to keep suggesting we are saying. Besides Rom 13, Matt 7:12 may be the most relevant. But your answer to my question is my answer, so the only difference may be your fear to identify with us 2k “radicals.â€
The reason I suggest that “we” say this is that Dr. Hart and I have had a couple of rounds over the question “Does the Bible have anything to say about plumbing?”
I say “yes” — in the sense that I’ve been responding to you — he says “no.” (Except that he agrees with the particulars that I raise, so …)
So can understand why I might suggest that.
I don’t have a fear to identify with 2k radicals. I’m in a far more fearful place: I see value in the multiperspectival approach of John Frame. This marks me as a dangerous latitudinarian and an unReformed radical biblicist.
Or so goes the theory.
Okay, Jeff, what does the multiperspectival biblicist approach say to a Christian magistrate about legislation banning Mormonism in his jurisdiction? I myself see no reason to ban Mormonism since I confess a creed that says the magistrate is supposed to protect all people and their beliefs (or lack of them). I am also a citizen of a republic which says no religious tests shall be used for public office, and that Congress can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. So legally and ecclesiastically my conscience is clear. Is a multiperspective reading of the Bible and our circumstances different?
Okay, Jeff, what does the multiperspectival biblicist approach say to a Christian magistrate about legislation banning Mormonism in his jurisdiction?
Didn’t I just say it?
Is a multiperspective reading of the Bible and our circumstances different?
In this case, no.
Thanks. I’ll ask!, and keep you posted.
“I’m in a far more fearful place: I see value in the multiperspectival approach of John Frame. This marks me as a dangerous latitudinarian and an unReformed radical biblicist.”
Jeff,
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the “biblicist” label because it is often made against those who do care about what our forefathers said about scripture. I think the term should be reserved for those who think they need no help from the greater church (past or present) understanding the Bible, and they are out there. I have been called a biblicist for simply disagreeing with a few statements in the WCF, and that is not how the term should be used. But I was trained on the multiperspectival approach by Dr. Frame at WCS, but really didn’t buy it then because the Scriptures made clear distinctions to me that multi-perspectivalism refused to recognize. I wonder how a multi-perspectival approach can answer clear questions people in our pews have, like Darryl’s outlaw Mormonism question, or the errors with the FV.
I appreciate your reticence with the “biblicist” label.
If you’re curious about a multiperspectival approach to the FV, here’s one.
There’s no question that Calvin was some kind of perspectivalist with regard to the church. He explicitly differentiates between the church as we see it and the church as God sees it.
I was going to ignore these comments.but I do want to make one thing clear. By taking an either.or stance with respect to 2k v Kuyper you have attempted to argue against the very liberty you say you want to safeguard. I accept that the 2k men want to safeguard the spirituality of the Church. And I accept that the Kuyperians want to ensure we acknowledge God’s lordship over the whole of life.
Let me ask you to think for a moment of the implications of John the Baptist telling a soldier what he should do to show he had repented. Did he tell him as a private individual, or as a member of the military? Does it really matter? He was asked for guidance and he gave it to the best of his understanding. John did not split his advice to the soldier into that which was applicable to only his spiritual life – his “do not take money from anyone by force” and “do not accuse anyone falsely” were things peculiar to the soldier’s calling. It’s true there are aspects of the advice which are applicable to others as well, but note his earlier response to the tax gathers: “Do not collect any more than you have been ordered to.” The principles involved in his advice are specifically applied to the workplace of the person asking.
To take the stance argued for in the 2k comments (above) denies there is any need to give such guidance. Is that truly the way you act? Do you not, at that point share a little with the Kuyperians? And as for the opposite tack – some of the most moving sermons I have heard on the need for spiritual renewal in the Church have come from Kuyperians.
Paul says there ought to be differences so the good might be approved. And, in this case I think it lies between the two arguments, and shares some of each.
Hone P.: what on earth are you talking about? Christian liberty for the church as church involves only doing what the Bible commands. Do Christians have liberty not to pray? No. So in some areas, liberty is not the point.
The point of SOTC vs. transformationalism is where does the biblical warrant for the church as church transforming culture come from? What Christians may do is not same as what the church must do.
How you think John the Baptist giving instruction to (likely Jewish and therefore part of the covenant community) soldiers or tax collectors justifies transformationalism is akin to Jesus eating fish in his resurrected body being a warrant for only eating fish.
But if you could tell me how the spirituality of the church is wrong, I’d like to know. The Westminster Confession describes the church’s task as gathering and perfecting the saints. The Belgic Confession says the church is characterized by word, sacrament, and discipline. It adds that the false church adds more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God.
The transformers have upped the stakes. It’s on them to show they have a biblical warrant for transforming the culture, and if they are right, it’s on them to show that the SOTC if wrong and unfaithful.
Hi Darryl,
I asked Tim Bayly his position on amillenialism – here is his response:
Dear Pastor Bigelow,
We’re either a or post–not sure which. Someday I’ll be sure, I think. When I don’t know.
Love,
Tim Bayly
A sincere answer, with some warm tongue-in-cheek.
So Ted, if amillennialism is not what makes the Baylys or Keller tick, but some variety of post-mill, do you want to revise your first comment?
This was so good I hardly know where to start. We left a PCA church after 14 years, for a variety of reasons, but this whole fawning over “culture” was just one of many. Movie reviews, poetry during the service, creeping Anglican liturgy, etc. were all necessary to attract the Ivy League culture-shapers (and perhaps their well-heeled parents?); but a weekly prayer meeting or a regular teaching on the Westminster Confession was out of the question. The PCA is sitting on a huge fault-line; it’s like there are two different denominations living inside one organization. There are a lot of good people in some quarters who just aren’t being taught anything at all about the faith, and at some point something will have to give. I’m glad that we’re gone.
It’s interesting that you say that, Buzz. I just had coffee with a former student who is now at Covenant, and he said that there are basically two groups there (he likes rhetorical effect, but he’s also a serious analyst, as much as a college student can be).
The one group is (his words) “theological types” and the other is “experientialists.”
I’m late to this thread, but from the perspective of the pew, I see three groups.
1. True SOTC churches. Honestly, these solid confessionally Reformed churches are few and far between. They typically only arise in areas where there is historically a strong Reformed presence, such as in the upper Midwest and the mid-Atlantic states. These churches will probably continue to disappear.
2. Populist 1K Churches. These churches believe in cultural engagement. But their cultural engagement is a mish-mash between revivalism, moralism, and social populism. They are social outsiders who lack the academic and professional accomplishments that earn one a seat at the table with the cultural elite. So, they just yell a lot. For examples, see the Brothers Bayly, the late D. James Kennedy, and practically all PCA churches in the South.
3. Anti-populist 1K churches. These churches also believe in cultural engagement, but their members are skilled at how to make things happen. They are the cultural elite, or are at least in the candidate pool. They would rather be caught reading Hustler than World Magazine. They want to make change, but are willing to allow work incrementally. They will engage in no activism that does not have an achievable goal. So, they work quietly and incrementally. Secretly, they loathe everything about populists, but would never admit it. For examples, see Tim Keller and most urban PCA church plants.
The SOTC model will fail because it [rightly] asks populists and anti-populists to worship together. But frankly, we have become too fractured a culture, and it is unlikely that populists and anti-populists will make peace anytime soon. After all, why is Whole Foods so successful? Is it because people like organic food? Or is it because people like to shop around those with whom they share a common social class affiliation? For the same reason, Aldi thrives. And Jewel loses customers.
Bob: good stuff. Better late than never. Don’t you think Starbucks could unite the PCA?
Excellent contenu. Merci de poster.
Thanks a lot for your time and efforts to have put these things together on this web site. Emily and I very much prized your input through the articles about certain things. I’m sure that you have several demands on your program so the fact that you took just as much time as you did to guide people like us through this article is also highly appreciated.
2 Trackbacks
[...] March 4, 2010 by Reformed Joe Why the PCA Needs the Spirituality of the Church [...]
[...] Why We All Need the Spirituality of the Church Posted on March 4, 2010 by R. Scott Clark Darryl explains at Old Life. [...]