Carl Trueman’s comments on Dinesh D’Souza appointment as president of King’s College have prompted further discussion. In a post that responds to the charge that Trueman was guilty of applying seminary standards to a liberal arts college, the Lord Protector of WTS explains that the real confusion is on the other side — namely, promoting a comprehensive world and life view that is supposedly free from doctrinal considerations of the kind that divide Protestants and Roman Catholics. Trueman writes:
If a liberal arts college says that it teaches such a thing, then doctrine is surely important. All world and life views are doctrinal, after all; and a Christian one is presumably constituted by Christian doctrine in some basic way Further, as the very term indicates total comprehensiveness, the teaching of such a thing does not seem to me to require any less clarity on doctrine at a foundational level than the curriculum at a seminary would so do (albeit the curricula at the two types of institution might be markedly very different). . . .
Just to be clear: all this `Christian world life view’ talk is not my language. I am myself very uncomfortable with it because it fails to respect difference among Christians; but I do not consider it inappropriate to ask those who do use this language with such confidence to explain it to me; to explain, for example, why they use the singular not the plural; and what are the doctrines that can be set to one side as matters indifferent when constructing this singular Christian world life view?
For myself, I am very comfortable with the view of the world expressed in the Westminster Standards. The theology therein profoundly expresses my view of life, the universe and all that. Does that mean I deny the name Christian to someone who is, say, an Arminian or a Lutheran or an Anabaptist or a Catholic? . . . .
The result: my concern for doctrinal indifferentism at a Christian College arises not out of a seminary-college category confusion but rather out of my belief that one huge mythological misconception is simply being allowed to continue unchallenged: that there is `a [singular] Christian life and world view’ that can be separated as some kind of Platonic ideal from the phenomena of particular confessional commitment, whether Reformed, Anabaptist or whatever. It is time to come clean: we need to speak of Christian life and world views (plural) and we need to acknowledge that those who talk of such in the singular are more than likely privileging their particular view of the world (including their politics — Left and Right) as the normative Christian one, and thus as being essentially beyond criticism and scrutiny — whether that view is doctrinally complex or indifferent to all but being `born again.’
Again, this is very well said and evokes Oldlife objections to neo-Calvinism. How many times does you need to point to the Christian Reformed Church and see that melange of bullish worldviewism and doctrinal incompetence before establishing the unreliability of a Reformed world and life view? How many times do we need to hear about a Reformed view of “Will & Grace” before we begin to ask about a Reformed view of the sacred assembly on the Lord’s Day? Granted, keepers of the Dooyeweerdian flame will insist that King’s College and D’Souze are not the real deal; their worldviews do not run on the high octane of Reformed philosophy. That only raises the more basic objection of who made philosophers God? When did epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics trump the doctrines of God, man, Christ, salvation, the Holy Spirit, and the church? (Hint: 1898.)
Meanwhile, further indications of the unreliability of neo-Calvinism come from David Bahnsen, the son of THE Bahnsen, whose flame for neo-Calvinism drew energy from project of establishing Christ’s Lordship over all areas of life. According to Bahnsen, who is a financial planner living in Southern California:
The brilliant Dinesh D’Souza is the new President of King’s College in New York. Dinesh is a good friend, a superb scholar, an accomplished apologist, and in my opinion, a wonderful pick for this fantastic college to help provide vision and guidance as they advance into the next phase of their institutional development. Dinesh also is a Roman Catholic, though he is married to an evangelical, attends an evangelical church, and has been widely accepted in evangelical circles for several years as a respected thought leader. Dinesh is better known as a socio-political commentator than he is a theologian, but of course most people do not regard the primary qualification in the job of “college president†to be “theologianâ€.
The hiring of Dinesh D’Souza is an exciting thing for me as one who is very fond of the work King’s College is doing, and very fond of Dinesh in particular. I also consider the provost at King’s College, Dr. Marvin Olasky, to be one of the premier intellects in American society. I have often said that his The Tragedy of American Compassion is an utter masterpiece, and I believe his work at both World magazine and King’s College to be inspiring examples of Kingdom-building. Marvin is both a mentor to me and dear friend. I am deeply grateful to know him.
To the objections that Trueman raises, Bahnsen displays the nakedness of the neo-Calvinist royal jewels:
However, the implicit lesson in this response to Dinesh’s hiring is that Reformational theology is exclusively about soteriology and sacramentology. This is patently absurd. There is a valuable and vital element to catholic social thought which is undeniably important in worldview training. The contributions of a Dinesh D’ Souza in the contemporary scene go far beyond those things that Trueman considers so trivial (you know, unimportant disciplines like economics and political science). True, Dinesh may not line up with a lot of Protestant thought on the really, really important things like predestination and church discipline (though perhaps he does, or perhaps he will), but maybe a little more genuinely Reformed thought is needed here? For those of us who see our evangelical Reformed theology as a comprehensive world and life view, maybe, just maybe, Dinesh is far more qualified than the Carl Truemans of the world could possibly understand.
So now political science and economics have pushed aside philosophy. At least epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics have some otherworldiness going for them. But as is typical of the immanentizers of the eschaton, disciplines like politics and economics are even more vital in establishing Christ’s reign.
Maybe the real lesson is that justification is an idea with consequence.
225 Comments
Michael, we sound pretty similar, but what about my humor?
I’m also not too sure Darryl likes the fact that both defenses of him have pointed out that he mostly offers irrelevant and substanceless responses to his interloctuors. But speaking of funny, I find that hilarious.
So DGH, here’s my puzzle over your rejection of worldview.
Granted: there are a lot of definitions floating around out there. I’ve just been getting slightly up to speed on David Naugle and discovering that I’m not a worldviewist in exactly the same way that he is a worldviewist.
By on my account, our “worldview” is simply the mental reflection of our heart.
And when I hear you reject the concept of “worldview”, I hear you rejecting the notion that people have a heart, or else that it has any impact on our thoughts. Which seems nonsensical.
When further I hear you reject the notion of a “Christian worldview”, I hear you rejecting the idea that our hearts are converted, that there is any mental difference (not talking IQ here, but content of thoughts) between Christians and non-. And that seems nonsensical also.
It seems basic and unarguable — to me — that Christians ought to be careful to understand and to guard their hearts. This is why we warn seminarians about Bultmann, right?
And I would think that of all people, Confessionalists would be on board with the idea of guarding the heart by proper doctrine, which I take to be the Christian worldview: the mental reflection of the truth that we want the heart to believe.
So where are we?
Ahem
“Wherever there is tension between the biblical worldview and that of the pre-Christian West, Milbank sides with the latter.” (Horton, People and Place, 61).
“The demand that theological statements have meaning only if they refer to an extra-linguistic reality therefore seems to reflect a more Platonic than Hebraic worldview.” (ibid, 41, n.17).
Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (M. G. Kline, Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press 2000).
“Covenental history is not an allegory for more ostensibly basic eternal truths, but is itself constitutive of reality. Covenant is not something added to metaphysics and ontology derived from some other sources, but generates a worldview of its own. (Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ, 3).
“Thus [Israel's] worldview engendered a history rather than a mythological cycle of nature” (Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, 30).
“The covenantal background of the biblical sacraments discloses a worldview far removed from the Greek one we have inherited from this point.” (ibid, 153).
“We are ‘storied’ people and cannot help but think of ourselves as somehow characters in a plot. Worldviews are, in fact, storied plots: the story of America, the story of political liberation, the story of global captialism, the story of alienation (existentialism), the story of progess (modernism), and the story of no-story-but-only-stories (postmodernism) (Horton, A Better Way, 53).
“In fact, to commit the cardinal postmodern sin, we can’t even say it’s a worldview, a metanarative (the story behind every story).” (ibid).
“If I am to set forth a Christian view of bioethics, then I must provide at least a general perspective . . .” (David VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life, 23).
“. . . Christian bioethics rests on theological truths unkown to the broader world and hence cannot be substantively identical to secular bioethics.” (ibid, 28).
“Christians should participate in the mainstream healthcare system and contribute to bioethical debates, while recognizing that their Christian faith has radically transformed their perspective on many important issues of life and death” (ibid, 29).
“. . .Christians must also shape their individual and communal views of bioethics in accord with their distinctive theological convictions. The range of Christian truth about matters such as the image of God, suffering, death, and resurrection cannot help but mold their perspective on bioethics. Scripture’s teaching should aid Christians in understanding the kind of bioethics that should govern all people in the public realm” (ibid, 30).
“What is distinctive about the Christian view of courage is that the will of God determines what is good and worth pursuing . . . .”(ibid, 85).
“I should note a few points before beginning to evaluate infertility treatments from a Christian point of view (ibid, 129).
“Scripture does not speak of football games, but it speaks to them” (R.S. Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confessions).
There we go. Nicely played, Paul.
Jeff (and maybe Paul),
Let’s not strain at gnats about “worldview.” Nobody is saying there is no such thing as a worldview. We all know everybody has a worldview. Indeed, this is actually an important point in 2K: different people have different outlooks (e.g. politics) when it comes to the temporal order. 2K wants to protect everyone’s liberty to have his temporal outlook and keep one from saying that his temporal outlook is also heaven’s and thus bind the conscience of the other. This point, obviously, assumes there are various outlooks or worldviews, etc. There is a place for binding the conscience, but it is only in places where God has spoken and not where he is silent. He has told us that Jesus was fully God and fully man, that justification is by faith alone and that infants of believers should be baptized; he has not told us whether we should have kings or presidents (and either way, whose rule enjoys Jesus’ favor more), big government or small, or whether or not to invade desert lands.
The contrast here is not worldview versus non-worldview, that would be silly. The contrast is temporal-as-temporal worldview versus temporal-as-eternal worldview. This was my point above about Reformed (or Christian) narcissism: “I am Reformed/Christian; I think X; therefore X is Reformed/Christian.” The contrast has to do with a form of religious narcissism that is in the ballpark of (brace yourself) idolatry. In that sense, that is actually what idolatry is, the conflating of Creator/creature, casting one’s creaturely ways and thoughts as the Creator’s. But his ways and thoughts are not ours, as you know. So 2K is not trying to say something as absurd as “there is no such thing as a worldview.” All it’s saying is that there is no such thing as your worldview or mine also being Jesus’.
“Michael Mann,” just a kudos on your point about forums. Spot on. It must be that grasp on media that was at play when you produced “Miami Vice.”
Zrim,
Sorry, bud, but the point hasn’t just been, “do people have worldviews?” (though Hart seemed to deny this at a point), but whether there is “the Biblical view of X” or “a Christian view of X,” where X is a “temporal” or non-theological discipline.
Hart denied most of the above. He asked me, “So I have a worldview even if I deny it?” Hart denied that there was “a Christian view of . . .”. Hart denies that “a worldview” could determine and produce a thing like “a history.” We see “a Christian view of” bioethics. Indeed, one of Hart’s main points was that “regeneration” doesn’t do something to “the mind” that allows “Christians” to see “the truth” easier than non-Christians. But check out DVD: “their Christian faith has radically transformed their perspective on many important issues of life and death.” Another one of Hart’s main points was the language of “the Christian worldview.” But Hortion says, “the biblical worldview.”
If you don’t think my quotes totally undercut Hart’s many statements here, then you haven’t been reading him. Moreover, if you’re admitting with me, and with the above, that there is “a Christian view of” matters like: history, science, politics, epistemology, metaethics, ethics, law, etc., then there’s nothing else for me to argue here for that is what I’ve been arguing from point one. I also argued for what I mean when I say those thing. I wrote you a lengthy response to your question about via media (which you haven’t responded to) and showed (some of) what I mean by saying what I’ve said. So, wordlview isn’t a “blueprint” for all of these things. However, Christianity has propositions that have implications for those things. And therefore if you have a view of those things which denies or ignores those implications, then your view on them is “unChristian.” So, the childrens catechism, for example, teaches this that we “have a soul as well as a body,” and that we “have a soul that can never die.” Since our body dies, then the catechism teaches some form of dualism about man. Moreover, this dualism is not propterty dualism. And any materialist view of man is false. But, there are various dualisms that could work here (Thomistic, Cartesian, Holistic, and Emergent). Neither the Bible or the Confession weighs in on those matters. So, there’s freedom of conscience. But there is not freedom to hold to property dualism or Christian materialism. This has implications for philosophy, metaphysics, and neuroscience (because if you ask a, say, V.S. Ramachandran, he’ll claim that you’re just a backwoods fundy who denies science). There are many other implications of dualism that we’ll just avoid for the moment. So, here we see a Christian and Confessional view of man that has implications for many non-theological matters. We have seen “a Christian view of X” that both binds the conscience and allows for significant difference, debate, reflection, and further study.
If you agree with me then you affirm every single point I’ve been making since my first post. What say you so that I can get on with my business?
Paul, one reason that this post has over 150 comments is that you’ve made 120 of them. I’d say that’s obsessive. Are you off your meds?
And the reason for people pointing out the morality of all this has to be that you keep making it a matter of morality — as if not having a worldview is a moral failure.
Jeff, I don’t like worldview because it makes Christians into Kantians and Hegelians. I don’t see how that epistemological turn is particularly useful for faithfulness. I do see the leverage it gives for transformationalism and culture warriorism. But since I’m not a fan of those, you expect me to get on board with it? As for the heart, come on Jeff, I’m no sucker for pietism.
I also have problems with worldview because it privileges philosophy. Lots of average Christians, myself included, are not philosophically or epistemologically inclined. I don’t see how pumping worldivew up on steroids as the blueprint for godliness is going to help people memorize the catechism or worship in a Reformed manner. I don’t want to transform the world, or mental constructions of it. I want a faithful church. Worldview has not given us that. I’d actually argue (see the CRC) that is has destroyed faithfulness. But I know, this isn’t very philosophical. It’s just reality.
Darryl, Michael Mann said this is a joke blog and that your responses are cool because you’re so funny. So, what color is a burp? Burple. (I kill me.)
Saying 150 is obsessive is as good as an argument as saying that 150,000 makes you “rich.” Does it? Maybe compared to someone who has $1000. Not compared to Bill Gates.
There wouldn’t have been as many comments if you would have conceed to my initial points, as St. Zriminski just did. I would have left quite early.
Moreover, another reason there are so many comments is because you ask so many questions that (a) are red herrings, (b) besides the point, and (c) you don’t care about the answer.
I am not bringing up morality except as a tu quoque. It’s your fans who continue to make this a matter of morality. I never made it a matter of morality.
And Zrimster, did you see that, Hart suggested AGAIN that he doesn’t have a worldview.
Darryl, can you have bother to think before you post? I know that’s asking a lot.
Ok, Paul, there is such a thing as a biblical worldview. It’s called 2k. And while there is no such thing as Christian you-name-it, there is such a thing as Christians doing you-name-it. Why is that so hard? And, yes, “Christian faith has radically transformed [their] perspective on many important issues of life and death.” For my own part, it has helped to have quite a critical view on pro-lifery, as in it being a function of idolizing the highest temporal good life itself, you know that thing Jesus told us to hate if we want to follow him? Indeed, it has been so “radical” even others notice it when they call it so, and it even gets the panties of Reformed logicians in quite a bunch.
Paul, has it really come to this. Without a worldview I can’t even think?
I went back and read your initial comments. Dare I say it was more like 64 questions, and that was only in the first 3 or 4 comments. You’re like a student who won’t go away. And I don’t say that patronizingly because you say you are trying to learn and are writing a paper. (What kind of worldview sends you to a blog to do research? ahem, indeed.)
So what do you want me to say, Paul? That you are right and I am wrong? That I’m an indiot and your are brilliant. I really don’t know what you’re after. I’ve written enough here (and elsewhere) not to be evasive. I actually try to answer questions. But you ask so many. So what is your bottom line (or is it just that you’re a pain in the bottom).
Darryl,
You said, “That I’m an indiot“. Way to make fun of Indians, along with me. And not having a worldview does wonders for your spelling.
There, now I have given a DHG 100% approved comment. What did I win?
Now, to end with my most substantive, and irrefutable, point yet: Okay, so two guys walk into a bar . . . one of them ducks.
Paul, so this was all a joke? Now I get it. Worldview is laughable.
Darryl,
Sorry, I heard another joke, and it was too funny to pass up, so I had to post again. This is like old school Murphy, Pryor, and Kinison, it’s that funny. It goes along with my jokes from the comedians above, i.e., R.S. Clark, M. Horton, M. Kline, and D. VanDrunen. Here’s the new joke:
“Non-Christians do not accept or acknowledge Christ’s Lordship over the civil kingdom. This is the basis for the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian ways of thinking and doing.” (Kim Riddlebarger, A Two Kingdoms Primer, The Ridleblog).
Man, didn’t you tell him about Berry and Kass?
Does not regeneration cause one to believe and trust in Christ and the Word which he embodied and lived out as a witness to God the Father and conversely cause us to distrust our own minds which have a great propensity to be idol factories? Our reality then is formed and shaped by the Word of God rather then our own autonomous reflections on what happens to us or we observe in this material world God created. We no longer can interpret reality with our own autonomous minds without considering what God tells us is true reality in His Word (which is a combination of metaphysical and empirical reality). Philosophy can only speculate about the metaphysical without the Word of God. It is the interplay between the Word of God and our own fallen mental attributes that cause us problems in interpreting how to live in the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of man. Along with this God only speaks to us analogically which is never exhaustive in detail. We can never know what God knows about the material world he created (or about anything for that matter) We can only know what he chooses to reveal to us. So, there has to be a Christian (or biblical) epistemology because God has chosen to reveal to us a knowledge of both the metaphysical and the physical in His infallible Word. It does take a great deal of work on our part to both interpret the scriptures right and glean what we can from God’s created material world some substansive things about God’s character and nature. Reality becomes more clear as we use both our regenerated mental faculties and the help God reveals to us in His Word. We can no longer be autonomous in our thinking. We must take into consideration what the Word of God says in our interpretations.
So, what did Scott Clark mean when he said that “Scripture does not speak of football games but it speaks to them?” I am assuming he is making a comment on the idolatry of football in America and it being played on the Sabbath. Scripture then is speaking to the football idolatry which is a big part of the American psyche. But I am probably interpreting that wrongly. I suppose it also could have something to do with fair play in all the games we play. There is always an interplay between the Word of God and our various mental faculties and we often interpret them wrongly.
Can anyone tell me what has been learned in all these posts? What I take away from it all is that the noetic influence of sin in our minds is still very much a problem we have to contend with. It is only through the hard work of seeking to interpret the scriptures rightly and learning how to use our regenerated mental faculties better that some clarity can be gained. Unfortunately, most of us have not been trained properly in how to do this. We also resist more clarity because of our sin. We are wondering around in the darkness and do not indulge ourselves in the light God has given us enough. We are supposed to be able to depend on our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to help give us more clarity but we can never trust that completely either in this life. We are all prone to error.
Paul, I think your laughing caused your mind to skip a beat. You said above that Van Til does not require us to think that Berry and Kass do not have Christian worldviews. Now you quote Riddlebarger to suggest there is an antithesis between you on the one side and Berry and Kass on the other.
So the punch line is, what, that Paul is the brother of the guy who thinks he’s a chicken and Paul won’t take him in for help because Paul needs the eggs?
Yo, DGH, you’ll catch on to my pithy wit soon enough. Old Life is a place for jokes and curmudgeonly musings. My comments will fit the Old Life style. As for you, get with the program. For example, I’ve clearly been citing 2K advocates saying things that supposedly the worldviewists say. So you’ll understand why I have a hard time taking you seriously. Paradigmatic 2Kers sound like Hartian caricatures of worldviewers. Now that’s a hoot, and a knee slapper. Got any more gut-busters for us? (And I said above that Van Til does not require us to think that Berry and Kass need to be regenerate to know things.)
Paul, for a guy who doesn’t take this blog seriously, you sure do make a lot of comments. Now that is funny.
DGH, that comment would only be funny if you had the numbers of comments I make at blogs I take seriously. “A lot” is hopeless vague. Steeeeeerike three. Man, I can feel the wind from your wiffs way up in the cheap seats. But besides my punching your irrelevant response to my September 5, 2010 at 2:41 comment squarely in the nose (this is still a rowdy bar kind of a blog, right), you failed to interact with the punchline of my joke. Why are all these paragdigmatic 2Kers acting like Hartian caricatures of eeeeeeeevangelical worldviewers? Now that’s funny.
Paul: you wrote “. . . my September 5, 2010 at 2:41 comment. . .” You catalog them?
DGH, you wrote, “You catalog them?” Um, no; you do. Just call my Nolan Ryan (in his prime), you just keep swinging and a missing, even when you’re being less substantive than usual.
Never hit a man with glasses, hit him with a hammer instead. Bad-a-bing!
Besides, didn’t you reference how many comments I had made? Do you save them and study how to argue from them? I’m flattered.
Paul, you don’t seem to understand that players in a baseball game do not also function as umpires. Oh, that’s right, with a worldview you are prosecution, judge, and jury.
In point of fact, you have submitted almost 75 comments to this post (out of a total of 171). You may take that as a form of flattery. It could be a reason to see a counselor (biblical, of course).
DGH, you don’t seem to understand that umpires are needed to call strikes when it needs to be determined if the ball was within the strike zone, not when a player clumsily whiffs at the pitch. In cases of whiffs, it’s just obvious that batter has stiked. Take your response to me here, for example.
So in point of fact you do catologue my comments. Weird. Do you have a picture of me up in your bathroom that you stare at while you drizzle olive oil over your body, wearing only your polka-dotted bow tie? Now who needs to see Ed Welch?
DGH: As for the heart, come on Jeff, I’m no sucker for pietism.
Pietism … pietism … hmm … Oh yes, I remember pietism now. Pietists, apparently, are people who speak of “the heart.” That’s not the definition I recall from my church history classes, but you’re the expert on such matters.
It’s such a shame that pietists have made such inroads into Reformed circles.
Here’s Johannes “Zinzendorf” Calvin:
In the first place, he mentions knowledge, and in the second, true righteousness and holiness. Hence we infer, that at the beginning the image of God was manifested by light of intellect, rectitude of heart, and the soundness of every part. – Inst. 1.15.4
And the Westminster “Halle” Assembly:
To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation; effectively persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation. — WCoF 8.8
And let’s not forget James “Spener” the brother of Jesus:
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil.
With all of these pietist influences introducing their talk of “the heart”, penetrating into the very Reformed systematic theologies, confessions, *yea even Scripture itself* — one could almost be forgiven for thinking that the heart is the seat of one’s inmost thoughts and desires, and a genuine Reformed and Biblical concept.
Almost.
But seriously: I do appreciate your point about the talk of worldview constituting a “privilege” of philosophy. I can see areas of the church (Calvin College comes to mind) where doctrine has become unfashionable and worldview has replaced it.
And I join you in deploring such.
But I also ask … did you notice the first go-round that I defined the “Christian worldview” as “doctrine”?
In other words, the Confessions constitute, in my corner of the world at least, a Christian worldview. There’s no sense of privileging philosophy in that, even though I have a hankering for philosophy myself.
As to dragging Christians in a Hegelian or Kantian direction: I would take this a little more seriously if REPT weren’t so obviously Aristotelian. Why are dead Greek guys more acceptable sources of Christian philosophy than dead German guys?
Zrim: Let’s not strain at gnats about “worldview.†Nobody is saying there is no such thing as a worldview. We all know everybody has a worldview.
OK, good. For the record, it sure did seem like certain folk were denying the very existence of worldview. But if we want to stipulate that everybody has a worldview, I’m cool.
In fact, if you want to go further and stipulate that SOTC is a kind of Christian worldview, I would jump up and down with joy.
For the thrust of some of my criticism has been that SOTC functions as a kind of worldview that sits uneasily within Calvinism. Obviously, we disagree on that. But if you can bear with me for a moment, here’s the criticism in a nutshell:
JRC: SOTC is a defining paradigm that privileges certain extrabiblical ideas and thereby binds the consciences of believers.
One of those ideas is that the law of God written on the heart functions not merely negatively, to judge mankind, but positively also, as the basis for civil society. Out of that flows the idea that Christians may and should rely on the natural law in their dealings in the common. And from that flows the methodology in play here: to criticize any “confusion of cult and culture” on the grounds that cult and culture are always separate.
To my mind, this binds the conscience of, say, a Christian magistrate, so that he is subject to undue criticism if he attempts to use Scripture to guide his public moral reasoning.
Put bluntly, SOTC sides with secularists in criticizing Christians for trying reason like Christians in the public arena. Nevermind the question of whether they reason well or poorly; the only question for SOTC is “Did they confuse cult and culture? WRONG!”
Even if we disagree, can you appreciate that it is a red flag for me that the phrase “cult and culture” becomes the primary diagnostic tool for SOTC, when such phrase is never explicitly found in Scripture? Not even the Confession?
So if we’re thinking about worldview and the potential for it to swallow up Scripture, I would ask you to train your own sights homeward for a moment.
And maybe I’m wrong. Maybe cult and culture is a perfectly legit paradigm and Kline was just right about that. But if so: why isn’t it in the Confession?
Jeff, you want to talk heart, I know plenty of old ladies who would be glad for the fellowship. I’m afraid you’ll have to lose your mind, though. Surely, talk of the heart after the romantics and the quest for authenticity might need some readjustment.
And as for language usage, I didn’t know that Aristotle spoke the language of REPT. I do seem to recall that Hegel and Kant speak of worldviews. And I also thought they were wrong about a lot of things, especially from a Reformed world and life view.
So maybe we don’t use that language but have our own, like our confession of faith, or our body of belief, or our common profession. But how the Trinity shapes my view of historical development, I’m not about to say because I don’t think it does. And when doctrine is put to ideas have consequences use, it usually does bad things for the doctrine and the consequences.
To my mind, this binds the conscience of, say, a Christian magistrate, so that he is subject to undue criticism if he attempts to use Scripture to guide his public moral reasoning. Put bluntly, SOTC sides with secularists in criticizing Christians for trying reason like Christians in the public arena.
Jeff, the point has been made repeatedly here that believers necessarily take their faith with them into the public square (recall the tipping analogy where the biblical virtues of generosity and prudence are referenced), that we are not hermetically sealed off from our faith in our public doings, etc. The point isn’t whether our faith is relevant in our public actions, it’s how. New Schoolers are marked by “wearing their piety on their sleeve,” Old Schoolers see that as more vice than virtue. That principle has various implications for the public expression of faith, and one is that is simpy an inappropriate expression of faith to explicitly use the Bible to rule.
This has nothing all to do with being ashamed or wanting to loved by pagans. Indeed, this is a remarkably uncharitable way to interpret what really is an honest attempt to be obedient and proper about things and only goes to show how poorly you misunderstand what is being said, if I may be so bold. A Christian secularist is not a legal secularist. Believe it or not, 2k-SOTC is also “trying reason like Christians in the public arena.”
Paul, why use a hammer when a worldview inflicts as much damage (and delusion)?
Darryl, because I read Shop Class as Soulcraft, that’s why. I think you read that too. So I’m at a loss as to why you devalue the value of hammers.
Zrim,
While I can certainly appreciate your attempts at moving the goalposts and redirecting attention away from what was affirmed here by 2Kers, but in the service of the truth I can’t sit buy.
Hart denied worldview. Hart said, “So do I have a worldview even if I deny it?”
Also, what was denied was that there was “the Christian view of” (but Horton used that language), and that there was “a Christian view of X,” where ‘X’ stands for epistemology, science, metaphysics, law, freedom and moral responsibility, etc.
THAT WAS DENIED, ZRIM. And my quotes showed paradigmatic 2Kers talking like Hartian caricatures of worldviewers.
Darryl, if needs be, I will use Zrim’s worldview instead of my hammer. Surely you think his worldview inflicts great damage, but somehow it is priviledged so as not to be delusional. I’d love to see the math on how that works.
Paul, you’re slipping. It took you 12 hours to respond.
Paul, you wear your love for lady logic like a thorny crown. Try some common sense instead. Or don’t you understand that it’s possible to “win an argument” and still be wrong (or “lose an argument” and still be right)? What is denied is the sort of narcissism that baptizes ideology. I think you agree with that effort, but then you turn around and get all fillosophical about it and chase your own tail, then blame everyone else for your dizziness.
Dear Zrim, I’m sorry I offended you.:
This has nothing all to do with being ashamed or wanting to loved by pagans. Indeed, this is a remarkably uncharitable way to interpret what really is an honest attempt to be obedient and proper about things and only goes to show how poorly you misunderstand what is being said, if I may be so bold.
I was not for an instant suggesting that you are being ashamed; certainly not that I am more bold than you.
I was only pointing out the more obvious and unarguable point that your desired outcomes happen to coincide with those of AUSCS. It was a “friendly fire” point, not a disparagement of your courage.
I trust that you, true to your SOTC convictions, are bold when necessary.
Jeff, the point has been made repeatedly here that believers necessarily take their faith with them into the public square (recall the tipping analogy where the biblical virtues of generosity and prudence are referenced), that we are not hermetically sealed off from our faith in our public doings, etc.
Yes, you are correct that the point has been made. Repeatedly even.
The problem is, the point has also been undermined by the following:
(1) Anytime an actual Christian suggests bringing their faith into the public square, he is criticized and mocked *because he is bringing faith into the common realm.*
It’s not much of a concession when the hubby says, “Yes, dear, you may go shopping; of course you have to buy things”, but then complains when any actual shopping occurs because it is shopping.
(2) The details of what you call “how”, what constitutes “proper” and “improper” bringing of faith into the public square have been left utterly unspecified, by design.
Again with the husband: “Yes dear, you may go shopping. But don’t buy the things I don’t like. And no, I won’t tell you what those things are.”
(3) The tool of choice in your criticisms of others is the “separation of cult and culture.” That phrase, as such, is neither obviously biblical nor obviously Confessional. I continue to be puzzled why it has such prominence in your thought. I view it with a suspicion similar to that for “the separation of the Church and Israel” or “the difference between living faith and dead orthodoxy.” All three are suspect dichotomies.
—
Now, you’ve alluded to another tool that we agree to: the distinction between the Word of God and the word of man. You said,
Zrim: There is a place for binding the conscience, but it is only in places where God has spoken and not where he is silent.
That’s exactly right! If we could hear more of that, and less of the troubling “cult and culture” distinction, I would be less concerned about SOTC.
So for example: you may recall that I argued in favor of the permissibilty of public schooling way back in ’08 in the exchanges with Elder Hoss. Why? Because the forbidding of public schooling is neither explicit teaching nor good-and-necessary consequence from Scripture. Done. Why bring in questions of cult and culture? Hoss’s point was that the public school *is* a matter of cult — and then the argument just got messy.
JRC
Zrim, why the insults and name calling? I thought that was just my thing. Oh yeah, when YOU do it, it’s not name calling. Gottcha.
I don’t know what is denied because NO OEN HAS TOLD ME DESPITE HOW MANY TIMES I’VE ASKED Y’ALL TO DEFINE YOUR TERMS.
Not only that, that CAN’T be “what’s denied,” Zrim. Try some common sense. Since *I* didn’t baptize ideology, and since Hart took issue with my claims about worldview, and James Anderson’s claims about biblical epistemology (and since Anderson doesn’t “baptize ideology”), then YOU CAN’T BE RIGHT IN YOUR INTERPRETATION.
Try again.
Darryl, Zrim said all men have worldviews. So that must mean that you have one even if you deny it. Do you like apples? How ’bout dem apples?
I made specific claims which backed up my position. Zrim, again, wearing his hatred for logic like a thorny crown, ignores all of my points and goes on to pontificate and bloviate without bothering to show that what he says has anything to do with my comments.
Again, in case inability to read and comprehend is entailed by Zrimmian interpretations of common sense:
Hart denied worldview, Zrim affirmed it.
Hart denied Christian views of history, science, epistemology, etc — my quotes supported it.
What is Zrim’s resolution? Lemme guess: “It’s a paradox you logic loving, glory story, gospel denying, law and gospel mixing heretic.”
Yeah, the rhetoric’s wearing thin. Show me don’t tell me, for once, will ya.
Here’s the cash value of Steve anti-rational Zrimec’s latest (just some minor changes):
Zrim, you wear your hatred for lady logic like a thorny crown. Try some common sense instead. Or don’t you understand that it’s possible to “win an argumentâ€l be right (or “lose an argument†and be wrong)? What is denied is the sort of narcissism that baptizes your assertions just because you made them. I think you agree with that effort, but then you turn around and get all anti-fillosophical about it and chase your own paradoxical tail, then blame everyone else for your dizziness.
Stupid, huh?
After hundreds of comments, I finally got my concession. There’s nothing wrong with worldviewism *per se*, or with a Christian worldview *per se*, the problem is with, whatever this means, a “narcissism that baptizes ideology.” Now, that doesn’t seem conceptually identical to “worldview,” but the point is there. There’s no argument against James’ post on biblical epistemology, or any of the defenses I made of worldviewism, nor to Van Til’s conception.
So my argument was correct.
How’s that tall cold glass of milk taste, Darryl?
Yo, DGH, Zrim said everyone has a worldview. So does that mean you have one even though you deny it?
Yo, Zrim, thanks for finally conceeding the point (even if Darryl didn’t want to). You claim the objection here is to “the sort of narcissism that baptizes ideology,” and since the worldviewism of the sort I defended here, or James Anderson defended in his post, or that Van Til defended, then what you claim is the “objection” is fully consistent with having a Christian view on history, science, epistemology, metaphysics, law, etc.
If you could have just conceeded this at the beginning, then we wouldn’t have had all these posts. better late than never, I suppose (oh yeah, love the name calling in your post, bro).
Odd, my September 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm is “awaiting moderation”, yet in that post I merely copied Zrim’s September 8, 2010 at 6:04 pm and changed a couple words in it. What principled and nonarbitrary basis could there be for putting mine in moderation and leaving his out?
Paul, it might have something to do with the definition of Umpire, or its blog equivalent, Moderator. Plus, you’re not saying anything new and it certainly isn’t funny. And being a Phil Hendrie fan, I think I know humor, and you’re no Ricky Gervais.
Jeff,
First, thanks for what appears to be an apology, but my point about shame and boldness really had less to do with any personal offense and more to do with pointing out a potential significant misunderstanding.
Second, if I understand, your complaint seems to be that the cult/culture distinction is overdone and that SOTC would go down better if that distinction wasn’t being made. I’m sorry, but that distinction just seems to me to be quite inherent to the doctrine of the SOTC. It’s like saying, “Sola fide is great, but you have to lay off the rigid law/gospel distinction.†You don’t get to sola fide without that rigid distinction; likewise you don’t get to the SOTC without the rigid cult/culture distinction. This is why, I think, there is some cross-pollination between soteriological and ecclesiological concerns, why I think it is arguable that to confuse cult and culture to whatever degree is the ecclesiological version of the soteriological confusion of law and gospel to whatever degree.
So for example: you may recall that I argued in favor of the permissibilty of public schooling way back in ’08 in the exchanges with Elder Hoss. Why? Because the forbidding of public schooling is neither explicit teaching nor good-and-necessary consequence from Scripture. Done. Why bring in questions of cult and culture? Hoss’s point was that the public school *is* a matter of cult — and then the argument just got messy.
Your argument against Hoss was one that could be made, and obviously one for which I have nothing but sympathy. But you seem to be overlooking that Hoss’s point about education (curriculum, not catechesis, just to be clear here) being a matter of cult is precisely one that grows out of a cult/culture confusion and must be addressed by making a cult/culture distinction. You can’t simply wave it away as a way to muddy the waters. So my point in all this is that sola scriptura and cult/culture distinction are necessarily bound up with each other.
Darryl, you didn’t think it was funny when you said you didn’t have a worldview and Zrim said you did? You didn’t think it was funny when I quoted paradigmatic 2Kers sounding like your worldview cairactures? And, what up in the Bayly blog? I said somehting new there. Is that I’m not funny, or is it that you don’t like the kid pointing out when you’re wearing no clothes? Come on, clotheless emperor Hart (with jst a bow tie on) is a funny image.
Paul, I’ve sometimes found that too many hyperlinks trigger an automatic hold on a post.
Jeff, I haven’t included any hyperlinks. But here’s something new to find: too many arguments puts a hold on a post, apparently.
Zrim: Second, if I understand, your complaint seems to be that the cult/culture distinction is overdone and that SOTC would go down better if that distinction wasn’t being made. I’m sorry, but that distinction just seems to me to be quite inherent to the doctrine of the SOTC. It’s like saying, “Sola fide is great, but you have to lay off the rigid law/gospel distinction.†You don’t get to sola fide without that rigid distinction; likewise you don’t get to the SOTC without the rigid cult/culture distinction.
I think there is another way to do it.
The writers of the Confession drew the line, not at two separate kingdoms — which was certainly an idea available to them, had they wished to avail themselves of it — but at different activities in life.
In the activities of believing and worshiping, our consciences are free from commands extraneous to the word.
In all other activities, our consciences are free from commands contrary to the word.
Note that this freedom cuts across both “kingdoms.”
The minor problem with the rigid line between cult and culture is that the rigidity cannot be maintained without crossed fingers.
Take a Geneva-psalter-only church. The tunes it sings are solidly located in a particular culture (namely, 16th c. European vocal music). Culture — in the middle of our cult! — forsooth!
And that’s but one example; as you can imagine, I could pile up a pretty raft of examples where cult crosses over into culture or culture crosses over into cult.
But you’ve implicitly given the game up when you acknowledge that Christians act like Christians whether involved in cult or culture. If Scripture is truly only for cultic activities, then Christians ought to jettison it outside of cultic activities — and yet we agree that they do not.
The major problem with the rigid line between cult and culture is that it isn’t either explicit teaching nor yet good-and-necessary inference from Scripture. “Whence the rigid line?”, one asks. “Well, Cain built a city and Romans 13, so there”, comes the reply. That’s just not enough.
It ought to be troubling that the supposed rigid line between cult and culture was (a) not in any of the original Reformed confessions; (b) denied by the very practices of the writers of said confessions; and (c) nor yet found in the revisions of those confessions.
Don’t get me wrong: I can see some differences between cult and culture. I just don’t think those differences are sufficiently Scripturally grounded to constitute genuine doctrine. Better, by far, to distinguish between “faith and worship” and “everything else.” That’s close to the notion of cult and culture, but it focuses on actions instead of kingdoms.
JRC
Jeff, if the confessions don’t make a distinction between cult and culture, why don’t they say anything about math, economics, grammar, or education curriculum? They don’t. And that is where the rigid line exists, not in the fluid one you draw (a la Frame) from the fact that we use language in both. The Bible says we speak. Got it. It doesn’t reveal Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew grammar.
DGH, you’re making several complicated points, including (if I’m following?) that “music” is “language.” Quite the thought-provoking topic.
Your main point, though, seems to be that the very structure of the confession delineates the rigid line between cult and culture. Since, you seem to say, the confession speaks to cult and not to culture, it demonstrates the proper relationship of the church to those two spheres.
That’s a pretty tenuous stretch, though. We just as easily say that the very structure of the confession delineates the rigid line between “good and necessary consequence” and “other.” What the Scripture demands, it puts forth; what the Scripture is silent on, it refuses to speculate.
So interestingly, the confession *does* say something about, of all things, civil government! Chapter 23, whether in the original or the 1789, blows right past the rigid cult and culture line, and speaks directly, as the church, to the definition of the job of the civil magistrate.
So I don’t think your argument-qua-question holds up. The reason the confession doesn’t say anything about math in specific is that Scripture does not say anything about math in specific, NOT because math is “culture” instead of “cult.” In areas of culture — civil government, marriage — where the Scripture does speak, the confession isn’t shy.