John Piper has a new book on thinking that I wonder if Tim Keller has read. (Do the celebrity figures of organizations like the Gospel Coalition have enough time, apart from their own writing, speaking, and travel to read the work of each other?) The reason for wondering is a tendency that Keller exhibits in many of the pieces I have read – namely, to avoid extremes in favor of a middle way. You don’t need to be Barry Goldwater, the guy who said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,†to know that both-and solutions are often impossible. To keep the Lord’s Day holy you need to avoid work on Sunday (for starters). You don’t work a little, rest some, and work a bit. And to honor your Reformed convictions, you don’t cooperate in ministries with Arminians. You can’t have the five points of Dort and the four points of the Remonstrants. You can’t ordain men only and have deaconesses. Sometimes the truths you profess require a choice.
But Keller does not seem to like being confined to either-or’s and he also apparently thinks that many of the errors in church history stem precisely from binary situations. His foreword to a new book by former Bush administration staffers on Christianity and politics (posted at the Gospel Coalition blog) exhibits precisely the tendency to identify extremism and run to the other side – but only so far, of course.
Here is Keller’s take on H. Richard Niebuhr:
In the mid-twentieth-century, H. Richard Niebuhr wrote his classic Christ and Culture, which helped mainline Christian churches think through ways to relate faith to politics. In the end, Niebuhr came down on the side of universalism, the view that ultimately God is working to improve things through all kinds of religions and political movements. The result of his work was to lead mainline Protestant churches to become uncritical supporters of a liberal political agenda (though Niebuhr himself opposed such a move).
Now, as the recent Pew Forum poll indicated, most Americans do not know their nation’s church history that well and Keller should not be faulted for getting Niebuhr wrong. At the time that the older brother of Reinhold wrote Christ and Culture, mainline Protestants were firmly in the Republican fold and also very bullish on maintaining a Christian America and a Christian world order. After all, H. Richard’s brother was a prominent supporter of the Cold War and one of the architects of anti-communist foreign policy in the Eisenhower administration was the Presbyterian, John Foster Dulles. In fact, the folks in the orbit of Union Seminary (NYC) were so bullish on a Christian America that their rhetoric foreshadowed that of Jerry Fallwell some thirty years later.
In which case, if Keller is going to use history to avoid its mistakes, he should try to avoid mistaken readings of history.
But this is not Keller’s only appeal to history. He goes on in the foreword to answer the objections of evangelicals who say that politics is “a distraction, that we should concentrate fully on the only important things—the defense of orthodox doctrine and the evangelism of the world.†I wish I knew of such evangelicals. I doubt Keller comes across many of them in New York and you can’t even find them at Bob Jones University these days where Keller’s rhetoric of transformationalism has more appeal that the school’s former fundamentalist denunciations of worldliness. Still, to counter the fundamentalist argument, Keller appeals to the errors of history:
. . . as the authors point out, in 1930s Germany, a faulty understanding of how Christianity relates to the political contributed to the disaster of Nazism, which in turn meant the loss of the German Lutheran Church’s credibility, evangelistic witness, and even orthodoxy. Something similar happened in South Africa, where an orthodox Reformed theology, invoking the views of Abraham Kuyper, created a civil religion that supported apartheid, and as a consequence has suffered incalculable loss to its standing in the eyes of the people. Ironically, the Lutherans followed a two-kingdom approach to Christ and culture, in which Christians are not to bring their faith into politics, while Reformed Christianity has been characterized by a view that Christians are supposed to transform culture. Both approaches, when not applied thoughtfully and wisely, have led to cultural, political, and ultimately spiritual disaster.
Several oddities stand out in this historical judgment. Just how many Americans after fighting a war against Germany twenty years earlier were sitting by their wireless, waiting to hear what the Lutheran Churches in Germany were saying about anything, let alone National Socialism? Lutherans never had a lot of credibility with Anglo-American Protestants, not even the American Lutheran communions.
But even odder about the assessment of Lutherans is the juxtaposition with Kuyperians. Keller does well to remember that the political failings of Protestants have been not simply on the Lutheran side. Reformed Protestants have to answer for their own performance.
And yet, Keller’s conclusion does not follow. He says that Lutherans lost their credibility for National Socialism and Dutch-African Reformed for apartheid. And yet, where has Kuyper lost any credibility with American Protestants – even Keller himself – who still rally under the banner of “every square inch� In other words, if the German churches’ acquiescence to Hitler makes 2k theology suspect, why doesn’t neo-Calvinist support for apartheid make Kuyperianism suspect? And yet, it is the Kuyperian-flavored transformationalism that Keller himself consumes and that also accounts for some of the more vigorous critiques of 2k.
So instead of trying to avoid the errors of the past, perhaps Keller and others who appeal to history for directions in the present should understand that the past is complicated, its actors flawed, and that bad things happen to good causes. 2k theology did not create Hitler any more than neo-Calvinism is responsible for apartheid. History has no single causes. History also yields no consequences that disprove ideas. If Keller wants to argue against 2k theology or fundamentalist otherworldliness, fine. But guilt-by-association is not a good form of thinking. I suspect that even Piper agrees.
230 Comments
DGH: Jeff, way too complicated.
OK, I’m open to simplifying — as long as we don’t simplify inaccurately.
“The Bible is silent on plumbing” is simply false, unless meant in a woodenly literal sense. The Bible speaks in some ways to all activities in life; plumbing is an activity; therefore, the Bible speaks to plumbing. (IIRC, Horton said this also).
So what language would you suggest that passes the twin tests of simplicity and accuracy?
DGH: As an elder I do not have the biblical revelation to evaluate the work of a plumber. I am not even sure if I have enough to judge whether he is doing it honestly.
That’s a not a good way to determine whether the Scripture speaks to issue X. The Bible has a lot to say about the family, but elders do not have enough information, often, to judge whether husbands are loving their wives as Christ loved the church.
DGH: But your extensive response suggests to me a real discomfort with accepting that God has only revealed so much. You want more.
Stop and reflect again on my responses above. My supposedly complicated response was carefully crafted to allow the Scripture to speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent.
My discomfort isn’t with the Scripture — it’s with an oversimplified portrayal of Scripture.
One of the major reasons, BTW, that I feel very certain that it is wrong to say “The Bible is silent on plumbing” is the existence of WLC 123ff.
If Scripture were truly silent on common grace areas, as you suggest, then there would be liberty in those common grace areas.
But the Westminster divines sure didn’t feel shy about telling superiors that they must not command inferiors tasks they can’t perform; or telling people to stay away from lascivious songs, books, and pictures; or telling people — yes, even plumbers — that they must be just and faithful in their contracts.
They couldn’t say all of that if Scripture were truly silent, could they?
CVD, I make points the second use and you infer a denial of the third use, I make points about total depravity and you read utter depravity. Now I suggest a more sober interpretation of developments in the wider world and you hear think I “oppose efforts at improvements.” Talk about salivating dogs. But I suppose like the third use point had to be spelled out, no, I do not oppose efforts at improvement. And you seem to think that putting a sober perspective on developments in the wider world means something about being world-flight. I’m not sure how you get this, but I think it may something to do with assuming in the first place that the best way to see anything worthwhile happen is through legal avenues, so to suggest the inherent flaws of litigiousness is to be world-flighty. Odd.
And hives and chilling? Really? After all the shrilly and reckless descriptions here and elsewhere about those of us who see things differently from you? Maybe you think 2k is a good old boys club, but I don’t see why when card-carrying 2kers speak like transformers it mayn’t be pointed out. What you said was, “I prefer the version of justice that the Western nations have inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition to other versions that evolved in nations that did not know the gospel.” Using a popular phrase that was invented in the mid-20th century, that sounds like the gospel has a direct and obvious bearing on political arrangements. But the west descends from a Greco-Roman tradition, not the gospel. The church descends from the gospel.
Zrim, what I’m searching for is why you felt compelled to “suggest a more sober interpretation of developments int he wider world ….” You can’t have imagined that I (or any adult) is unaware of the intractable problems in the world. Your premises appear to be in search of a conclusion or argument. The clear inference is that the efforts are not worth it, and that inactivity is more pious. The clear inference is that you are critical of those who are active in trying to improve the civil sphere, and that your opposition rests on your 2K premises. This is consistent with your “quietism” and reflexive criticism of each and every example of active engagement we have ever discussed. I know of not one public cultural engagement activity you are not critical of. The conclulsion is inexorable that your version of 2K has an extraordinarily high component of world-flight, non-resistance, and disengagement from the civil sphere. That component may not be 100%, but it seems to come close.
Zrim, that you think I speak like a “transformer” evidences the problem. Anything that reminds you of “transformationalism” you run from in a quite unreasoning way that suggest more blind prejudice than thoughtful reflection.
I could say that, with your nonresistance and nonengagement rhetoric, you sound like a Mennonite. And you do. Read a Mennonite web site, and their 2K arguments, you will feel quite at home. I dont’ say that, however, because I recognize that there are material distinctions between your Reformed theology and their theology, if one drills down beneath your rhetoric. What you can’t grasp is that Christians can pursue world improvement without tring to transform the state into the church. There are quite sound and biblical reasons to do good that are based on love for neighbor and not transforming the civil realm into the spiritual realm.
CVD,
I don’t know. I don’t think it’s representative at all to say that Zrim or Hart think or propound that christians can’t seek the betterment of the civil realm. In fact I’ve seen where they’ve both written on the liberty a christian has to do just that. I think the distinction lies in that a person’s pursuing a betterment of the civil realm isn’t a christian distinctive or article of the faith. Particularly as it exhibits itself in political activism, in which other christians may illicitly attempt to bind the consciences of fellow believers in support of this or that political hot potato. I further think that in light of a “burnt over” america when it comes to marrying religion and politics, they might in fact argue that a more compelling way of engaging that same culture is to NOT play upon or manipulate their “patriotic” affections and in doing so possibly unencumber a gospel in america which is often straining under the weight of carrying so many different political ambitions.
CVD, let me try this. Let’s say that some 2kers think the world would be better with more Walmarts, and some others think it would be better with less.
It’s a simple matter of how each, when contemplating the civil sphere, thinks the best way to go about the civil arrangement is and what constitutes a wiser approach. I’m skeptical of the sort of legislative-political activism you esteem because I think it actually does more harm than help. It’s not that betterment of the civil realm or engaging it is the point of contention here between us, it’s how we do it and why. Maybe you also want more Walmarts, fine, but I think that’s a terrible way to build communities.
Re sounding like a Mennonite, it’s a fair enough point. At the same time, though, I’d point out that when you suggest that the gospel has some positive and direct bearing on nation building (“I prefer the version of justice that the Western nations have inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition to other versions that evolved in nations that did not know the gospel”) that Anabaptists think so as well. They think it means the magistrate should be non-coercive or that believers should turn the other cheek even when civilly wronged, you seem to think it implies something about civil rights or child labor laws. With Luther, I’d rather live under a wise Turk who knew nothing of the gospel than a Christian who thought the gospel had anything whatever to do with governance.
Jeff,
Somehow I am always busy when you guys are having the Christian plumbing, but for now time permits and I will jump gleefully into the fray, plumbers crack and all.
Your argument for Christian plumbing is as follows: the Bible says we should glorify God in everything we do, therefore the Bible speaks to all that humans do (generally), therefore by inference Scripture speaks to plumbing generally.
For plumbing to ever be rightly undertaken with this premise two preconditions must be in place:
1. You must have a skillful plumber.
2. You must have a redeemed plumber who is concerned about glorifying God in his plumbing. (As opposed to glorifying God by winning converts, scouring the job site for poor souls to pray for, and a whole range of other holy activities that keep him from having to glorify God by actually doing his job – but I digress.)
Now, it would be great if the world was full of God honoring plumbers, but let’s suppose some other conditions were at play:
1. You have a godless, hard-living, salty old plumber who has two passions in life, a) cheap whiskey, and b) plumbing.
2. This crusty old plumber has mastered both passions.
Of these skilled plumbers all other conditions being equal (and the worldly one is sober enough to work), whose plumbing is better? The correct answer is neither most of the time, at least in my experience in the wonderful Plumbing industry. This is probably true of nearly any lawful vocation.
So while the Bible may speak to plumbing in a very general and indirect way, it really doesn’t have any bearing on plumbing’s final purpose, which is a functioning system. The reason is that plumbing is neutral, even if the spirit it is done with isn’t. Plumbing can be used for tremendously good purposes like providing clean water and oxygen among other systems to hospitals. It can also be used to deliver Zyclon-B to prisoners in concentration camps. So by saying that the Bible speaks generally to plumbing actually says nothing about plumbing, and is generally unhelpful to anyone who wishes to learn about plumbing.
For the Christian who wants to be a good plumber, he should focus on the discipline of plumbing and not on what the Bible says about plumbing. So long as he conducts his vocational pursuit with Christian character diligently, and demonstrates some skill in the trade he can rest well knowing God is honored in his labor. WCF 1.6 confirms this – Scripture speaks to how he conducts himself as a plumber, but not specifically to his plumbing – for that he could reference trade manuals and product specs just like pagan plumbers do.
CVD, my conclusion is that I would be more circumspect than you are about evaluating what is good or bad in the world, or what is an improvement or a set back.
I also would not interpret revivals the way you do: “when the Evengelical Revivals led to mass conversion of person in Great Britain, laws began to express principles of Christian mercy and justice. Child labor laws were enacted, the slave trade was ended, reforms in education occured, and on and on.”
That perspective represents a real “root, root, root” for the home team. (Why, btw, are evangelicals your home team?)
DGH: “As an elder I do not have the biblical revelation to evaluate the work of a plumber. I am not even sure if I have enough to judge whether he is doing it honestly.”
Jeff: “That’s a not a good way to determine whether the Scripture speaks to issue X.”
But Jeff, this has been an important way of determining whether Scripture speaks to an issue. The Reformation used it to reform worship and the liturgical calendar (does not the Bible speak to time?), and Old Schoolers used it to identify the nature of church power. In fact, it is the criteria by which Paul defends Christian liberty throughout his epistles.
I know Frame doesn’t think this a good method. But Frame doesn’t ever seem to learn from the Christian past.
And if you think the Bible speaks to all of life, and I as an elder minister God’s word, then I have power over all of life.
I don’t understand why you don’t get this. I also don’t understand why you don’t recognize that your version of sola Scriptura makes the Bible either weak or relativistic. The Bible speaks to all of life, including plumbing, but we’re not going to preach or teach about plumbing in the church. Go figure it out on your own. Or, the Bible speaks to all of life and Christians on both sides of a certain practice are appealing to the Bible so the Bible must speak with forked tongue.
I know it’s inspiring to think you’re being biblical all the time. But does it work?
DGH: I also don’t understand why you don’t recognize that your version of sola Scriptura makes the Bible either weak or relativistic.
Well, it’s hard to recognize propositions that are false. *badda-bump*
But seriously, “relativism” is a serious charge.
My version of sola scriptura appears to me to be identical to the Confession’s, so I don’t see where you’re coming from: Where Scripture speaks, to the extent it speaks, we must follow it; where silent, we have liberty; our liberty entails freedom from commands beside Scripture in matters of faith and worship, and freedom from commands contrary to Scripture in all other matters.
DGH: As an elder I do not have the biblical revelation to evaluate the work of a plumber. I am not even sure if I have enough to judge whether he is doing it honestly.
JRC: That’s a not a good way to determine whether the Scripture speaks to issue X.
DGH: But Jeff, this has been an important way of determining whether Scripture speaks to an issue. The Reformation used it to reform worship and the liturgical calendar (does not the Bible speak to time?), and Old Schoolers used it to identify the nature of church power. In fact, it is the criteria by which Paul defends Christian liberty throughout his epistles.
A couple things strike me about this analysis. First, you failed to distinguish between “faith and worship” v. “other.” In the case of the liturgical calendar, since Scripture did not explicitly enjoin observances, the commands to observe feast days were “beside” the Scripture. Plumbing isn’t in either of those categories.
Second, you failed to observe (still?!) that the Catechism explicitly regulates plumbing, along with all other businesses, when it charges the Christian with using honest weights and measures.
Put it this way: if someone charged a plumber in your congregation with dishonest business dealings, would you refuse to hear the case on the grounds that dishonesty is one thing, but dishonesty in plumbing is something else? Send it to secular court on principle?
Third, you failed to reckon with historical precedent (!). The Puritans had no hesitation about regulating secular life in England.
Granted that you and I are living in the 1789 revision era of the Confession; still and all, it’s impossible to maintain that the original intent of WLC 123ff was not to regulate secular life — and since those sections of the WLC have not been revised, it follows that the meaning has not changed; whence, you’re on quite shaky ground claiming that “the Bible does not speak to plumbing.”
So why is the question, “Could I as an elder make the determination?” not a good criterion for “Does the Bible speak to X?”
Two reasons:
(1) The Bible speaks to the motives of the heart, quite frequently. An elder, even a skilled one, may not have enough information to determine what the motives of the heart are … and therefore may not have enough information to determine the facts on the ground.
(2) Likewise, an elder without expertise in plumbing may not have enough information to distinguish between skillfully dishonest plumbing and shoddy honest plumbing. RIGHT, you say, THAT’S MY WHOLE POINT! But here’s the thing — that same elder can still say to the plumber, “The Scripture commands you to be honest in your work. So to the extent that you are able, you must be honest in your plumbing.”
The elder may not be able to drill down to the specifics, but he still has something he ought to say.
—
So the problem with your analysis, once again, is that you confuse “Having something to say” with “Having everything to say.”
Those two aren’t the same, but you lump them together; arguing against the latter counts, in your calculus, as arguing against the former. This is incorrect procedure.
Jed: Now, it would be great if the world was full of God honoring plumbers, but let’s suppose some other conditions were at play:
1. You have a godless, hard-living, salty old plumber who has two passions in life, a) cheap whiskey, and b) plumbing.
2. This crusty old plumber has mastered both passions.
Of these skilled plumbers all other conditions being equal (and the worldly one is sober enough to work), whose plumbing is better?
Let’s consider the kinds of things enjoined in the Catechism of Christians in their secular callings: That they deal honestly in their contracts; that they take effort to preserve the property of others; etc.
Suppose you have a plumber who is not honest in his contracts. Or, he is careless of the client’s property while plumbing.
Is he a good plumber?
No.
Ah, you say, but a non-Christian can do those things.
And he can. We remember that even the pagans can instinctively do the things required by the law. So to this extent, we agree that there’s a natural law in play. But the non-Christian won’t think of himself as obligated to do those things by God. He’ll think of it as “just good business” or “the right thing to do.”
But now to the Christian: May the Christian plumber do those things because it’s “just good business”? Not really. I mean, yes, there is an extent to which the universe is made with a moral fiber in it — Proverbs, anyone? — but the Christian ought to do those things because the Lord commands them.
Jed: The reason is that plumbing is neutral, even if the spirit it is done with isn’t.
May I suggest Clark on this: Common is not Neutral
Jed: For the Christian who wants to be a good plumber, he should focus on the discipline of plumbing and not on what the Bible says about plumbing. So long as he conducts his vocational pursuit with Christian character diligently, and demonstrates some skill in the trade he can rest well knowing God is honored in his labor.
Competence is the first kindness. He should focus on both, together.
Jeff, the problem with this is that you do not recognize the times in which we live. Plenty of schools out there have the mission of providing a Christian education on every subject because Christ is Lord of all and because the Bible speaks to all of life. So here’s the thing, would you favor a Christian school of plumbing or not? You seem to equivocate though in a fairly stubborn way. It seems that the Christian school of plumbing would not really teach plumbing but honesty. So how is that about plumbing? That’s why I consider this dishonest.
And the reason I consider Frame’s position relativistic is because the Bible is supposed to be a norm, but through F’s version of the RPC, the Bible as a norm now has to govern those areas in which Christians have liberty. So one Christian is using copper pipes because the Bible speaks to plumbing, another is using PVC because the Bible speaks to plumbing. So which is it? Does the Bible say to use copper PVC?
The same problem attends Shakespeare or the Republican party. By appealing to the Bible for such areas of life, Christians end up trying to make biblical norms work for matters of liberty, and so the Bible becomes toothless.
DGH: So here’s the thing, would you favor a Christian school of plumbing or not? You seem to equivocate though in a fairly stubborn way. It seems that the Christian school of plumbing would not really teach plumbing but honesty.
Supposing it were a reasonable allocation of resources? I guess I would. Seems rather specialized, but perhaps not in Calvin’s Geneva.
The Christian school of plumbing would, of course, teach honesty as a part of plumbing to the glory of God. Mostly, it would teach plumbing as the way to glorify God through … plumbing.
I dunno why you think that a Christian school of plumbing wouldn’t teach plumbing!?!
The Christian school of plumbing would, of course, teach honesty as a part of plumbing to the glory of God. Mostly, it would teach plumbing as the way to glorify God through … plumbing.
Jeff, don’t look now but that’s how (unabashed transformationist) Kuyper College talks about its educational project.
But, again, if it’s true that we glorify God the exact way he justifies us, by faith alone, then we don’t need more schools pushing works plus faith but churches preaching faith alone but not a faith that is alone. One advantage of that model is that we don’t actually have “The Christian School of Plumbing.” What the what?
Zrim: Jeff, don’t look now but that’s how (unabashed transformationist) Kuyper College talks about its educational project.
I know, it’s a shame how the wrong team sometimes picks up the right ideas. *rimshot*
But seriously, you realize the perils of “argument from abuse”, right?
Zrim: But, again, if it’s true that we glorify God the exact way he justifies us, by faith alone …
OK…
Zrim: …then we don’t need more schools pushing works plus faith but churches preaching faith alone but not a faith that is alone.
What about schools that teach about faith that leads to works?
Jeff, you mean Reformed day schools? Sure, build all you want, just don’t tell me it’s the church’s mandate by confusing curriculum with catechesis (easier said than done, I know). But I still don’t see anymore need of Reformed day schools than Christian hospitals if we have Reformed churches being obedient to their Commission.
Zrim: Just don’t tell me it’s the church’s mandate
Deal.
DGH: You seem to equivocate though in a fairly stubborn way.
Hm. It’s odd that we both see each other as equivocating.
Bear with my stupidity. Show me the equivocation, slowly and clearly.
Here are my cards:
(1) The Bible gives some specific norms for “all things that we do” — to be done to the glory of God, to be done by faith, to be done in love.
(2) Plumbing is a thing that we do.
(3) Therefore, the Bible provides the above norms for plumbing.
To me, this appears to be an air-tight good and necessary consequence.
Nor does it require copper nor PVC nor lead; the norms are not that specific.
So where is the equivocation?
Meanwhile, I see equivocation in your position:
(DGH as filtered by JRC):
(1) The Bible requires us to be honest in all that we do.
(2) Therefore, the Bible requires us to be honest when we plumb, but
(3) The Bible is silent on plumbing.
It seems to me that you are using a decidedly non-standard version of the term silent, one which would never hold up in a court of law:
Judge: “Plaintiff alleges breach of contract for the plumbing job you contracted out. The facts seem to support this. Doesn’t the law require you to fulfill your contracts?”
JRC-Plumber: “Yeah. But the law doesn’t say anything about plumbing contracts.”
Judge: “Isn’t a plumbing contract a kind of contract?”
JRC-Plumber: “Yeah, but the law doesn’t say plumbing, so it’s silent on plumbing.”
Judge: “Your motion for dismissal is denied. I find for the plaintiff for full damages.”
DGH: And the reason I consider Frame’s position relativistic is because the Bible is supposed to be a norm, but through F’s version of the RPC, the Bible as a norm now has to govern those areas in which Christians have liberty. So one Christian is using copper pipes because the Bible speaks to plumbing, another is using PVC because the Bible speaks to plumbing. So which is it? Does the Bible say to use copper PVC?
The liberty is found in the implementation of the norms. The Bible says neither Cu nor Pb nor PVC, so there’s liberty to use any of the above (subject to the magistrate’s instructions). The Bible does say to be honest, so there’s not liberty there.
IF, for some reason, using Cu or Pb or PVC becomes a matter of conscience — perhaps a Christian is allowed by code to use Pb, but he recognizes that it will be a significant health hazard for the users — then he is now bound by the norm of love to not use Pb.
This isn’t equivocal; and it’s certainly not relativistic. Sometimes it’s hard, but we didn’t expect easy. Why not relativistic? Because the norms are universal; it is their implementations which are flexible. (Note that under natural law schemes, the same kind of flexibility applies; yet you would not call natural law relativistic, right?)
The Real Rule: Outside of faith and worship, the norms reach as far, and only as far, as they reach. Where they cease to reach, there’s liberty.
Out of curiosity, is your concern a theoretical one, or is it borne out of real issues? Do you find Frame trying to regulate areas where Christians have liberty?
Jeff, Here’s where the equivocation comes in. You claim the Bible speaks to all of life and we are to do everything to the glory of God. But then in the first statement of your syllogism you talk about the Bible speaking to SOME of the things we do to the glory of God. So you are acknowledging that the Bible doesn’t speak to everything and yet you continue to argue for a “speak-for-everything†position. I don’t get it. It sure seems like a moving target to me.
As for what irks me about Frame, sorry if I step on toes but the idea that we might start a Christian school of plumbing seems intuitively absurd. The church has a history of apologists who say that believers share things in common with unbelievers. But the neo-Cal’s have been resisting this for as long as they have insisted on worldviews.
I not only believe this position to be unbiblical since the New Testament gets rid of the old cultural regulations that were part of the Jewish cult. It also says that Christians will find themselves in all cultures. I also find this view to be completely unrealistic and do not know of anyone, except the old Dutch Reformed who lived in ethnic ghettos, who lives as if this were true.
JRC: (1) The Bible gives some specific norms for “all things that we do†— to be done to the glory of God, to be done by faith, to be done in love.
DGH: But then in the first statement of your syllogism you talk about the Bible speaking to SOME of the things we do to the glory of God.
I said all, not some. I don’t get it. Are you thinking that “glorifying God, faithing, and loving” are the some things? But then how would we glorify God to the glory of God?
Sorry, it’s like we’re not reading the same words.
Jeff,
Yes, I see this now. But the language of some and all does seem to allow you to avoid specificity.
So why are you so intent on the Bible speaking to everything. What happens if it doesn’t? And why aren’t you troubled by the trivialization that inevitably follows?
DGH, I haven’t been able to give your last question the thorough response it deserves. Suffice it to say that I’m taking it seriously, and will give more detail later.
For now:
(a) Do we agree, then, that I’m not equivocating?
(b) What of my question to you:
(DGH as filtered by JRC):
(1) The Bible requires us to be honest in all that we do.
(2) Therefore, the Bible requires us to be honest when we plumb, but
(3) The Bible is silent on plumbing.
Is this not a strained or equivocal meaning of the word “silent”?
(c) Short answer: I see the potential for trivialization, but I don’t see the inevitability.
Jeff, no, because we know the difference between verbs and adverbs. The Bible speaks to adverbs — “honestly.” The Bible does not speak to verbs — I “fix” the leak. So the Bible is silent on “baking,” “playing,” “counting,” “cleaning.” But the Bible does speak about “praying,” “singing,” “preaching,” “communing.”
The Dutch Calvinist theologian and later politician Abraham Kuyper put the Reformed worldview aptly when he wrote, “Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’â€
Kuyper’s statement suggests an approach to the world that is diametrically opposed to the sort of cultural asceticism to which American Protestantism has been prone. Instead of teaching children confronted by the world to “Just say ‘no,†the Reformed outlook counters with “Just say yes.’â€
(Darryl Hart, “Keep Your Balance” July 2000, Tabletalk)
77.102.246.38, you forgot to include what comes after the quotation you paste:
“Unfortunately, during the past fifty years or so, the Reformed perspective on creation has become a ready way to justify the pleasures that Christians experience in their enjoyment of this world. In fact, anything that may curtail a believer’s enjoyment of the world, the assumption goes, masks a retreat to the cultural straightjacket of fundamentalism. Not all Calvinists are guilty of such an extreme view. Still, the prevailing understanding of the Reformed faith is one in which restraining pleasure or selective cultural engagement is the fallback position of weaker Christians.
“The irony here is that John Calvin himself was not averse to making restraint and moderation necessary fruits of sanctification. Often lost in discussions about a Reformed world and life view is an awareness of Calvin’s own understanding of the Christian life, one that recognizes the basic difference between life in this world and life in the world to come. The portion of Calvin’s Institutes that has been republished as The Golden Booklet of the Christian Life, for instance, gives support for the sentiment that Calvin so often expressed in his prayers, that believers should not become too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things.
“But the limits that inform a Christian’s enjoyment of this world’s pleasures are evident even in other parts of his theology. In his discussion of Christ’s kingly office, Calvin writes that the Christian life is a “harsh and wretched†warfare, fought “under the cross.†“For this reason,†he adds, “we ought to know that the happiness promised us in Christ does not consist in outward advantages, such as leading a joyous and peaceful life, having rich possessions, being safe from all harm, and abounding with delights such as the flesh commonly longs after. No, our happiness belongs to the heavenly life!â€
“Restraint, then, is not a dirty word. Think, for instance, of what Paul writes to Titus about the virtues “proper for sound doctrine.†They are “that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate,†and that older women “likewise. . . be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine.†And these older women should instruct younger women to be “discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.†Paul adds that young men need to be “sober- minded†(Titus 2:1-6).
“Obviously, these are not traits that we associate with the forms of celebration that typically accompany New Year’s Eve parties or the home team’s victory in the World Series. But even if our culture has replaced a more restrained understanding of celebration with one that is unbridled, the point of Paul’s teaching cannot be missed. The believer’s walk should be characterized by restraint, discipline, sobriety, and self-control. These traits adorn the Gospel.
“The problem is that American Protestants have cultivated extremes rather than nuance. At one end is a commitment to temperance that quickly dissolves into abstinence because of a failure to recognize that worldly pleasures are in fact legitimate.
“In reaction comes an unbounded resolve to enjoy to the full the fruits of creation as gifts from God. What both sides miss is a different biblical consideration. Irrespective of whether a particular form of pleasure is lawful or not, the Bible teaches that restraint and sobriety mark the Christian path of obedience. In other words, the believer’s life should be so characterized by moderation that both abstinence and revelry are implausible because both exhibit an immoderate way of living in this world.”
Darryl Hart, “Keep Your Balance” July 2000, Tabletalk (http://www.the-highway.com/balance.html)
DGH: Jeff, no, because we know the difference between verbs and adverbs. The Bible speaks to adverbs — “honestly.†The Bible does not speak to verbs — I “fix†the leak. So the Bible is silent on “baking,†“playing,†“counting,†“cleaning.†But the Bible does speak about “praying,†“singing,†“preaching,†“communing.â€
Dr. Hart! What is an adverb if not a condition?! Adverbs, say the grammarians, tell us HOW things are done. So if we wrap an adverb (“honestly”) around the verb (“fix the leak”), then we’ve just spoken to HOW leaks are fixed: honestly.
Honestly!
(couldn’t resist the pun)
Jeff, are you serious? Someone who is honest may also be someone who cannot fix a leak. Someone who can fix a leak is someone who may not be honest. Do you really not see the difference? Has Frame so colored your thinking?
DGH, are *you* serious? Did I ever say that someone who is honest can also fix a leak?
OR
Did I say what I said: that if the Scripture is telling us to fix leaks honestly, then it is speaking to leak-fixing.
I don’t know why this is so hard. After several rounds, I do believe your sincerity in seeing some kind of problem — but every time you try to represent the problem, you end up turning my words into something that they simply don’t say. And don’t mean, either.
How about this: True or False:
For you, “How to fix a leak” is a series of steps. And since “being honest” is not one of those steps, you reason (understandably) that “being honest” is not a part of “fixing a leak.”
Am I close? If so, then I might have some insight as to our difference.
JRC
The best book about the brothers Niebuhrs is still No Offense by Cuddihy. One way of being anti-liberal is to be an universalist. One big patriotic national empire. One big church. The two party system is about the most anti-sectarian institution around.
I say that as a sectarian who thinks the reason Tim Keller hangs with Arminians is that he is an Arminian. Works come in second place is not exactly Christ alone grace alone.