Jamie Smith's Surprising Concession

Published on by D. G. Hart

Early returns on James K. A. Smith’s critical response to 2k (largely David VanDrunen) are coming in and his remarks will likely keep alive debates about whether two-kingdom theology is alien (i.e., Lutheran) to the Reformed tradition. What needs to be said at the outset is that for all Smith’s criticism, it is measured and responsible as opposed to the hysterical misrepresentation in which John Frame, the Brothers B, Dr. K., and your average theonomist traffic. That may be an instance of being damned by faint praise. But anytime a 2k critic in Reformed circles actually treats a 2k proponent as if he is a Christian and a human being to boot these days, the critic deserves a compliment.

Also important to see is that Smith generally understands the difference between 2k and neo-Calvinism and expresses it accurately rather than resorting to caricature. For this reason, the contrast that Smith draws early in his essay is very useful for understanding the nature of the debate. According to Smith:

At its heart, the Kuyperian tradition has emphasized the Lordship of Christ over all things and hence affirmed creation and culture as realms of God’s redemptive in-breaking grace (Col. 1:15-20). Rejecting the functional Gnosticism of fundamentalism and otherworldly pietism, neo-Calvinists have emphasized a “transformative” project – or at least the importance of cultural labor that is restorative and redemptive – undertaken by a people fueled by grace and informed by revelation’s claims about how things ought to be. Redemption, then, is about bodies as much as souls and is about social bodies as much as individuals. In Christ, our creating and redeeming God effects a redemption that is nothing short of cosmic and nothing less than cultural. The wonderworking power released by the resurrection redeems us from punishment but also retools the arts to the glory of God; the ascended Christ grants his Spirit to empower us to overcome sin, but the same Spirit also equips us to probe into the nooks and crannies of cell biology, trying to undo the curse of disease. In short, the Great Commission is the announcement of the Good News that Christ has made it possible for us to take up once again humanity’s cultural mandate. God’s grace is as wide as his good creation, and he gathers us as a people to take up our creational task of forming and transforming creation for his glory.

You are a neo-Calvinist if you get goose bumps reading this.

In contrast, 2k stands for:

God’s grace is more circumscribed (than the Kuyperian vision). The gospel of grace is announced and enacted within the spiritual realm of the church, but in the temporal, civic realm of our cultural life – the work of building schools and families and libraries – we are governed by natural law. We meet Christ as Redeemer in the Word and sacraments, who births in us a longing for his coming kingdom; but in the rest of our mundane lives, we deal with God the Creator, giver of natural law. While Sundays give us a taste of the spiritual kingdom of heaven, the rest of the week we inhabit the earthly kingdom of the present. While in the church, we feast on the Word of God’s revelation, in our cultural lives in this temporal world we live by the “universally accessible” dictates of natural law.

Some of us might want to qualify how air tight these compartments of Word vs. natural law are in Smith’s description. For instance, the Bible does reveal general norms for family life which take place on the common days of the week. And believers should avail themselves, according to most 2kers, of the word and prayer during the days between Sabbaths. Even so, Smith draws a fair contrast between the two. And what is important to notice for the rest of his essay is how cultural the Kuyperian vision is and how ecclesial 2k convictions are. In fact, one could well ask Smith where is the church in his outline of the neo-Calvinist outlook? (One could wonder additionally if Reformed pastors during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were as silent about the church and so voluble about culture.)

Rather than arguing for the superiority of neo-Calvinism to 2k, Smith decides to criticize 2k – again, mainly VanDrunen – for misunderstanding Augustine. Smith believes that VanDrunen collapses Augustine’s two cities into Luther’s two kingdoms; the Calvin professor dodges entirely the 2k language in Calvin that makes the Geneva pastor sound a lot like Luther.

This is the heart of Smith’s article – to blame 2k for misunderstanding Augustine. It doesn’t address at all the merits of either neo-Calvinism or 2k and for that reason, according to this referee, Smith doesn’t lay a glove on VanDrunen. In fact, though I don’t have VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms with me in Turkey (can you believe it?), I am fairly certain that the Westminster California professor distinguishes clearly between Augustine’s two cities and Gelasius’ two swords, and that the real genesis of 2k is in the distinction between the temporal and spiritual powers that Augustine along with other early medieval authorities make.

Be that as it may, also notable about Smith’s essay is how his interpretation of Augustine puts the Bishop of Hippo far closer to modern 2k than to neo-Calvinism. In fact, Smith’s reading of Augustine and the way Christians interact with the earthly city, what he calls, “selective collaboration,” is almost exactly what 2kers are arguing for over against the hyped neo-Calvinist language of redeeming the culture or w-w.

While Augustine suggests the center of gravity for heavenly citizens’ political energy is ecclesial [when do neo-Calvinists ever say this?] and articulates a basic stance of suspicion and critique of the political as embodied in the earthly city, this does not translate into any kind of manichaean, absolutist rejection of participation in the politics of the earthly city [would Kuyper ever say this of the French Revolution?]. Rather, Augustine’s political phenomenology advocates selective collaboration based on four factors. (Bold text all about me and my thoughts)

First, the earthly city attests to “an ineradicable creational desire” such that the earthly city is a “sign” of the heavenly city.

Second, Augustine is attentive to the teleological nature of virtue in such a way that the earthly desire for virtue is to be preferred to vice. Meanwhile, the desire for earthly peace – “which is only a semblance of peace – is nonetheless preferred to its absence.”

Third, Augustine recognizes that some “cultural configurations are closer to being properly directed than others – [which] also permits an ad hoc recognition that there can be aspects of penultimate congruence even where this is ultimate, teleological divergence.”

Fourth, these affirmations of “even disordered communal love” do not translate into a program of deep affirmation or even Christianiization of the political configuration of the earthly city.” Smith adds, “Augustine is not Eusebius.”

The purpose of seeking some modicum of political peace in the earthly city is ecclesial: “that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life with all devotion and love.” This does not sound like a project for “transforming” the empire.

Neither does it sound like Kuyper and his followers. My own reading of Kuyper is that his practice was better than his rhetoric. In the demands of Dutch public life, he was willing to work within the limits of the nation’s political order for the sake of the church as institute and for the sake of God’s people. But to justify that work, he relied upon the antithesis in a way that drew a manicheaen contrast between the original Dutch republic and the French Revolution, and between a Christian w-w and the Enlightenment.

It seems to me that on the basis of Smith’s reading of Augustine the Calvin professor is a welcome contribution to the neo-Calvinist world. The reason is that he sees how ecclesial Augustine was. And one of the foremost concerns of contemporary 2kers is to restore to the church her unique calling. To do that requires jettisoning much of the transformational logic that leads to the “redemption of culture.” Redemption takes place in the church. Creation and providence take place in culture. Smith recognizes this in his description of Augustine, even when he uses the word “creation” instead of “redemption” to describe the ways of the earthly city.

Unwittingly, then, Smith has confirmed the 2k objection to neo-Calvinism. It appears that his real target is not the resurgence of 2k within Reformed circles but the overreach that regularly afflicts Dutch Calvinism when while reading Colossians 1 their knees go wobbly.

34 thoughts on “Jamie Smith's Surprising Concession”

  1. Fighting the good fight? This old fellow, as a very new Christian, entered Westminster Theological Seminary in 1950. Early on I found there were many fights in play @ WTS! One was between Gordon Clark and veteran prof. Cornelius VanTil. “What’s THAT all about?” I asked my Bible-wise new buddies. “Oh, it is about the “Incomprehensibility of God”. “Wow!”, I asked. “Which guy says God is Comprehensible!?” There came a look which seemed to say, “How did YOU ever get accepted HERE?” ——— I feel the same as I read Darryl Hart’s “Fighting The Good Fight” years ago. The same feeling comes back when I visit all the conflabs @ Old Life!!! Am I 2K? I really don’t know! Seems like a wide spectrum. ———My wife and I raised 3 sons and a daughter, They raised 25 grands. Six of them are married and gave us 4 great grands. When I visit sites like Family Research Council and Media Research Council, I find REAL fights us Christians MUST fight as we try to worship and study on the Lord’s Day and His 6 others, study Christian Doctrines, pray and minister to family and others. I never felt I or anyone else was SO busy with SPIRITUAL matters that we had no time left to fight fights against the dangers (sins) here and now on God’s Created Earth! Jesus was Creator too. John 1:1,3 and elsewhere. Don’t fight buddies; fight our enemies! Let’s ROLL! In Jesus, Old Bob

    Like

  3. Thanks for this post, Darryl. This is just the sort of conversation and exchange I’d hoped to begin. I’m especially pleased to hear that you think I’ve presented the 2K position fairly. That was certainly a goal of mine.

    As for whether I’ve (inadvertantly?) confirmed the 2k rejection of neo-Calvinism: I wonder if your verdict here is just a tad hasty. Indeed, I wonder whether we might need to get beyond the either/or dichotomy (EITHER 2k OR Neocalvinism) in order to do justice to Augustine. (I think you’re reading Augustine in your 2k image just a bit. Robert Dodaro’s work on Augustine’s politics is germane here.)

    You ask whether a Neocalvinist “would ever say” the sorts of things I hear in Augustine. Well, I’m saying them, and I’m a Neocalvinist of sorts.

    Perhaps what we need to realize is that Neocalvinism is not a monolith. Indeed, this is precisely why I’m sympathetic to aspects of the 2k project, particularly it’s robust ecclesiology and renewed sacramentality. I’ve been critical of the “flatness” of much Neocalvinist ecclesiology (or lack thereof) since 2005. But I also don’t think affirming an ecclesial centre requires giving up on the Neocalvinist notion of cultural renewal–though I’m as critical as anyone of the benighted triumphalisms that march under a Kuyperian banner.

    All this just to say that I think progress in this conversation needs to let go of the notion that 2k and Neocalvinism are entirely mutually exclusive. We might need new Venn diagrams that recognize significant overlaps while also recognizing some differences within Neocalvinism itself.

    I do hope this is the beginning of a conversation that will take place in other venues (not blogs) over the next few years.

    Like

  4. Someone whom I know and respect a great deal says that the 2K view is basically Lutheran.

    Being somewhat new to the whole 2K discussion myself, I was wondering if there is a particular post(s) in your archives that would be helpful in explaining (i.e. why do some accuse 2K of being a Lutheran view?) and refuting this idea.

    Thanks very much for your time.

    – Andy

    Like

  5. “To clarify one matter for readers who may be interested, I do not believe that Augustine’s ‘two cities’ refers to the same thing as the ‘two kingdoms’ that I discuss in this book. Both are biblical concepts and both should be affirmed, but they do not describe identical realities.”-VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, pg. 14 (footnote 3).

    Like

  6. Pingback: Jamie Smith’s Surprising Concession in his critical response to ’2K’ theology – by D. G. Hart

  7. This is a curious note from VanDrunen. It should be noted that this book (“Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”) was not available when I wrote my article (which originally began its life as a conference presentation at Dordt a couple of years ago).

    More importantly, the insertion of a footnote like this is not sufficient to address just how he reads Augustine in the earlier book that I engage (i.e., “Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms”). So my evaluation of his reading of Augustine needs to be focused on the reading of Augustine he offers in NLTK. I cite direct evidence from NLTK regarding his reading of Augustine, so readers can evaluate whether I’ve fairly presented his position. If he corrects that mis-reading of Augustine in the later book, then I expect he must concede that he has changed his reading and thus disagrees with his earlier reading. If not, then this little footnote doesn’t really address the problem.

    Like

  8. Jamie, a few thoughts:

    As an old schoolish confessional Presbyterian, I never really got any distinct ecclesiology/sacramentology from my neocalvinism… but I didn’t see that as a lack in neocalvinism. Rather, I saw it as neocalvinism focused on addressing other (non-ecclesial) things; things that aren’t properly addressed in ecclesial confession & theology. If some neocalvinists seemed to be lacking good ecclesiolgy/sacramentology, I usually took that to be because (as it turns out) they were in the CRC or were Evangelicals or otherwise less than orthodox (by my ungenerous definition).

    You don’t take it that a neocalvinist view on non-ecclesial life in any way undermines a thick ecclesiology/sacramentology, do you? Of course, Darryl thinks so… that’s almost the sum of what he has to say about neocalvinism.

    At least one of the things that turns Darryl’s & VanDrunen’s (and Horton’s) two kingdom view into a “neo-2k” view is their opposition to the possibility of doing cultural activity Christianly. In that respect, there has to be a continued either/or between neo2k and neocalvinism, wouldn’t you say?

    Like

  9. James, I may have missed it in your piece, but I do not see you cite from NL2K this bit from page 71:

    Lying behind Calvin’s discussions of the two kingdoms is an Augustinian two cities paradigm, though never to my knowledge explicitly expressed as such. Calvin, in other words, believed that a fundamental antithesis divided Christians from non-Christians, both in regard to eternal destiny and to knowledge and conduct in the present world. But, as with Luther, Calvin moved beyond this antithetical paradigm and expressed additionally another twofold conception, Calvin’s two kingdoms were not the kingdoms of God and Satan, or even of God and man. Hence, Calvin’s doctrine of the two kingdoms was not Augustine’s doctrine of the two cities. Both of Calvin’s two kingdoms are God’s, but are ruled by him in distinctive ways…Calvin perceived a clear difference between these kingdoms but not a fundamental antithesis.

    So the note Austin provides from LG2K seems to correspond with NL2K and the idea seems to be that Calvin’s 2k is a development of Augustine’s two cities and is what DVD is further developing in the contemporary discussion.

    Like

  10. Re. 2K— We have 2 Kingdoms all right! I believe that the real question is: Are they separated by a moon-high wall (ACLU) or by a friendly, neighborly, ground-level boundary line? (Founding Fathers). I guess no one was impressed by my comment #2 yesterday. I think I am much like Jamie Smith— having both 2K and Transformation elements in my views. I still regret brothers fighting (contending?). (Thanks, Bruce Settergren. Should DG Hart have entitled his book; Contending The Good Contention?”) I wish Darryl hadn’t referred to brother John Frame as giving a “hysterical misrepresentation”! Over and Out, Old Brother Bob

    Like

  11. More than just a Lutheran thing. Just one snippet from Calvin regarding some of his thinking.

    Calvin’s Institutes of Religion, Book 3:19:15.
    “Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to performs (see Book 4, chap. 10, sec. 3-6.) To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over which different kings and different laws can preside. By attending to this distinction, we will not erroneously transfer the doctrine of the gospel concerning spiritual liberty to civil order…”

    Like

  12. Jamie,

    Glad you’re not calling for a neo-Calvinist jihad on me. I do know that the neo-Calvinist world is not uniform, that for instance, the CRC is a long way away from the kind of criticisms of 2k made by either Doug Wilson, Nelson Kloosterman, or even the CRC’s own, Bret MacAtee known here affectionately as Rabbi Bret.

    2kers are not a monolith either, but we don’t have a body of lit or institutions that neo-Cals do.

    I think a lot of the difference among neo-Cals has a lot to do with 2 things: 1) what is the status of the antithesis? Neo-Cals use it differently, with theonomists (inspired by Van Tillianism) at one end and CRC progressives at the other end. But both have a lot of transformationalism going on. 2) What is the status of Kuyper and his project? The Dutch neo-Cals are generally still nostalgic for 1886 and all that. The Colsons of the evangelical world like having a European Prime Minister to show the influence of Christianity (Wilberforce also works this way.) And then there are those — both Dutch and non- who like having a set of distinct Christian institutions (more antithesis).

    But if ecclesiology is the game — which you seem to be saying in various places — then you and I have ground in common. I am not sure the rest of the neo-Cals are with you.

    Like

  13. Andy, it’s a long read, but VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms is the place to go for a 2k position in the Reformed tradition.

    Like

  15. Pingback: Two Kingdoms Round-up – Reforming Virtue

  18. “. . . it’s just that folks like Baus have yet to show how a Christian labor union is anything different from a labor union.”

    Let’s change the focus for a moment to “Christian school.”

    Is there such a thing? Can parents and teachers identify an alleged Christian school as substantially different from a non-Christian school?

    I’m not interested in whether such schools often fail but whether such a thing can exist.

    Could the various sides in this discussion agree on criteria to determine whether such a school is possible?

    Like

  19. Phil, the criteria might be whether a task or institution is common to all created human endeavor. If so, then affixing a redemptive adjective to a creational noun seems odd. Education seems to be something all human beings naturally do–along with statecraft, art, medicine, economics, and farming. If “Christian schools” makes sense then so would “Christian states, sculptures, antibiotics, money, and sheep-herding.” But if a task or institution is something that transcends common human endeavor and does not spring up naturally but supernaturally then the Christian adjective-noun coupling makes more sense. Another simpler criteria might be whether the NT prescribes a task or institution. Last I checked, it didn’t prescribe schools and hospitals and labor unions but churches and worship and sacraments.

    It might be better to speak of Christians doing education rather than of Christian education.

    Like

  20. Phil, the question isn’t whether a Xian school is possible. They exist. Lots of 2kers send their children to such schools. The question is whether they are bringing in the kingdom. Another is whether they actually integrate faith and learning.

    Like

  21. In my above comments (#1 and #9) on James K. A. Smith’s Concession, (“concession”?) I have tried to make 2 main points. Both failed, it seems. (1) Don’t fight with Christian brothers. (Like claiming that John Frame is speaking “hysterical misconceptions”). (2) If we see our church, country, schools, families and us under deadly attack by powerful forces like muslims, marxists and atheists— should we (and our churches) pray at least as much, and as fervently, as we do for ourselves, missionaries, etc.)— fight back? If so, HOW? Seems time for Old Bob to spend more time on important sites: 2 Research Councils (Media and Family). For fun, in place of endless, fruitless debates on 2K and Neo-Calvinism stuff, I hope to “visit” favorite places, street level, where I and family have lived —- Phillipsburg, NJ (birth to graduation from Lafayette College), Philadelphia (WTS 1950-1954) Then California, Oregon, Ohio, South Carolina and, finally, Atlanta since 1966. (This via Google Maps). PTL! Over and Out! (WWII meaning). Love, Old Bob

    Like

  22. Old Bob, you clearly have a commendable desire for peace among the brothers. That is a spirit we all need to take heed of.

    You may, however, grant a little more patience to those “contending.” Perhaps a suggestion related to your two points above.
    1) To be fair to both sides, perhaps you may carry your message, “don’t fight,” also to John Frame, and others to whom this website has been responding. They, after all, seem to exhibit a fair amount of pugilism themselves, one even going so far as to publish an entire book dedicated to carrying on this fight.

    2) Each side has serious concerns: the 2Ker fears the NeoCal may be diluting the gospel in favor of a social gospel; the NeoCal fears the 2Ker is indifferent to or even complicit with the increase of godlessness around us. While it seems that many are not as extreme as these fears indicate, I would hesitate to dismiss these debates as “fruitless.”

    Praying for the peace and purity of His churches.

    Like

  23. If Xian schools exist, are they misnamed because such a concept cannot exist?

    If the concept of a Xian school cannot exist (which seems to follow if Xian unions, Xian goat herding, a Xian state, etc., cannot exist), they why would 2Kers send their kids there? What could possibly be the benefit?

    No one (to my knowledge) thinks that a Xian school can “bring in the kingdom” in the way that the “means of grace” can. Or at least in the way that the sacraments can. (The Word and prayer can be non-trivially used in a Xian school, obviously.)

    But does Christ’s kingdom meaningfully expand when children are taught to love their God with all of their being when they sit, when they rise up, when they go on the road, when they’re in the field, or the math class or the science class?

    Whether they actually integrate faith and learning–good question! A lot of folks view the academics as instrumentalities (just motions to repeat) or raw data (bare facts). Then they pray before or afterward and read an unrelated Scripture. But if there is such a thing as a Xian worldview, a web of (theological) ideas that hang together and coordinate how we think about the derivation of the quadratic formula, for instance, then maybe an “integration” *can* occur, even if most don’t or can’t do it.

    Like

  24. Zrim, whether something is common to all humanity maybe isn’t the criteria: whether we eat or drink, it all is to be shaped to Christ’s glory, even common endeavors.

    And affixing a redemptive adjective to a creational noun cannot be odd if redemption is designed to restore all of creation: that’s why Jesus came! In Adam, somehow we totally screwed up all of creation.

    At the end of your post, you wrote, “It might be better to speak of Christians doing education rather than of Christian education.” I would change this to say that when public worship ends, the Church does not dissolve but rather goes into the world to disciple the nations, to disciple all the social structures from which nationality arises. On Sunday morning it’s the Church-at-worship, but on Monday morning it’s the Church-at-work in our various places.

    The Xian faith should go wherever sin is found. Is there sin in common human endeavors? Is the plowing of the wicked sinful? Is man’s evil pervasive? Is every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, even while engaged in common endeavors so that he shapes that endeavor according to his presuppositions? Then that’s where the gospel should go.

    Like

  25. Phil, Xian school is a misnomer for Reformed Protestants. They should be called Reformed but to pay the bills they generally become Protestant such that faculty and students come from non-Reformed backgrounds. So the issue of truth in advertising is not a problem 2k foists.

    As for a child glorifying God all the time, great. But lots of Christians did that before the rise of Christian day schools. Some Christians even milked cows to the glory of God and never received an education. So “Xian” schools aren’t necessary for glorifying God.

    Like

  26. Phil, if you don’t like the first criteria I suggested then how about the second: NT prescription. If the NT doesn’t prescribe Xian schools does that pose any sort of conundrum for its advocates?

    And so when you say that no one you know thinks that Xian schools “bring in the kingdom,” it may be that your experience is very different from mine where tithes are taken up for Christian schools. I’m not sure what that suggests to you, but to me, if we understand that tithes are taken up for things clearly prescribed in the NT in order to bring in the kingdom (e.g. evangelism), then somebody seems to think schools are prescribed and they bring in the kingdom.

    And when I said it may be better to speak of Christian doing education (instead of Christian education), my point wasn’t at odds with any idea that after the institutional church meets each Lord’s Day the organic church goes out into the world (though I would quibble with what purpose—not to transform or “disciple social structures” but rather to participate and preserve). My point was that we are called not to be of the world but still in it, which means we do all the common things unbelievers do as well. The problem comes in when we do common things but then also suggest they are redemptive to boot.

    Like

  27. DGH, I don’t assume that Xian schools are necessary for one to glorify God.

    My question is whether Xian schools, as a category, can exist. I think I have seen them–many times. Many things in these schools could be criticized, such as who they hired or admitted.

    But if the category exists, perhaps Xian unions and Xian goat herding also exist.

    Like

  28. Zrim, I’m sure my experience is different from yours: I didn’t come to the Reformed faith until the 1990s. Shortly I began reading Van Til and Berkhof (and Poythress) on education and was amazed to see how basic and essential orthodoxy had implications for me in the classroom teaching mathematics.

    Since the 1990s, my experience in Reformed churches is that some (actually the majority) of the tithes and offerings go to diaconal uses rather than to the means of grace. Even funds that go to evangelism are largely diaconal in their eventual use.

    I think I see “common things” differently: just because we handle the same items and appear to handle them the same ways doesn’t mean that they are the same. You’ve probably heard the reflection that laboratories appear the same before and after a scientific revolution, but the questions that are asked and how the data are managed will be different: the worldview now is different. It’s the same for Xian education.

    Like

  29. 1000 thanks, Darren! You have made helpful comments! No other comments came to me except a very short one which told me to use “contend” rather than “fight”. Maybe so. Anyhow, I can say that your response not only was great, but it really ministered to me! Many of the other comments are not very interesting to me. Like whether “Christian School” is a proper term. Almost all of our 25 grandkids went to Christian Schools or were home schooled. Some go to/graduated from Providence Christian Academy (ATL area). Several go to/graduated from the great Christian School (9-12) on the property of Faith PCA church, Tacoma, WA, Rob Rayburn, pastor. Why not e-visit?Our #3 son Tim went to public schools, K-8, Providence Academy, (1979), grad of Covenant College, 1983, PhD. in Molecular Biology from U.of Florida and has been Biology prof. at Covenant since 1995. Not boasting; just PTL and saying that I will continue to use term “Christian Schools”! Thanks again, In Jesus, Old Bob

    Like

  30. Phil, I’m not sure my point has landed. But if you hold out for the possibility of Xian you-name-it then I’m not sure what keeps cultural Christianity at bay. And if we give cover to cultural Christianity then I think the next task is to write lots of letters of apology to the Protestant liberals and lay off the Religious Rightists.

    Like

  32. progress in this conversation needs to let go of the notion that 2k and Neocalvinism are entirely mutually exclusive. We might need new Venn diagrams that recognize significant overlaps while also recognizing some differences within Neocalvinism itself.

    Try Godfrey’s plenary at the 2010 WSCAL faculty conference.

    Like

  33. Well, at least we can all agree on being “high church” and not Zwinglian. But since being “high” is a relative thing, just how “high” does one need to be and what’s the standard for that? If you can’t change the majority culture with the liturgy done by those “ordained” to do the sacraments, at least you can change the local culture where you are???

    http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/how-to-react-to-a-conversion-to-rome/

    Like

  34. the james k smith from Calvin Journal

    Reforming Public Theology: Two Kingdoms, or Two Cities?,” Calvin Theological Journal 47

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.