Vocal defenders of 2k are in such short supply – though practitioners are everywhere in North America (it is the default position for Reformed Protestants, after all) – that I wondered about commenting on this. But when I read this, it seemed that some comment was in order.
Matt Tuininga is a smart fellow and doing impressive work at Emory University on political theology. His blog is worth reading. In addition, he has defended 2k in the pages of Christian Renewal where Dr. K. has done his darnedest to associate 2k with all things profane. (Aside from the kitchen sink, the only charge that Dr. K. has not hurled is is that of Communism.)
In a fairly recent piece for CR, Matt tried to explain the controversy over 2k as one between those who use its logic without even thinking about it and a minority that takes the position to extremes:
The controversy arises when people appeal to the doctrine to question causes closer to home. For instance, some have used it to challenge the politicization of many evangelical churches directly involved in the political work of the Christian Right. Others have used it to challenge what they perceive as the excesses of Neocalvinism and its failure to distinguish the advancement of the kingdom of God through the work of the church with the work of cultural transformation.
Usually when I hear people opposing the two kingdoms doctrine today it is because they think it entails the abandonment of something like Christian education, or of a Christian worldview that guides the actions of Christians in every aspect of life. While there have been some recent two kingdoms proponents who do move in this direction, it is a massive theological and historical mistake to allow those people – who are most certainly in a minority – to define the two kingdoms doctrine and to control the way in which we speak of it. To do this ignores the importance the doctrine has held in establishing precisely the kind of Reformed biblical autonomy and church government that we value so highly and on which the integrity of the Reformed tradition depends.
Since I have in fact used the logic of 2k to question the necessity (as in “thou shalt”) of Christian schools and to wonder about the German idealist pretensions of nineteenth-century critiques of liberalism (i.e., w-w), Matt’s comments would appear to implicate me. Since he and I are friendly and recently had a pleasant chat at the Greenville seminary conference on Old Princeton, I doubt that Matt was necessarily singling me out. Even so, I would like to see him amend his analysis by considering the following.
In addition to the important debates about church power – with Geneva (2k) and Zuirch (Erastian) representing the main options on questions of excommunication – was the even more basic question of the authority of Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura). Ministers could teach only what Scripture reveals, and churches could require only what the Bible commanded. The doctrines and commandments of men, no matter how wise, pious, or well intentioned, could not bind a believer’s conscience. For that reason, whenever the church evaluates the integrity of a believer’s profession, it must do so on the basis only of norms revealed in Scripture. The church must have a “thus, saith the Lord.” An effort like Adam’s instruction to Eve about not even touching the fruit of the tree won’t do. Either you don’t eat the apple or you sin. Touching it, looking at it, cutting it is not a command revealed by God.
All of the Reformed creeds begin with an affirmation of sola scriptura. Here is how the Gallican Confession (1559) puts it:
We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith. (Art. 4)
For churches to require anything that the Bible does not require is akin to establishing an article of faith on a foundation other than the Bible. Kuyper and his views about w-w’s or about education may be useful, though the way that places like the Free University turned out or that Christian w-w formation is playing out in numerous so-called Reformed day schools is not the best of testimonies to Kuyper’s wisdom. Still, the point should not be missed. Unless anti-2kers (and even some 2kers) can establish that Christian education and w-w are necessary as in an article of faith, then those who raise questions about Christian education and w-w are not radical or extreme. They are only doing what the Reformers did by asking where the Bible, as opposed to influential saints, establishes the existing practices and teachings of the church. In fact, it is those who establish a hierarchy of faithfulness based on tradition and look down on those who don’t follow the doctrines and commandments of men who are extreme.
82 Comments
Another inflammatory and useless contribution to the worldview discussion. Taking this blog off my reading list.
Henk, appealing to the Bible is inflammatory? Wow!
I’m not sure that Reformed folks binding the consciences of others with Kuyperianism is so different from fundamentalists binding it through prohibitions on booze.
A good reminder how easy it is to violate WCF 20.
Great post Dr. Hart. I’d like to see Tuininga respond to it. It is a basic point and well argued. Mr. Blom seems off his meds.
Wouldn’t it be better to appeal to the notion of sola scriptura and the doctrine of the sufficiency and perspicuity of the Scriptures than to use the languge of World View? If by world view difference you mean that Christians look at the world through the lens and presupposition of God’s special revelation, than why not just use the language of historic protestant theology? It seems easier than using W-W language all the time.
I am tempted to suggest that the reason is that the language of W-W is so precious to so many because of economics. W-W weekends, pull in money for speakers, books, and dvd sales. There is also some emotional need Christians in the arts (film, painting, poetry, etc.) for them to want to think of their work as ”ministry” and not an horrible ”profession” or ”job”. Also it’s easier to teach young people ”world view thinking” as opposed to hermeuntics and exegesis. It’s much easier than investing in tools to better understand the Scriptures and requires less work. This is because the notion of Christian World view thinking says ”If it doesn’t feel christian/spiritual, than it’s wrong”, no matter how much exegesis, and how many facts you show.
Curious as to the discussion of Christian schools – is anyone speaking of Christian schools in a “thou shalt” kind of way (i.e. as if it were a commandment & so binding on the consciences of believers)?
And do you make a distinction between necessity & prudence? In other words, are you just against the idea of the “necessity” (mandate?) of Christian schooling, or against its existence altogether? I assume that you are not anti-Christian school per se.
I have known parents who seem to take their own preferred manner of educating their children (i.e. home school, Christian school, etc.) as “God’s way”, but thankfully I have yet to hear a pastor speak of it in terms of it being mandated.
Andy, consider Neoz’s point. P&R talk about non-Christian education the way Fundamentalists talk about beer. Not all fundies are hard legalists. Many are softer about the perils of substances and spirits and appeal to the wisdom of Christian living (i.e. temperance). Switch out the subject of substance for education among many P&R and it can tend to sound like “thou shalt” with a wink and a smile. But smiles have teeth.
Andy, I am not opposed to Christian schools, just to be required to support them. The URC is debating whether to require church officers to send their children to Christian schools, which was the requirement in the CRC. So it’s not the case that if you don’t send your kids to Christian schools you sin. But you’re not officer candidate material. And let’s not forget the way that some hurl around epithets about not being Reformed if you don’t support Christian schools.
Darryl, I appreciate your comment on my article, and I want to reassure you that I agree with every word you write here. The purpose of my article was not to articulate a crisp, tight version of the two kingdoms doctrine, but to show people that there is breadth within the two kingdoms tradition. What I was finding was that people were dismissing it wholesale based on certain stereotypes of it. I felt it was a step in the right direction to get people to stop saying, “do we believe in the two kingdoms doctrine?” and to start saying, “what should the two kingdoms doctrine mean?” In other words, I wanted to eliminate stumbling blocks to conversation.
Keep in mind that many Reformed lay people do not understand the two kingdoms doctrine, although they actually hold to it. When they think it means that Christian education is a bad thing (which you don’t say, but what they think 2kers are saying, and what some actually seem to say), they reject the doctrine. I want them to take it seriously as a paradigm in and of itself, and then we can talk about its implications afterwards. What do you think of this?
Many are willing to attach “thou shalt” to worldview education, and say it could conceivably be done while sending kids to a secular school. I’ve head it framed in terms of the amount of time kids spend in a secular classroom being indoctrinated with a pagan worldview versus the amount of time you have at home and at church. So if you do use public schools, you better be pretty much reeducating them from a Christian worldview at home with every spare moment. To me, the obvious implication is why would you ever do that.
Also, here’s R.C. Sproul Sr.: “Given the pagan nature of the public school system, I would think that any discerning parents would not place their children in such an environment. Knowingly to turn them over to such a pagan system would be sin. But it’s mostly a sin of ignorance. Most folks don’t know the true nature of the public schools… Christian parents have a responsibility not to send their kids into that environment.”
Thank you both (Zrim & D.G.). That helps.
John – While that sounds all nice and good, what do you tell the people I have the privilege to minister to that are 1). Single parent families 2.) Financially strapped 3.) Without a “Christian” school that is in any way reachable in any sense of the term?
Do we really think that we need hour for hour instruction time to “combat” a pagan worldview?
@Matthew – Thanks for responding. I, for one, find your comments helpful.
What I find most alarming at those who accuse the public schools of outright paganism is that many of them are so far removed from the public education system that their criticisms are grossly over-exaggerated. Many of the most vocal critics of public schools have never been to one, so they rely on horror stories in the news as opposed to more balanced accounts of what actually occurs in public schools. My wife works in the public school system in the special ed. dept. and I have many friends (Christian and non) who work in the public school system, and while there are in fact isolated incidents of teachers advocating anti-Christian positions, these are the exception to the rule. There are a lot of good reasons to opt for an alternative to traditional public ed., such as homeschooling, charter schools, and private schools, and many of the reasons for this are strictly educational as public schools budgetary woes are causing increased class size and decreased educational standards – mainly in the 3 R’s and music, athletics, vocational tracks (such as shop classes and drafting), and the arts, which all are increasingly rare in public schools. For the isolated incidents where public schools are engaging in teaching that is antithetical to the Christian faith, or morality, these are opportunities for covenant families to teach their children against the backdrop of counter-claims to the truth. In my experience, growing up in a town with a prominent Reformed k-12 school, whether or not the child ends up with a substantive faith rests far more in the health of the home and the church than it does in the schools as the occurrences of Christian children walking away from the faith are about the same percentage wise in public and private schools.
If I had the opportunity and the means to send my kids to a Reformed school (there are none where I live), I would seriously consider taking that opportunity. Christian schools are a good thing, but their value is not nearly as vaunted as some wish to make it. Even worldview training can be a good thing, as it can assist in forming critical thought and knowing why one believes the Christian faith, but it is not an absolute imperative, nor do I think there is such a thing as a monolithic “Christian” or “Reformed” worldview since there are far more complex inputs into this than mere epistemological considerations. So while some might see some of the criticisms of W-V- here at OldLife as completely overstated, I see it as at least a corrective to the excesses of worldview rhetoric, especially when it is given an elevated status over the basic tenets of spiritual formation in a Confessional setting.
Jeremy – Well for me, I don’t really think worldview education is necessary or beneficial. I’ll be sending my kids to school to learn how to get along in the society of man. My point was that once you swallow the necessity of an all-encompassing worldview, secular schooling makes no sense. Backing away from saying that it is sin and a disciplinable offence is inconsistent.
To be fair, I think most ministers who would attach “thou shalt” to Christian schooling would make exceptions for the cases you describe.
So weird. A few weeks ago I used the “delete” option at wordpress to delete that pilgrim philosopher blog. I thought that was the end of it. I stop buy here today (haven’t been here in a few weeks) and clicked on the link it Hart’s post. To my surprise, it took me to my blog, the blog I thought I had deleted! I guess I forgot to visit the email account I set up for the blog and “confirm” the deletion request.
“Unless anti-2kers (and even some 2kers) can establish that Christian education and w-w are necessary as in an article of faith, then those who raise questions about Christian education and w-w are not radical or extreme.”
The case is as simple as this: The Bible (and the Confession) both *presuppose* and *entail* stances (for or against myriad things) on classically defined *philosophical* categories. To the extent that 2kers deny this, or claim that those who point out such things are “denying the gospel,” will be where 2k is radical and extreme and obscurantist. We are doing nothing other than Reformers, especially Reformed scholastics, have done. We find elucidating and defending these presuppositions and entailments, both important and necessary. For that which implies or presupposes that which is false is itself false. We are the unwanted guardians who protect the Reformed tent from the myriad attacks that come from the outside so that the people on the inside can debate thinks like 2k among themselves. A simple “thank you” would be nice.
John – Thanks for the clarification. I get your point. Funny that as soon as “urban contexts” and the like are brought into view most “thou shalts” are quick to make exceptions. Like not disciplining those who do not go along with the educational philosophies of the elders I find this to be rather inconsistent.
“Pilgrim,” I know you like to think the Reformed tradition owes such a debt to the philosophers amongst us, but last I checked the confessions cite the Bible. If it’s all the same to you, I’ll thank God instead—which might wonder about what is entailed by your demand for kudos.
Jed, you mean educational choice is layered and complicated? I thought it was all about worldview, kind of how politics is all about morality? What will you R2kers think of next?
Zrim, never said anything about a “deb” to replay. I understand the Confession cites the Bible. You need to learn what a presupposition and/or an entailment is. As for the rest, your reasoning is similar to those who say that since God elects and draws those he chooses to save, and he will do so assuredly, we don’t need evangelists.
And when you get around to it, you may want to deal with the argument: Your confession presupposes and entails philosophical positions. Thus, you’re committed to them, like it or not.
“Pilgrim,” no it’s more like putting a healthy dose of moderation on the need for philosophers and evangelists. You need to learn the meaning of limits. Your remarks are similar to those who say that since God uses earthen vessels to accomplish his purposes we need to esteem them more than exercise humility. Hello, philosophical popery.
R.C. Sproul Jr.’s statements about public schooling are over the top.
I’m taking my youngest son out of a Calvary Chapel Private School after 11 years (K – 10) because they are not offering a math course he will need in order to get into a well regarded university. Many, many universities require 4 years of upper level math in grades 9 – 12. Our school has decided to offer Precalculus as a summer school class and eliminate it from the program for all students next year. My son, on the other hand, has better things to do this summer like participate in two search and rescue schools with the U.S. Air Force. Next year, he will be in the public high school and he will take Precalculus.
For students that aspire to a good university education and need help paying for it, it comes down to more than a diploma. It also involves good grades, good test scores and meaningful extracurricular activities.
If I discover pagan worship in the public schools of my town, I’ll file suit and then invite R.C. Jr. over to document the experience for his next article.
Pilgrim, so the simple point is that the Bible depends on philosophy? Philosophy is more basic than the teachings of Scripture? I always thought you believed that. Now I’m glad for the confirmation. Too bad it puts you in the category of Paul’s (the apostle) Greeks who seek the wisdom of philosophy rather than the folly of the word.
“..they think it entails the abandonment of something like Christian education, or of a Christian worldview that guides the actions of Christians in every aspect of life. While there have been some recent two kingdoms proponents who do move in this direction, it is a massive theological and historical mistake to allow those people – who are most certainly in a minority – to define the two kingdoms doctrine and to control the way in which we speak of it.
Matthew Tuininga, given your reassurance that you are in agreement with every word Darryl wrote here, {which words include defamation of Dr. Kloosterman}, it would be helpful to readers of Christian Renewal if you would be transparent and identify who you had in mind when you referenced “recent two kingdom proponents who do move in this direction” {i.e., abandoning Christian education and Christian worldview}.
Good to have you back to your “gotcha” strategy, Mark. Does the How To Catch Your Enemies in Inconsistencies in Twelve Steps only circulate among theonomists and neo-Cals?
Zrim, can you derive from statements I made that I “don’t put a healthy dose of moderation on the needs of philosophers”?
Darryl, no more than language. You have an odd view of the Bible. You also need to wrestle with the concept of presupposition and entailment. For an easy example: The Bible teaches that God exists and that, by good inference, he is immaterial. This both *presupposes* and *entails* several philosophical stances. Am I wrong or right? If wrong, how?
“Pilgrim,” statements like: “We are the unwanted guardians who protect the Reformed tent from the myriad attacks that come from the outside so that the people on the inside can debate thinks like 2k among themselves. A simple ‘thank you’ would be nice,” don’t exactly suggest humility. And you’ve said things like this before around here, namely that the Reformed symbols owe great debts to philosophy when it’s actually Scripture that deserves the debt. But before you go suggesting anti-intellectualism, it’s not that philosophy doesn’t have a place, it’s that it’s place shouldn’t be as overestimated as your remarks here and elsewhere always suggest.
Mark,
I am unclear where you see defamation of Dr. Kloosterman here, and I certainly do not participate in that. I respect and have dialogued with Dr. Kloosterman on these issues in a friendly way.
I do not agree with your seeming desire to create a wedge between me and Dr. Kloosterman, or between me and other particular persons. Why do we have to name names? I do not find the people advocating the positions I noted to be credible in their advocacy of the two kingdoms doctrine, so why would I draw attention to them by naming them? In addition, I prefer to talk about ideas and substance rather than particular individuals. Have I not made it clear where I stand on the particular issue? Isn’t that what matters?
This whole debate needs to be toned down, and that was the major purpose of my article. There is nothing in the two kingdoms doctrine that entails abandoning Christian education or a Christian worldview, though the two kingdoms doctrine does, as Darryl points out, challenge those who would be dogmatic on the application of these points.
I can’t get into all the details of w-v, “”thou shalt & Christian Education. I think Matt is helpful in really pointing out that 2K is a spectrum between 2 extremes of it. Let me say what happened in our family, and let other smart folks decide if I am 2K and where on the spectrum I fit. God gave me a WTS degree. I sat under Dr. VanTil. I liked Abraham Kuyper more than he did! My wife and I have been married nearly 60 years and raised 3 sons and a daughter. Our oldest 2 sons were in Public schools k-12. Oldest graduated from a secular college in MA. Drives an 18 wheeler truck locally in TN. Well read, Bible and many other good books. Raising 5 kids. Home schooled. Second son has MBA from U. of Michigan. CFU of middle sized company. Has 6 kids, ages 17-35. Oldest has a PhD in Philosophy, Notre Dame. Taught Philosophy for 3 years in Germany (Jena) using German language. Now Prof @ U. of south Florida. Running out of time—- His other sons, Law degree from Notre Dame. Passed bar exam in GA. His #3 working on PhD in Chem @ U. of Texas, Austin. Enough about our son #2. All 6 kids of his have mixture of Public schools and Christian schools. Our t.hird son, Public school k-8, Christian school 9-12, grad. of Covenant College. PhD in Molecular Biology, U of Florida. 5 kids— 2 Covenant grads, all 5 from Christian schools. Our Daughter, Covenant grad in Ed., has 9 kids, 2 married, all home schooled. More to tell! Now, wife and I say this: Our main concern about culture is the environment for all these descendants, wives and 4 great grands— doing all we can about politics. We are not post mils! We think it is close to a Thus saith the Lord re. attendance for ours and others about going to GOOD Christian schools or Home Schooling! Thanks for listening if you got this far! In Jesus, Old Bob
I see that in all my long msg. I didn’t mention that #3 son, Tim, has been Biology Prof. at Covenant college since 1995. Science head. Not bragging in all these things. Wife and I PTL! We are horrified at the Prez we have and how far DOWN our culture has gone since we were kids in NJ and WI. OB
Not OB again! I am wondering if Matt T. is the young man, who with wife @ little child visited our OPC Redeemer, in ATL, and even preached a great sermon for us? OB
Bob,
I am that person. We are often still at Redeemer in the evenings, though during the summer not so much since I’m preaching a lot elsewhere. I’ll actually be preaching for you all again on June 24.
Thank you, Matthew for your response. I have no intention to create any wedge between you and Kloosterman, but your endorsement of every word of the blog post had me understandably concerned. If you don’t see the defamation in the words Dr. K. has done his darnedest to associate 2k with all things profane. (Aside from the kitchen sink, the only charge that Dr. K. has not hurled is is that of Communism.), then I would respectfully suggest you {re}read his CR series again to see the patent falsity of the claim.
When we examine a particular theology, we always identify the person publicly advancing the idea. It is done regularly here on this blog. It’s done by Van Drunen, by Horton, et. al. I assume you will do so in your doctorate work. You claim there is only a “minority” advancing the abandonment of Christian education or Christian worldview under the banner of 2k. As it stands, it is impossible to evaluate your claim. Having familiarity with most of the 2k proponents and their writings, I am skeptical of the claim of minority status. But I would love to be shown to be wrong, hence my inquiry.
I will note I was encouraged when I read your CR piece, and agree that the tone of the discussion should be civil and substantive. I assume you believe that applies to 2k proponents as well and are willing to publicly hold them to that standard.
Pilgrim, you may be right. I don’t know. But you don’t need to be philosophical to be a Christian. Sometimes being philosophical makes you a worse Christian.
This would be like my claiming that the Bible is a historical document — which it is — and then arguing that everyone needs to be historically trained in order to read the Bible.
I get it. Philosophers are smart. But at the foot of the cross, we’re all schleps.
Mark VDM, have you taken up the point about civility with Dr. K. He defamed me several times in his long-winded set of pieces for CR — not to mention the guilt-by-association tactic of coloring his discussion of 2k with Misty Irons. I emailed Dr. K. He never responded. His series engaged in prejudicial language repeatedly. That’s not defamation. That is description.
Mark,
Rest assured, when I said I agreed with “every word” I was thinking of the substantive content, not Darryl’s rhetoric regarding Dr. Kloosterman. I obviously exaggerated. I do think Dr. Kloosterman’s review series was less than charitable or accurate in its approach to VanDrunen’s book, though as I have told both him and VanDrunen, I think they are closer to each other in substance than they (or others) think.
I agree that one should cite sources one is examining, but I was making a brief comment about radical two kingdoms advocates (highly present on the Internet), and I was not thinking of those making serious scholarly contributions to the subject. That does not mean I necessarily agree with every single word VanDrunen or Hart says in all their publications. But it’s important, I think, to distinguish rhetoric from substance. I might disagree with someone’s emphasis or word choice, without disagreeing with the substance of their argument. For instance, David VanDrunen is much more suspicious about the adjective ‘Christian’ than I am. Darryl is probably stricter about what a preacher could say from the pulpit than I would be. But I understand why they have the concerns they do, and I agree with their basic perspective, even if I disagree on points of application.
I actually think that most of us (even two kingdoms opponents) agree on most of these points, and I think the rhetoric and some differences on point of application disguise that. That is not to say there is no substantive disagreement. It’s just to say that the substance is hidden under the clutter of vicious argument and caricature. (For instance, google a piece recently written by Darrel Todd Maurina.)
I appreciate your comment about the CR piece. I always aspire to write and communicate in this spirit, as I hope you will see if you follow my blog (whether or not you always agree with me), and one of my chief goals is to spread this spirit to all sides of the debate. And yes, I am not blaming one side. It takes two.
If you are interested, in June I will giving a lecture on the biblical basis for the two kingdoms doctrine at Trinity URC in the Grand Rapids area. I will also continue to write on this on my blog from time to time.
Zrim, your evidence is insufficient. Perhaps if I had used the word “only” you’d have a point. But I didn’t. Of course, Reformed philosophers owe a great debt to theologians and church historians too, but we weren’t talking about them. My statement can be true and does not suggest that I “don’t put a healthy dose of moderation on philosophers.”
Darryl, can you point me (or anyone) to where I said you “need to be philosophical to be Christian?” Of course, that statement is vague and ambiguous, but I can anticipate what you mean if you spelled it out. However, humans are simply philosophical creatures by nature, whether they philosophize good or bad in another matter, and Christians hold on to certain philosophical “pictures” by accepting certain theological views, and so to be a fully self-reflective Christian you should be aware of all of this. But certainly, you are not somehow “less” in the kingdom for not doing so.
I was making a brief comment about radical two kingdoms advocates (highly present on the Internet), and I was not thinking of those making serious scholarly contributions to the subject.
This is helpful. At least I know the basis upon which you gauged “minority” status for the “radicals”.
That is not to say there is no substantive disagreement. It’s just to say that the substance is hidden under the clutter of vicious argument and caricature.
Yes, we must identify the substantive disagreement. I have read much of the scholarly works from the 2k proponents, and am fairly convinced the substantive disagreements are more substantial than what first meets the eye.
if you follow my blog (whether or not you always agree with me), and one of my chief goals is to spread this spirit to all sides of the debate.
Will check it out, and if opportunity permits, I will take up further discussion with you there.
If you are interested, in June I will giving a lecture on the biblical basis for the two kingdoms doctrine at Trinity URC in the Grand Rapids area.
That is my sister’s church, so if it works, perhaps I can do a “two-fer”: catch your lecture and visit with my little sis.
DGH: “The URC is debating whether to require church officers to send their children to Christian schools, which was the requirement in the CRC.”
Darryl, do you have a specific reference for this debate? Are you talking about an actual overture to a classis or synod, or just water cooler debate?
Also, if I am not mistaken all faculty at Calvin also had to send their children to “Christian” schools. That sounds like a “thou shalt” to me.
Brian,
I know for a fact of one URC in southern Ontario that a few years ago established a requirement that elders had to have their children in a Christian school. An exception was not even made for homeschoolers. But as far as I am aware, this church changed its policy after a short time. I don’t think there is any widespread support for such a requirement.
Matt
Brian, I would distinguish between conscience-binding (Thou shalt) and a condition for contractual employment. A church requiring something of church members is conscience-binding. I’m not even sure a church requiring officers to do something is conscience binding. You don’t have to be an officer. You do have to be a member.
But, Terry, what if that something isn’t biblically warranted? Then what difference does it make if one is an ordained member or not? It’s ok to bind an officer to do or refrain from something the Bible neither compels nor prohibits? Again, consider substance use. Are my Fundamentalists correct to say that beer drinking or going to R-rated movies means you can never be an elder (or are grounds to dismiss)? Most P&R scoff at this, and rightly so. And the only way I can see that compelling officers re educational practice is “something” a church can require is to assume that the Bible in point of fact does have something to say about it.
Pilgrim, so it gets worse. You don’t have to be philosophical to be a Christian. You have to be philosophical to be human. Wow! When will philosophers realize that they have an academic specialty like every other academic. And philosophy has a history. In which case a historian could trump a philosopher. But neither is essential to being human. It’s as if you go directly against Paul (again in 1 Cor.) by saying that everyone is a hand. Remember, there is a diversity of body parts.
Brian, back in the day when Scott Clark was blogging I seem to recall that he and Dr. K. were going back and forth about church order provisions and whether the URC would follow the model of the CRC. I assume it is the case that on the books the CRC is still committed to officers needing to send their children to Christian day schools. It was the case when I was ordained.
Zrim, Terry
What about the validity of demanding extra-confessional commitments to be an officer? How does that work
Darryl, if it is on the CRC books I slipped through the cracks when I served not too long ago. But you may have the PRC in mind instead of the URC. I know, all Dutch Reformed look the same to Presbyterians.
Sea, you mean like having to stay until 10:03 PM for a Council meeting?
One Trackback
[...] logical connections, and charitably represent interlocutors. It is therefore instructive to see how he thinks. Pilgrim said: “The Bible both presupposes and entails stances on traditional philosophical [...]