I have for some time wanted to offer a little response to Matthew Tuininga’s first (and good) piece on two-kingdom theology for the confessing evangelical allies. The essay is not all about me — shucks — but he does interact with several of my arguments. The reason for responding now is that Matt observed a tendency in my writing that has also recently spawned criticism of Dave VanDrunen (by none other than Cornel Venema in the book that has anti-2kers breathless in anticipation of its imminent release). The criticism that Venema and Tuininga (note all of the Dutch Reformed genes at play here) register is 2k theology’s fault of bifurcating the religious and political realms. Here’s how Matt describes a tendency in my work:
Part of the reason that Hart’s version of the two kingdoms doctrine is somewhat controversial is that at times Hart has pressed the distinction between the two kingdoms to the point of separation. Indeed, if the classic two kingdoms doctrine denoted the difference between two ages and two governments, Hart has often written about it as if it amounted to a distinction between two airtight spheres, one the sphere of faith and religion, and the other the sphere of everyday life. While it is clear that Hart views these two spheres as expressions of the two ages, by speaking of them in terms of separate spheres he ends up downplaying the overlap between the two ages. This tendency becomes all the more marked in Hart’s more polemical moments.
Venema detects a similar weakness (or is it error?) in VanDrunen (via the international Calvinists):
For Calvin, the spiritual and the civil government of God do not stand independently alongside each other. The civil government or jurisdiction, although it is not to usurp the distinct spiritual government that Christ exercises through his Spirit and Word, has the task within God’s design to secure the kind of public order and tranquility that is indispensable to the prosecution of the church’s calling. In this way, the civil jurisdiction serves the redemptive purposes of God by protecting the church and ensuring its freedom to pursue its unique calling under Christ. Furthermore, as servants of God, civil magistrates have the task of ensuring that both tables of the law – the first table dealing with the service and worship of God, the second table addressing the mutual service of all human beings to each other – are honored and obeyed. Although the civil magistrate is not authorized to usurp the distinctive prerogatives of the spiritual kingdom, namely, the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word in renewing human life in free obedience to God’s law, it does serve to advance the redemptive purpose of the spiritual kingdom by requiring an outward conformity to the requirements of God’s moral law.
In case I am missing something, both objections apparently stem from the neo-Calvinist aversion to dualism. As one recent graduate of a neo-Calvinist college summarized the problem of dualism:
“Dualism” is an incredibly dirty word. Why? For two reasons: A) Dooyeweerd’s non-dualist and non-monistic, non-reductionistic philosophy of modal spheres, B) Kuyper’s insistence that all things be reclaimed under the Lordship of Christ, which means there is no such thing as a dualism between “sacred” and “secular.” All spheres of life should be reclaimed under the dominion of Jesus Christ.
I for one continue to be stupefied by the reflexive dismissal of dualism since distinctions between the physical and spiritual, secular and sacred, temporal and eternal appear everywhere in the Christian religion, not to mention the history of the West. Jesus himself seemed to justify some kind of differentiation between sacred and secular matters when he spoke about what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar. He did not immediately qualify himself by saying “of course, everything belongs to God,” but let his assertion dangle. Neo-Calvinists, of course, won’t, suggesting an apparent discomfort with the very words of Christ.
Then there is the apostle Paul and that two-age construction which distinguishes between the eternal and the temporal (secular) so much so that he could say “to die is gain.” Paul also wrote: “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (2 Cor 4:17-18 ESV) If Paul affirms dualism, it’s okay but if 2kers do then it’s bad? Or maybe neo-Calvinists don’t read Paul outside those cosmic “all things” passages.
And then there is the classic distinction between the earthly and the spiritual in the Belgic Confession:
Now those who are born again have two lives in them. The one is physical and temporal– they have it from the moment of their first birth, and it is common to all. The other is spiritual and heavenly, and is given them in their second birth; it comes through the Word of the gospel in the communion of the body of Christ; and this life is common to God’s elect only.
Thus, to support the physical and earthly life God has prescribed for us an appropriate earthly and material bread, which is as common to all as life itself also is. But to maintain the spiritual and heavenly life that belongs to believers he has sent a living bread that came down from heaven: namely Jesus Christ, who nourishes and maintains the spiritual life of believers when eaten– that is, when appropriated and received spiritually by faith.
To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood. He did this to testify to us that just as truly as we take and hold the sacraments in our hands and eat and drink it in our mouths, by which our life is then sustained, so truly we receive into our souls, for our spiritual life, the true body and true blood of Christ, our only Savior. We receive these by faith, which is the hand and mouth of our souls. (Art. 35)
The distinction between things secular and sacred is everywhere in the history of the West, even if its usage does not always match. Augustine had his two cities, Gelasius his two swords, and Christendom its pope and emperor. Some kind of dualism is writ large in the Christian tradition. Neo-Calvinists may not like it but that’s too bad.
But what makes this suspicion of 2k all the more annoying is that the language employed to describe the neo-Calvinist idea of sphere sovereignty places church and state and family in separate realms with their own — get this — sovereignty. The two kingdoms can’t be distinct but need to bleed into each other lest dualism surface. But the spheres can be as distinct as Holland, Michigan and Pella, Iowa.
In the introduction to Kingdoms Apart, the book that will be the kinder, gentler version of John Frame’s Kuyper warrior-children manifesto, describes sphere sovereignty this way: “God has created distinct social, economic, cultural, and political spheres that have their own unique functions. . . (xxvi)” Then follows a quote that describes sphere sovereignty as “each sphere possess[ing] its own authority within itself.” Shazam! That’s a lot of distinct authority. The introduction goes on, “state, church, business, family, and academic institutions . . . ‘have the liberty to function on their own according to the divine ordinances God has established for each one.” (xxvi-xxvii) Because neo-Calvinists say that these sovereign, liberated, and autonomous spheres receive authority from God, I guess the distinctions are somehow permissible. But when have 2kers ever said that the temporal kingdom is independent from God? Straw man comes to mind. But divine sovereignty notwithstanding (never thought I’d write that) it is remarkable that sphere sovereigntists can divide the world up into such tidy spheres but won’t give 2kers the same freedom. And, by the way, the 2kers claims go much deeper than late nineteenth-century Netherlands.
What makes 2k superior to sphere sovereignty is that 2kers are really willing to live with distinctions. For sphere sovereigntists the distinctions are only skin deep. The spheres exists, but they are all under God, so religion needs to inform all the spheres thus raising important questions about which members of which spheres are introducing religion into a sphere since religion won’t do it by itself. Do I bring religion to bear on politics as an elder, husband, historian or citizen? In other words, does my functional identity change when I go from one sphere into another? It may, especially Scripture’s claims on me as citizen are thin compared to its teaching about overseeing the flock. But I don’t hear neo-Calvinists talking about these bugs in their system. Maybe it’s because they are too busy looking at the bugs in the paleo-Calvinist’s eye.
To illustrate how complicated religion’s relationship is to the various spheres, I appeal to a review I wrote for Ordained Servant:
Life in modern society is tough. In any given week, an average American may have to decide which is the best and prettiest paint for the exterior of his house, what are the best and most affordable tires to put on his car, whether to replace a deep filling with another filling or with a crown, whether to diversify the investments in his retirement portfolio, and which candidate from the Republican Party is the best to run against a Democratic incumbent in the upcoming presidential election. No single American has sufficient knowledge to make all of these decisions simply on the basis of his own learning and reading. In addition to confronting these dilemmas, this person likely has a full-time job that occupies much of his time, and a wife and children that take up most of his spare time—not to mention incredibly difficult choices about bad influences on his son at school, whether his daughter should play field hockey, and consulting with his wife about his mother-in-law’s declining health and the best arrangements for her well being. If he is a Christian with responsibilities at church, he may need to wade through files of applications for a pulpit search committee, or consult with architects and engineers about plans to expand the church’s parking lot.
Complicating further this average American’s decisions are the accompanying choices to be made over which advice to follow. For in addition to life’s complicated questions are a bevy of advisors, available on the radio and television, folks such as Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, and Dave Ramsey—people who seem to have a lot of insight into life’s difficulties. But which of these advisors to heed raises an additional layer of decisions.
Throw the Lordship of Christ and biblical interpretation into these various decisions and related evaluations and you have the potential for nervous breakdown (maybe that’s what happened to Abraham Kuyper). For negotiating the regular world — the temporal kingdom, that is — I’ll take 2k any day. Neo-Calvinism leaves me with sphere schizophrenia.
97 Comments
Jed, I don’t think we have to say breaking down, but in the end there is still a Parousia that brings the kingdom in its fullness. (Much the same relationship between our sanctification and our glorification). The Christian community is always “on the way” and the city we strive for is always the future one. But the future is now according to Jesus. I’m not sure I even want to suggest progress in general, but merely local and temporal manifestions depending on how much of a given society is Christian or under the influences of a Christian worldview.
Zrim, you keep confusing “the world” with “the Creation”. “Not of this world” has to do with this fallen, sinful age, not the new heavens and the new earth that have already intruded into “this world” via the coming of Jesus, the presence of the Spirit, the work of the Church, and the ministry of believers in all areas of life.
Darryl, of course Gaffin has a soft spot for transformationalism. He thinks the genius of WTS and the OPC is the melding of Old Princeton and Amsterdam. I agree. You seem to want to revert to Old Princeton (typified in Machen) alone.
What’s actually going on in my head now is the redemptive kingdom and the common kingdom, with the common kingdom containing Dooyeweerdian spheres within it. So call it an experiment – if my head explodes, you know it went badly.
MM,
Just say no.
Modified,of course, Sean. I think it says some valid things about the relationships of various fields of study, including overlaps but also distinct cores that should not be overwhelmed by other spheres. That can all be put into the common kingdom.
Terry, Machen alone? There would be worse options. But even if the sola is illegitimate, and I can see the problems, part of what I am trying to say is that the neo-Cal position has some warts. Generally speaking, the neo-Cals who are most critical of 2k don’t seem to admit neo-Cal problems. In fact, they get huffy if you suggest Kuyper’s slip is showing. I admire hutzpah. But can we talk about neo-Cal defects? Or is that off limits?
Neo-Cals don’t have much problem talking about Old School problems. I am wondering if they live in a glass house.
Darryl, I hope you know I’m more than happy to criticize present day professing neo-Calvinists. Many border on social gospelism and don’t understand their tradition well. Many think that the essence of being Reformed is transformationalism even without the Reformed confession. That’s a serious problem and I agree with your calling Kuyperians to task on their abuses. Why do think I stick around here?
MM,
But even in Kuyperian spheres, the organic church is supposed to leak out of the ecclesial sphere and leaven the other spheres. How is that gonna work in your Dooyewerdian spheres? And why does this feel like a trekie conversation in a chat room on the interweb? I need to go put some Clearasil on and take my head gear off.
It’s my goal to use the term “Dooyewerdian” today in casual conversation with someone who has no idea what that means. I also plan to use the word “fecund” from D.G.’s post on the Dutch.
Terry, I see your point. Out of curiosity, has any neo-Calvinist written a critical assessment of neo-Calvinism?
Terry, you sound like Baus when you hold out for neo-Calvinism yet maintain that most neo-Cals haven’t gotten it right. It’s got no where to go but in the trajectory of social gospelism or cultural Christianity. You say that many think that the essence of being Reformed is transformationalism even without the Reformed confession. But the CRC has “Our World Belong to God” along side the TFU, which looks to me like transformationalism with the Reformed confession. So what are you talking about? The CRC is what worldviewery gone to seed looks like. If you don’t like what you see maybe you need to re-evaluate the theory?
And you can distinguish the world from creation until you’re long in the Kuyperian tooth, but it doesn’t change the fact that the upshot of worldviewery is always Christian sub-culture and an ironic form of world flight. Don’t get me wrong, an upside to the misguided notion that heaven implies earth is that one can end up doing earth pretty well (Calvin College is world class education). The problem is that it’s not really done any better than those who deny heaven altogether, to the chagrin of religious fantasy.
2K makes for some strange bedfellows: http://abetteriowa.desmoinesregister.com/2012/10/19/basu-why-allow-some-churches-to-ignore-law/
I sent an e-mail to the author:
Interesting piece in the paper this morning. The only criticism I have is I think you overlook a lot of politicking that takes place in churches on the left as well. No one seems to notice when a black church invites a Democratic Party candidate for office to speak from the pulpit on Sunday morning. This is as bad as what the right is doing.
There are people who are theologically conservative who have problems with evangelical and pentecostal political activism by ministers. Check out Darryl Hart’s website sometime. Hart has written a book called “A Secular Faith” and a guy named David Van Drunen has written a book called “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” that argues for the Presbyterian doctrine of “The Spirituality of the Church”. Basically the idea is that the church should stick to it’s work of preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and practicing church discipline. These issues that are taking place in society at large are secondary and how church members deal with them should be left to individual believers’ judgment and consciences. My personal opinion is that ministers cheapen and trivialize their offices when they try to insert themselves in partisan politics. Their calling is actually much higher than that.
I have tried to argue this position with the Cary Gordons and Steve Deaces of the world and basically get nowhere. Some of this arises from the fact that when a minister preaches a solid, gospel-oriented sermon on Sunday morning no one outside the congregation notices. When a minister calls a press conference on gay marriage, however, the T.V. cameras show up and everyone knows who he is. The best ministers are people hardly anyone has heard of.
John Knox taught two covenants. One covenant was conditional—”the obedience given to God’s precepts is the cause why God shows His mercy to us.” “A godly letter to the faithful in London”, 3:193 And the other covenant taught by Knox was a “covenant of works” for everyone. Thus Knox refused obedience to those he judged to be pagan magistrates, and taught that–since even those outside the national church were under the covenant of works–the need for Christian magistrates who would keep order for Christian reasons, and that without regard for either the confession or the inner state of those outside the national church., 4:491
McMark, YIKES!
Greetings: Please have your webmaster insert a Printer Freindly application on your webpage. Currently any printing of your articles they appear VERY small type. Delete the marginal info so that only your article are printed in a larger format.
B Hodges Jacobs
I tried to Email you through your ‘contact’ page. At the moment it is NOT functioning.
Thank you….
This is what you get when you have Presbyterians running your web site. You need to go hire an emergent or a Unitarian…
The last guy I had helping me was gay.
I don’t know anything about webpage applications, but I’d like some egg in my beer.
Darryl, see Overtures 3 & 6 from CRCNA Agenda for Synod http://crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/2012_agenda.pdf
Also, John Bolt’s essay in the recently translated/published Our Worship by Abraham Kuyper.
Sean, I recall going to a sandy beach on the coast of Maine in the sunshine and 80 degrees – with my hardcover volume 1 of The New Critique of Theoretical Thought. Youth is wasted on the young – I probably should have played frisbee. But it’s been so long since I looked rigorously at it that I’m not fully prepared to express where I am in Dooyweerd-speak, but I am sure my pistic sphere has been modified.
Zrim, what if the CRC isn’t living out their confession/testimony consistently. That seems more likely than having a defective theory, especially when liberal denominations and socially-minded evangelical have paved the way. CRC is more in tune with the latter than with its Kuyperian roots.
Terry – That overture #6 was good. What was the outcome of that?
Darryl:
Here’s a “sovereign sphere,” a judicial one for C. J. Mahaney, a co-defendant along with SGM and other SGM operatives. A class action lawsuit was filed 17 Oct 2012 re: sex abuse coverups. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-md-court-records-for.html
The actual text can be read at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-text-of-class-action.html
It’s a civil tort action: NEGLIGENCE, INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS.
Here’s an interview with the Plaintiffs’ (3 plaintiffs for now, but almost a year for joinders to the class action) Attorney, Susan Burke. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-radio-interview-with.html
It’s all over the media. AP broke the story. 100s of outlets covered it.
C. J. will be complying with his court-directed appointments for hearings, motions for discovery, interrogatories, depositions and more.
Will CJ be featured at T4G’s spring hoohya in April 2013?
Here’s Mohler premature, uninvestigated, hasty and assured support for Mahaney when things began hitting the fan last year. Ligon Duncan expressed similar support and, most regrettably, Carl Trueman and Kevin DeYoung were a bit quick as well. Here’s Al. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-mohler-backs-mahaney.html
Mahaney has another sphere to comply with besides T4G now.
Erik, synod did not accede to the overture but adopted a motion for the executive director to communicate with the churches, committees, and agencies to consider the issues raised in the overture and in various debates on the floor of synod. The original recommendation from the advisory committee was to deny the overture. The advisory committee countered with what was passed which if course fell short if the request.
Hope this is not too off-topic, but I just found some unexpected things in Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism. One was that he saw Calvinism as a progression in history, a fourth and higher development than anything that had come before.
“Paganism, Islamism and Romanism are the three successive formations which this development had reached, when its further direction passed over into the hands of Calvinism.…The fundamental idea of Calvin has been transplanted from Holland and England to America, thus driving our higher development ever more Westward, until on the shores of the Pacific it now reverently awaits whatsoever God has ordained. …Thus notice I was not too bold when I claimed for Calvinism the honor of being neither an ecclesiastical, nor a theological, nor a sectarian conception, but one of the principal phases in the general development of our human race.”
The other is his idea that positive development is related to commingling races, and that Calvinism is conducive to commingling.
“…allow me to indicate another circumstance, which strengthens my principal statement, viz., the commingling of blood as, thus far, the physical basis of all higher human development.It is noteworthy that the process of human development steadily proceeds with those groups whose historic characteristic is not isolation but the commingling of blood.…the history of our race does not aim at the improvement of any single tribe, but at the development of mankind taken as a whole, and therefore needs this commingling of blood in order to attain its end. Now in fact history shows that the nations among whom Calvinism flourished most widely exhibit in every way this same mingling of races.”
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/LecturesOnCalvinism.pdf pp. 32-36
I really didn’t expect to find theories like this in Lectures on Calvinism.
Patrick Edouard sentenced to 5 years. Will appeal (presumably on church vs. state grounds). I think his attorney will argue that the state can not declare a minister a “counselor” and hold him to the standards that say a counselor can not have sexual relations with someone under their care. He’ll be free on an appeal bond until the appeal is complete.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121020/NEWS01/310200038/Former-Pella-pastor-sentenced-in-exploitation-of-women?Frontpage&nclick_check=1
MM,
It seems us moderns are the odd ones historically. Racial and ethnic elitism and division has been rampant from the beginning of time and the basis for many alliances and war. Even when I’ve been to Europe recently their lack of PC about such issues allows for some rather frank and sometimes refreshing discussions about such things. It also keeps the door wide open for such divisions to take root again if you put enough stress on those cultures. I think our modern views here in the U.S. are helpful and beneficial improvements but they also tend to leave us naive and somewhat impoverished historically.
This was part of the Schaeffer discussions as he laid the blame for all modern ills at the feet of the french revolution and enlightenment. It was a little uncomfortable to have to remind everyone that many of our better western ideals and helpful secularization, of state and societal moorings was due in no small part to enlightenment ideals and the French. Crickets.
This is for Richard:
“Also conducive to warmer relations (between Old Side & New Side Presbyterians) was Gilbert Tennent’s 1749 sermon ‘Irenicum Ecclesiasticum’ in which he argued strongly for union of the two synods and recanted from his vitriolic remarks in ‘The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry,’ When he said that ‘it is cruel and censorious judging, to condemn the states of those we know not; and to condemn positively and openly the spiritual states of such as are sound in fundamental doctrines, and regular in life,’ Tennent took a major stride in backing away from an attitude that had directly prompted the Protestation of 1741.”
From “Seeking a Better Country – 300 Years of American Presbyterianism” by D.G. Hart & John R. Muether
Terry, those are good overtures. But you’re not suggesting they reflect a consensus, are you?
Sydney Ahlstrom’s definition of Pietism:
“Pietism as a distinct religious movement began to take recognizable shape in the later decades of the seventeenth century. It is an exceedingly difficult movement to define, however, despite the fact that few Protestant impulses have been fraught with larger or more enduring consequences. Described most simply, it was an effort to intensify Christian piety and purity of life. At the outset it also involved a protest against intellectualism, churchly formalism, and ethical passivity. With the passing decades this protest broadened; pietists also began to inveigh against the new forms of rationalism and the spiritual coldness of the Enlightenment. Pietism was thus a movement of revival, aimed at making man’s relation to God experientally and morally meaningful as well as socially relevant. It stressed the feelings of the heart. It emphasized the royal priesthood and sought to revive the laity. It always called for a return to the Bible.”
“A Religious History of the American People” p. 236
Terry, add my huzzah to 6 as well. But I still don’t see how appealing to Kuyperian theory helps it the same way the confessions do. As long as we’re making references, see DVD’s chapter in “Always Reformed.” But in what ways do you think the CRC is inconsistent with its Kuyperian roots?
Echoing Zrim’s point – confessionally where does this church as institution vs. church as organism idea come from?
Or better yet, where does it come from biblically?
Erik,
Ultimately it’s a spirituality that walks by sight rather than by faith. Rome does this too with it’s social gospel and transformation emphasis. It’s an attempt to seperate the invisible reality from it’s visible churchly marks. QIRC
Sean, the Kuyper quote raises a number of issues. For example, if he had a Calvinist view and his view resulted in an oddball view about mingling the races then maybe his Calvinist view is not inexorably the superior view. This wasn’t in some long-buried correspondence, it was a key point in a prominent lecture.
Then I wonder whether his idea of history leading towards a kind of Golden Age of Calvinist Civilization was a major impetus for his work. I haven’t read a bunch of Kuyper, so I wouldn’t venture to answer these questions.
Erik, just to be clear, I’m not questioning the organic/institutional distinction–it’s perfectly legit and fine as far as it goes. I’m just wondering how the Kuyperian emphasis on the organic for cultural Christianity helps the 2k emphasis on the institutional for creedal Christianity.
For Erik and to anyone else interested. Erik, I found the sermon/essay and started reading it. In the first few pages I found the following quote. It does not sound like he was admitting that he had done anything wrong.
Gilbert Tennent in’ Irenicum Ecclesiasticum’
Nor have I been moved to this Important interprise, by any
Thing that concerns myself, either by Grief for any suppos’d
Misconduct of Mine, in Time past, or any Expectation of Credit
Comfort or Benefit, that may result from such a Peace and Union in
Time to come, so far as they Respect me !
But Meerly by the Consideration, of the positive Command
of God, to pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, to pursue peace,
and to keep the Unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace.
MM,
I just think it’s particularly indicative of the time, and quite radical especially when you consider the dutch colony in South Africa, or the rampant elitism of the time across the board whether it’s the notion of Anglo-Saxon superiority espoused all the way through WWII even by the allies or the Arian notions of Nazism. Everything was race and ethnic based on a level we no longer appreciate even with all our PC sensitivities. So, it’s from that backdrop that I can imagine he might see the calvinist and dutch program as being egalitarian comparatively, even progressive, something along the lines of ‘your not subhuman but still beneath me, and in need of indoctrination in a superior Kuyperian Calvinistic view of culture before you’re suitable to lead and hold prominent position in a christian triumphalist culture.” We still see a remnant of this in dutch-reformed congregations-you ain’t dutch you ain’t much. As far as the ‘given’ of Calvin and Calvinism being the apex of reformed expression, I find it interesting to read some of R.S. Clark’s work and his comments of how Calvin was NOT that highly considered in his time, and many other prior and then-contemporary scholars were more often referenced. Having not grown up in the reformed world, when I came in, I got the impression that Calvin was the protestant’s Thomas Aquinas but apparently that really wasn’t the case. In fact, I think Clark credits Barth with the popularization of Calvin in the reformed world.
As regards to your second question, I think it unquestionably was.
Is the “Church as Organism” another way of saying that Christians have duties as individual citizens? I’m just confused what the term means.
Richard – You’re going to have to say it’s a Hart conspiracy if Tennent didn’t clearly recant. Here’s another passage from the Dictionary of the P&R tradition in America. Hart & Mark Noll edited it. The article on Tennent is by S.T. Logan of Westminster (PA):
“While continuing to support the Awakening, he thereafter led the attempt to bring reconciliation, admitting publicly in 1742 that his own censoriousness had contributed to the schism in the church. After retracting his virulent sermon and working diligently to repair the breach, his efforts finally paid off. In 1758 the two sides were reunited, and the united synod elected him moderator in honor of his labors. In tribute Francis Allison, one of the most influential Old Side ministers, wrote, ‘Gilbert Tennent…has written more and suffered more for his writings, to promote peace and union, than any member of this divided church.”
I think the story of how the Old Side and the New Side got back together is actually a pretty inspiring story for Christians who are often to quick to divide and stay divided.
Darryl, not at all. You asked if there were any neo-Calvinistics critiquing the present practice of neo-Calvinism in the CRC (or elsewhere).
Zrim, see http://network.crcna.org/forums/discussion-networks/synodical-reports/whatever-happened-sphere-sovereignty for my views on where the CRC is straying from the Kuyperian path.
Erik Charter: Richard – You’re going to have to say it’s a Hart conspiracy if Tennent didn’t clearly recant. Here’s another passage from the Dictionary of the P&R tradition in America. Hart & Mark Noll edited it. The article on Tennent is by S.T. Logan of Westminster (PA):
RS: Not necessarily a conspiracy at all. I just wanted to read where he is interpreted as recanting and then I saw the words that I copied above. He goes on in that same piece (the introduction to it) to assert the same thing again. It appears to be far from recanting at this point.
Erik, Belgic Confession, Article 29 defines the marks and tasks of the church. Although the phrase “church as institution” is not used it contains the idea. It is similar to the idea of the spirituality of the church. The CRCNA church order Article 28 says that the church as synod, Classis, or consistory ought only to address ecclestical matters.
The broader notion is based on believers’ vocations in all areas of life and the notion that God is sovereign over all creation and that Christ is Lord over all of life. Think WSC Q&A #1 and the instructions to believers as husbands, wives, parents, children, slaves, masters, etc. in various scripture passages. Kuyper’s “not one square inch” quote comes to mind.
Terry, thanks for the link–that was pretty good stuff. Not to rain on your parade, but after the last 14 years myself in the CRC, I see a collective yawn given to the kinds of points you make there. And I think it’s because, as I said, Kuyperian theory may make a distinction between the organic and institutional but it also places the accent on the former. 2k-SOTC does so on the latter and seems to be the better theory to make your points.
Pages 29-30 of Hodge’s Presbyterian history has more quotes. It looks like a lot of this came from a letter Tennent wrote. Apparently he had encountered some Moravians who made him question if excess “enthusiasm” might be a bad thing:
The great sinfulness of this censorious spirit, and his own offences in this respect, Mr. Tennent afterwards very penitently acknowledged. In a letter to President Dickinson, dated Feb-
ruary 12, 1742, he says, ” I have had many afflicting thoughts about the debates which have subsisted for some time in our Synod. I would to God the breach were healed, were it the will of the
Almighty. As for my own part, wherein I have mismanaged in doing what I did, I do look upon it to be my duty, and should be willing to acknowledge it in the openest manner. I cannot justify
the excessive heat of temper which has sometime appeared in my conduct. I have been of late, (since I returned from New England,) visited with much spiritual desertion and distresses of various kinds, coming in a thick and almost continual succession, which have given me a greater discovery of myself, than I think I ever had before. These things, with the trial of the Moravians, have given me a clear view of the danger of every thing which tends to enthusiasm and division in the visible church. I think that while the enthusiastical Moravians, and Long-Beards, or Pietists, are uniting their
bodies, (no doubt to increase their strength, and render themselves more considerable,) it is a shame that the ministers, who are in the main of sound principles of religion, should be divided and quarrelling. Alas, for it, my soul is sick for these things ! I wish that some scriptural healing methods could be fallen upon to put an end to these confusions. Some time since I felt a disposition to fall
upon my knees, if I had opportunity, to entreat them to be at peace. I add no more at present, but humble and hearty salutations ; and remain, with all due honour and respect, your poor worthless brother in the gospel ministry.
” P. S. I break open the letter myself, to add my thoughts about some extraordinary things in Mr. Davenport’s conduct. As to his making his judgment about the internal state of persons, or
their experience, a term of church fellowship, I believe it is unscriptural, and of awful tendency to rend and tear the church. It is bottomed upon a false base, viz. : That a certain and infallible
knowledge of the good estate of men is attainable in this life from their experience. The practice is schismatical, inasmuch as it sets up a new term of communion which Christ has not fixed.
A few years later, when the evils arising from the rash denunciation of professing Christians and ministers had become more apparent, Mr. Tennent protested against it in the strongest terms.
” It is cruel and censorious judging,” he says, ” to condemn the state of those we know not, and to condemn positively and openly the spiritual state of such as are sound in fundamental doctrines.
Here is that e-book: http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/charles-hodge/the-constitutional-history-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-the-united-states-of-am-gdo/page-29-the-constitutional-history-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-the-united-states-of-am-gdo.shtml
Erik C quoting Hodge who was quoting Tennent: : ” I have had many afflicting thoughts about the debates which have subsisted for some time in our Synod. I would to God the breach were healed, were it the will of the Almighty. As for my own part, wherein I have mismanaged in doing what I did, I do look upon it to be my duty, and should be willing to acknowledge it in the openest manner. I cannot justify the excessive heat of temper which has sometime appeared in my conduct.”
RS: But again, what was it that his excessive heat of temper came out at and when did it come out? Was it specifically the sermon in question or…?
Erik C quoting Hodge qupting Tennent: P. S. I break open the letter myself, to add my thoughts about some extraordinary things in Mr. Davenport’s conduct. As to his making his judgment about the internal state of persons, or their experience, a term of church fellowship, I believe it is unscriptural, and of awful tendency to rend and tear the church. It is bottomed upon a false base, viz. : That a certain and infallible knowledge of the good estate of men is attainable in this life from their experience.
RS: Did Tennent claim a certain and infallible knowledge of the good estate of men in his previous sermon? Davenport was clearly way over the top, but to state that Tennent was like Davenport and so his statements against Davenport shows that he turned from his former sermon is not a good argument (not saying you are doing that). What I am saying is that a person can preach a sermon at point A in his life and then turn from other things at point B later in life that others may think are directly linked to point A and so they draw the deduction that he was repenting from point A. Maybe not.
Richard – I think all these guys can be viewed on a continuum with regards to revivalism and the First Great Awakening. On one end would be guys like James Davenport who was most likely flat out mentally ill. At the other end would be an Old Side Minister who was maybe not a Christian and was just going through the motions. Most everyone else was somewhere in between. Tennent may have started nearer to where Davenport was but eventually be moved to a more moderate position. The New Side leader, Jonathan Dickinson, the first President of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) was also more of a moderate. Edwards was in favor of the Awakening but was also a moderate. It was through people moving from their extreme positions that led to the New Side and Old Side being able to get back together in 1758. Hart would argue, hwoever, that the New Side really won the battle and the split would occur again over the Second Great Awakening. I would argue that the issues were still there when Machen split off to form the OPC in 1936. If you read Hart’s “Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America” (which every man here should do) you see Machen banging his head against a wall arguing for orthodoxy against a church that is more concerned with “heart religion” (and everyone just getting along) than with “head religion”. You also had the modernist/fundamentalist debate going on, but the debates that begin within 18th Century Presbyterianism over the Awakening had far-reaching implications.