On balance, Reformed Protestants were no more responsible for the glories of the modern world (e.g., science, capitalism, education, liberal democracy) than were other western Christians. That is at least the conclusion of Phillip Benedict in his remarkable social history of Calvinism, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed. But Benedict does detect a level of activism among the Reformed that differentiated it from Lutherans. And the difference has a lot to do with the Reformed’s zeal for church polity and liturgical reform. Benedict writes:
It remains the case that at certain critical moments Lutheran church leaders held back from establishing churches under the cross or from defending such churches by force when the Reformed plunged ahead and did so – most notably in the Low Countries in 1566, where the Lutheran refusal to oppose the duly constituted authorities contributed to the Reformed church’s assumption of leadership in the movement of resistance to Habsbourg rule. . . . Surveying the entire period of 1517-1700, one cannot avoid concluding the Reformed embraced and acted upon such views more than any other confessional group. This is not because of any enduringly distinctive features of Reformed thinking about political obligation. It stems instead from two other foundational stone of Reformed theology: its profound hostility to idolatrous forms of worship and its conviction that certain kinds of church institutions derived from scriptural authority. The former drove Reformed believers to separate themselves from the church of Rome in situations in which other evangelicals were prone to compromise, and thus to find themselves especially often on a footing of threatened minority impelled to fight for its ability to worship as it pleased. The latter [church government] sparked movements of resistance to perceived threats to the purity of the proper church order.
This is a key difference between paleo- and neo-Calvinists (not to mention other Presbyterian transformers of cutlure). In the case of old Calvinism, the aim was to reform the church, which in turn led to various forms of political resistance and activism in order to worship God truly. In the case of new Calvinism, distinct marks of Reformed worship and polity are sacrificed in order to work with other Christians for the sake of a righteous and just society.
So if neo-Calvinists really want to enlist the support of paleos for the sake of transforming society, they’ll need to clean up their liturgy and bone up their ecclesiology. Please no Fosdickian responses of “what incredible folly.â€
Old Life 
Your fallacious identification of neocalvinism with necessarily non-confessionalism and/or anti-regulative principle positions aside, here is the trouble with the example you’re attempting to draw from history:
The resulting “political resistance and activism” in the case of older (paleo) Calvinism that stemmed from its aim to reform the Church was inherently based in a theocratic, or at least establishmentarian, view of church-state relations.
You keep erroneously claiming a “paleo” view, when the paleos are establishmentarians.
So, here’s the issue: if we both accept antiestablishmentarianism and we both accept confessionalism (and we do), then you’re going to have to start re-thinking how you’re framing the issues between our respective views of the non-ecclesial.
Of course, you want to characterize the views of Keller (and other non-confessionalists) as neocalvinist, when they are most certainly not neocalvinist. So that’s part of your trouble too.
LikeLike
Whatever accuracy my characterizations may possess, I am actually waiting for the neo-Calvinists, whether pure or mixed, to decide what the non-ecclesial stuff of life is. Kuyper says that every square inch belongs to Christ. Paleos do not disagree. But they want to distinguish different aspects of Christ’s ownership – the creational and the redemptive. And when we say that the redemptive is different from the creational and results in different norms for church and society, we are generally met with charges of neutrality or worse. So it really would be helpful if neos could give some helpful qualifications to that every square inch business, because a lot of transformers are running around under its banner — even those who don’t know how to spell epistemology.
LikeLike
Yes, but, who decides what “reforming the church” looks like? “The Bible” doesn’t count. And how, then, does this not amount to the “same [stuff], different day?”
LikeLike
I think you’ve been hanging out with Christian too much. You’re speaking in Haikus. Could you elaborate whatever you’re talking about?
LikeLike
But what does this have to do with the fact that you’re not a paleo Calvinist, Darryl ?
Are you going to resist government in your aim to reform the church because you are a theocrat? Is this what you propose is the better paleo way?
In any case, (confessional) neocalvinists do not confuse creation and redemption. As I have explained to you before, the distinction between ‘structure’ and ‘direction’ is one way understand this distinction. We also affirm the distinction between general and special revelation, which also relates to the creational and redemptive.
Neocalvinists affirm that there are different norms for the church than there are for other spheres of society.
So, if you’re not really a paleo, and we don’t disagree about confessionalism, the regulative principle, distinction between creation and redemption, and that non-ecclesial norm differ from ecclesial ones… what’s the complaint?
LikeLike
Chris,
This has parallels to your inquiries at the HB about Frame’s latitudinarianism, where you wondered “who gets to decide what should be in the garage and what should be chucked.†The taxonomy suggested was one between the confessionally and evangelically Reformed. Here it’s paleo- and neo-Calvinists. Same taxonomy, different blog.
But you’re right, in the words of Holly Hunter, to suggest the Bible gets to decide is “…no answer, that ain’t no answer.†Rather, the paleo’s (or confessionally Reformed) get to decide. One might think that presumptuous, but if paleo-confessionalism means to exegete Scripture instead of culture then shouldn’t paleo’s get such honors?
LikeLike
That’s just mean, Darryl.
I’m simply a bit skeptical of highlighting this particular past when it seems accurate to suggest that our forebears would’ve imposed their particular convictions with respect to the regulative principle upon others if the shoe were on the other foot. Indeed, the whole puritan revolution thing depicts this pretty well.
In principle, though, I’m all for our proper concerns for church purity being maintained even in the face of inadvertent resistance to the state. But to my mind the normative principle ought to be at work in this regard—not the regulative. And thus because I think the regulative principle is untenable, so too were our forebears’ political resistance and activism that was motivated by it.
And Zrim, I must voice my agreement on that score. No doubt the confessionalist gets the honors. And so, if the regulative principle truly is part and parcel of what it means to be confessionally Reformed, then go for it. I wouldn’t make the argument articulated in the main post, but, then, I’m not Presbyterian!
LikeLike
What are they,
neo-Calvinists,
but New Lights?
— Old Life haiku
My gift to you.
LikeLike
Baus, you tell me. If I’m not neo- and I’m not paleo-, what am I? Lutheran is not a legitimate answer.
Anyway, Koyzis doesn’t buy the distinction between creation and redemption, and I’ve seen you over at his blog agreeing with him.
LikeLike
Chris, the point wasn’t about imposition. And if you want to bring that up, then how do all the propenents of Christ’s lordship live with themselves when they’re transforming cities and not implementing Christian rule?
The point was about the order of things. It goes something like this, see ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things . . . Funny how in an era of every work is kingdom work we can’t keep that order straight.
LikeLike
No, Darryl, you’re just another kind of neo. Sorry.
I’ve called you an advocate of “neo-twokingdom’ism”. In any case, without establishmentarianism, your view is no more paleo than mine.
If you think Koyzis rejects the distinction between creation and redemption, then you’re misreading him. Perhaps you mean to say that you don’t agree with the particular distinction between creation and redemption made by neocalvinism. But you’ll have to be able to say what that distinction is to criticize it.
LikeLike
Baus, here’s one thing Koyzis wrote: “Second, and perhaps more seriously, Hart’s approach to Scripture is based on an inadequate epistemology. The Bible, it seems, is filled with a number of propositions, which have relevance to some of our activities in God’s world, but not to most. In this huge swath of territory we simply rely on our own native reason, which we share with all human beings, whatever their religious commitments. Scripture informs our spiritual life, but not much beyond that. If Hart is correct about this, then it is little short of amazing that so many people emphasizing the need for a consistent christian worldview have found so much to write about.”
Apparently, he thinks the Bible speaks to everything. I’m not sure where the creation-redeption distinction, or the general-special revelation is in all this. Nor am I sure why Koyzis and other neo-Cals are so gullible. Just because lots of Christians try to baptize their own preferences with Christian truth doesn’t mean Christian truth is at stake in potty training. After all, toilet seats can be measured in square inches.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’ll grant you that what Koyzis said here did sound to me somewhat an argumentum ad antiquitatem. But I don’t think he intended to merely appeal to common practice as authoritative, rather he is pointing out that there is some literature on the subject, with which you fail to interact, that at least would give you a better idea of what neocalvinism affirms in principle (thus, he goes on to give an example from his own book). And you might be bothered to look into it with more consideration, rather than blithely dismissing the basic purpose of Christian liberal-arts colleges, categorically. (You can see why he might be so incredulous).
Koyzis says: “Hart is correct to observe that the Bible has nothing to say about quantum physics and a host of other issues.” And he goes on to say, however, that in matters extra-ecclesial, you seem to be “missing something of the all-embracing character of the life in Christ”. That is, while Koyzis affirms the distinction between creation and redemption (as you will discover in his book), and the distinction between the church and non-the-church, he does think that redemption has to do with, in some way, the whole of creation. But that does not necessitate the total identification of the two, or failure to distinguish them.
LikeLike
“he does think that redemption has to do with, in some way, the whole of creation. But that does not necessitate the total identification of the two, or failure to distinguish them.”
Sounds to me like a whole lot of weaseling is going on in those words. So where does the identification of creation and redemption end, and the distinction begin? That is the issue and your “yes, and, but, maybe, well, sort of” isn’t exactly as clear as your earlier assertion about neo-Cal clarity.
LikeLike
Perhaps you could listen to and interact with this interview with Ken Myers, http://ordinarymeans.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ken-myers-on-culture/
especially the latter part of the interview which addresses much of what your last two post have addressed.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link to Ken’s interview. I only listened to 10 minutes or so. This is a place where Ken and I may disagree. I do think it is important to maintain a difference between Christ as redeemer and Christ as creator. Yes, it could lead to Marcionism. But the danger on the other side is actually more prominent over the last century, from the Social Gospel to the Religious Right and Religious Left.
I also think that Ken’s position has a measure of incoherence built-in. He says that it is impossible to understand what it means to be human apart from Christ. But then he wants to say that non-believers will understand what it means to be human, even though they don’t believe in Christ. I think of people like Aristotle and Leon Kass as people amazingly wise about creation who do not profess Christ. Ken chalks this up to common grace. I’m not sure about common grace. I think creation and providence will work just fine without needing to put grace in the equation. But the point is that Aristotle and Kass are wise about creation and being human because they spend an incredible amount of time reflecting on creational patterns and norms. The tension here for Christians is that often they do not spend that amount of time because they are called to reflect on things that are eternal and unseen, to use Pauline language that is often neglected when running to his cosmological passages.
LikeLike
While I certainly don’t buy their agenda, many (transformationist, non-reconstructionists) do suggest that it’s from the ground up such transformation is to occur, not (as a matter of principle) from the standpoint of imposition. But it’s your prerogative as a Presbyterian to bring up this past as it does elucidate the principle you’re seeking to advocate.
I wonder what you’d say to a guy like Hermann Sasse who sought to maintain the purity of his church in the face of pressures to conflate the state with the church, and who subsequently found himself in the position of political resistance? Does this past reflect the same principle you’ve promoted above?
LikeLike
Chris, I’m not sure that starting with the transformation of NYC is a bottom-up approach. Maybe Pella, Iowa would be a little more manageable.
As for Sasse, I think so.
LikeLike
Great perspective, thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, couldn’t really find and appropriate blog post for this, but if you have any thoughts I would appreciate it. In regards to the reg principle, what do the Reformed say about the imperatives in Scripture, esp the Psalms, regarding shouting to the Lord, raising of hands (minister can do this as representative of congregation, right?), kneeling (didn’t Calvin’s liturgy have kneeling?), praising the Lord with loud cymbals, etc? I am conversing with a friend from my local SGM church that has left and he has shown some interest in the old-school PCA church I now go to. He is wondering about these things. Do you have a quick thought? Seems to be the best critique to the Reg Principle that I know of. Don’t remember this being dealt with in With Rev and Awe. (if you don’t have time for this I understand…. no worries. Planning on asking my pastor too on Sun)
LikeLike
DJ, my understanding of the musical instruments in the Temple is that they ceased with the end of Temple worship. The question that might come up is whether singing the psalms was part of Temple worship. Clearly, singing psalms was not confined to the Temple. Still, some might wonder about only singing OT songs. And as much as this has plausibility, my own understanding of the RPW is that congregational singing should be of inspired, canonical verse. The psalms are the best example of this.
On the flip side, any one who appeals to the cymbals of the psalms in order to play an electric guitar has not exactly grasped the regulative principle either. We must, according to the RPW, do what Scripture commands and use cymbals. Plus, we should require that all other churches in our fellowship do the same.
LikeLike