Regular readers of Oldlife know about the imbroglio between the Brothers Bayly and those who hold two-kingdoms and the spirituality of the church. The major objection apparently is that these doctrines won’t let the church do what activists on certain moral issues want the church to do in the public square (you know, bad ju ju versus do do). In which case, the spirituality of the church is offensive because it restrains the spiritual and moral dynamic necessary for fighting the culture wars over sex and its illegitimate consequences.
But the Baylys are not alone in wanting the church to be a culture-shaping institution. Tim Keller has recently written (thanks to oldlife reader Zeke Zekowski for the link) at his blog about the need for the church to be engaged in culture making. He writes:
Most of the young evangelicals interested in integrating their faith with film-making, journalism, corporate finance, etc, are getting their support and mentoring from informal networks or para-church groups. Michael Lindsay’s book Faith in the Halls of Power shows that many Christians in places of influence in the culture are alienated from the church, because they get, at best, no church support for living their faith out in the public spheres, and, at worst, opposition.
(A minor quibble here is that I’m not sure Lindsay shows any such thing in a work of sociology that shakes the pom-poms for evangelicals rising in elite sectors without the slightest sense of ambivalence about the theology of glory deeply embedded in [and should be haunting] the evangelical quest for greatness.)
A major kvetch is this: why do Christians pursuing communications and the arts need the church to have their hand held more than plumbers, bakers, farmers, Home Depot check-out clerks, and subway train engineers? How much does the church support the work of the average Mary or Joe? And do these modest workers complain about the church not affirming them? One would think that the perks that come with putting your name on a piece of art or a newspaper column might make up for the lack of gratification that comes with changing the filters in the boiler room of the twelve-floor apartment building.
Keller continues:
At the theological level, the church needs to gain more consensus on how the church and Christian faith relate to culture. There is still a lot of conflict between those who want to disciple Christians for public life, and those who think all “engagement of culture” ultimately leads to compromise and distraction from the preaching of the gospel. What makes this debate difficult is that both sides make good points and have good arguments.
I remain baffled why cultural engagement is a pressing need for the church. I would think it pretty important to shepherd members of Christ’s body in the notion that they are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, whose identity in Christ far transcends the work they do no matter how creative or dull. The church, it seems, has plenty of work to do to confirm Christians in the truth that even when they cease being culture makers or low-level grunts, they are still priests and citizens of a heavenly kingdom with all the affirmation that comes with belonging to Christ, in body and soul, in life and in death. Instead of taking on the task writing a confession for cultural engagement or policy prescription, better is the work of catechizing the faithful in the truths of God, man, sin, salvation, and the church. Those teachings are more important and lasting, even if they do not produce great art or Christian manuals of plumbing.
But without such a consensus on the spirituality of the church and the Christian’s otherworldly identity, communions like the PCA are in danger of becoming balkanized into either the arts-and-culture congregations, or the culture-war churches. Not only are the arts and the politics of nation-states not taught in the PCA’s confessional standards, but very difficult is the task of finding a “thus, sayeth the Lord†for such cultural ambitions.
So irony of ironies, the Baylys and Keller are on the same page in rejecting the spirituality of the church for the culturality of the church. And in so conceiving the church, pastors in the same communion end up driving each other bonkers. Keller doesn’t want the Baylys’ crusading activism and the Baylys don’t want Keller’s urban-chic programming. Wouldn’t the spirituality of the church put an end to these squabbles and make the PCA even more effective than it apparently already is?
Postscript: a good question related to this post is why the OPC does not appear to suffer from the culturality of the church, at least not in the same degree. Maybe it is because the OPC is so small we have enough sense not to beat our breasts about being change agents in the culture. We have enough trouble paying the bills of our standing committees, presbytery committees, and struggling congregations to take on the planet’s policies and art. But it could also be that the spirituality of the church that Machen taught the first generation of the OPC, leavened with the potent supplement of amillennialism taught by Vos, Murray, and Kline, has made Orthodox Presbyterians less impressed with the good, but ultimately fading, culture of this world.
Old Life 
Is the advertisement for Keller’s “Counterfeit God’s” part of this entry?
LikeLike
In the presbytery I’m a part of in the PCA you must affirm the spirituality of the church, and it is generally understood and practiced. The PCA in the deep south is very different from the PCA you describe. It may be because we still consider ourselves the continuing PCUS, I don’t know. I do know that though we are generally conservative politically, few in our congregations actually admit voting Republican (party of Lincoln). I like the fact that in both congregations I have pastored during elections, there were at least three different political parties represented on the bumper stickers (Rep./Dem./Green, and Dem./Rep./Libertarian).
LikeLike
Daryl, your version of 2K seems to be advocating a Church First movement. You rightly object to those who advocate State First or Culture First movements. Nevertheless, I’m curious as to why it has to be an either/or situation?
Jim Jordan advocates a Church First movement, too, but his is more of a fatalistic view — take care of the church first, and the state and culture will come along after. (Yeah right.)
You advocate a Thornwellian ecclesastical inwardness, a sacral retreat. Will you also adopt Barth’s teaching that theology must proceed “as though nothing had happened”?
One would think that culture and politics are just part of what it means for the church to “catechiz[e] the faithful in the truths of God, man, sin, salvation, and the church.”
LikeLike
I read some of the Bayly boys. That’s why I stopped reading them.
LikeLike
And do these modest workers complain about the church not affirming them?
Daryl,
I think the reason why the modest workers are not complaining about the lack of affirmation is that in these churches there are not many ‘modest’ workers .. the legacy of the HUP and transfer growth, means that where these things are preached … they are tapping into the psyche of those who hope for great things from their vocation, not those who do horrible things they hate to put food on the table.
When I heard these things from a pastor very influenced by Keller – this was my thoughts exactly, my mind went to people I know who have cleaned for 50 years, for little pay and little reward and certainly little discernable transformation (often they have had the sack at the wim of the boss or at the downturn in the market have been the first to go).
Linked to this I have recently read – Hempton’s ‘Methodism – Empire of the Spirit’ – he makes the point that when the influence of the church begins to pervade society that is when the local church is weakening – seen in the UK in the Victorian times. Kind of like how the advent of ‘your’ Moral Majority and the Evanglelical voting bloc, has not exactly more widely ushered in the kingdom.
PS a while ago I asked for recommended reading on the links of 19th Century evangelicalism and Rauschenbush (if I have spelt it right)
I actually like alot of things Keller says … particularly in apologetics … but I do fear for the influence of this transformation business in a generation or so’s time.
LikeLike
A picture of the Culture Club on Old Life? What ever next? You are just trying to be culturally relevant! (or would that be irrelevant?) 😉
Matt
LikeLike
Vern, well something has to be first if there is going to be an order or procession, right? But the point is that the kingdom of Christ is the visible church. The state and the culture are not the kingdom. The way to hasten the kingdom of glory (WSC language on what do we pray for in the second petition) is to advance the kingdom of grace (as in the church). Culture and politics are the stage for the church. The culture and the state are valuable in their place. But only the church is establishing the kingdom of Christ. To think that culture or politics are part of the kingdom of grace is a form of works righteousness — as in making things better in ways that bring kingdom benefits to non-believers.
JWN: I don’t get it (but I want to).
Colin: granted, but Keller is talking about “the church” not just Redeemer NYC. In fact, I think he often speaks out of the NY environment about the wider church without recognizing how unique his situation is. So his point seems to be that my suburban church also needs a theology of culture. And since he’s presbyterian, he’s at least making claims for his communion.
BTW, I don’t have anything good on evangelicalism and Rauschenbusch to recommend. If you want something on the Social Gospel, Robert Crunden’s Ministers of Reform might work.
Matt, James Bratt makes the interesting comparison by saying that George Whitefield was the Boy George of the 18th century. It’s in a book on pop culture called, Dancing in the Dark.
LikeLike
Matt, btw, I’m shocked, shocked to think that an OPC minister knows what Culture Club looks like.
LikeLike
Very good post, Dr. Hart, and true on many levels, especially with regard to the danger of Balkanization of the PCA if the congregation fails to develop a cohesive stance on the spirituality of the church.
My only quibble is with this paragraph:
“So irony of ironies, the Baylys and Keller are on the same page in rejecting the spirituality of the church for the culturality of the church. And in so conceiving the church, pastors in the same communion end up driving each other bonkers. Keller doesn’t want the Baylys’ crusading activism and the Baylys don’t want Keller’s urban-chic programming.”
I don’t think Dr. Keller and the Baylys are that close in their beliefs on the spirituality of the church. The Baylys seem to reject it completely, while Keller probably falls more on your side of things. Dr. Keller seems to believe the spiritual kingdom extends to every aspect of a Christian’s life, so that he/she should live out their faith in the way they do their job, be it in the arts, on Wall Street, mopping floors, etc. I don’t think Keller would advocate the church engaging culture as institution per se, but he does seem to want more support for her people in the way they live out their faith in the workplace. Practically, I’m not exactly sure how that works…
LikeLike
Zeke, well, thanks again for the link. But I’ve looked at Redeemer’s website and there is a lot of culture engagement there. The blog post you provided even links to a Redeemer project on Christians in the workplace, I think. So even if Keller is more sympathetic to the SOTC than the Baylys, I don’t think either of the Baylys’ congregations are as program driven as Keller’s (meaning, a lot, lot, lot of stuff beyond word, sacrament, and discipline).
LikeLike
Vern,
I always appreciate your posts. It isn’t a retreat as much as a restraint. It is about avoiding ecclesiastical tyranny from the pulpit. The Bible does not give the NT church a political manifesto or cultural manefesto in Christianizing non theocratic new covenant nations. Christians are free to be good neighbors in the way they see fit. We do not have a right to tell people how to vote, how to engage culture, etc…in the name of the Lord. Ironically, those who are so keen on denouncing political tyranny from the pulpit seem immune to knowing when they have overstepped into ecclesiastical tyranny.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
No argument here – I would certainly not describe Keller as R2K. I do think he would side with you on the SOTC more than the Baylys – that his church has more “programs” than their churches is probably a result of size more than anything else.
LikeLike
Zeke, well I think the language of word and deed, as opposed to word and sacrament, belies a different understanding of the Christian ministry than the one I’m advocating.
LikeLike
Zeke,
I think what makes Bayly/Keller categorically distinct from an older conception is the shared notion amongst the former that the gospel has obvious implications to the cares of this world. That principle may lead some to an application that blusters outside abortion clinics; and it may lead others to a much more measured cultural engagement. But both fundamentally agree the world is blessed to have the indwelt tabernacle amongst them around the cultural table, while old lifers see themselves as part of the problem because they really do believe sin still clings in serious ways.
Like the new lifers, old lifers also believe that Jesus is Lord over every square inch and that faith informs the believer in all his vocations. But where new lifers of various stripes think in sunnier categories like “transformation,†old lifers think in less inspiring categories of “participation.†I think those are two fundamentally different outlooks. But it can be fun to watch new lifers fight and drive each other bonkers.
P.S. In my experience at ground zero for transformationism, “programs” (and size) are usually good indicators that we think we’re worldly-relevant.
LikeLike
DGH: Do you think a different emphasis on Christian Liberty between OPC & PCA plays a part?
The OPC has historically been strong on Christian Liberty – and in broader terms than merely adult beverages or tobacco. In terms of culture, politics and activism, there was a variety of opinions in the OPC’s formative years. Circles that downplay the SOTC or 2K will be tempted to curtail liberty over politics and will tend to bind consciences over matters of culture war.
LikeLike
Cris, I think that’s right. And this is where the division in 1937 between the Bible and Orthodox Presbyterians is likely much more important intuitively than many realize. A fairly big chunk of the Bible Presbyterians went into the PCA as the RPCES. It would be interesting to know the level of SOTC among them. T. David Gordon and Dave Coffin certainly affirm it. But I’m not sure that either of those guys had much time in the RPCES. Mind you, the OPC contributed indirectly to the PCA’s present difficulty when J&R went down and a lot of our “New School” (read: New Life) brothers reaffiliated with the PCA.
LikeLike
Darryl
All I can say is “do you really want to hurt me?”. Don’t tell anyone I know about them, I’m being ordained tomorrow!!
Sadly Britain must reluctantly claim Culture Club as it’s own! Who would have thought that a country that could produce the likes of Admiral Horatio Nelson and Sir Winston Churchill could produce the Culture Club. C’est la vie as they say on the continent.
Matt
LikeLike
Todd said, “It isn’t a retreat as much as a restraint. It is about avoiding ecclesiastical tyranny from the pulpit. The Bible does not give the NT church a political manifesto or cultural manefesto in Christianizing non theocratic new covenant nations. Christians are free to be good neighbors in the way they see fit. We do not have a right to tell people how to vote, how to engage culture, etc…in the name of the Lord. Ironically, those who are so keen on denouncing political tyranny from the pulpit seem immune to knowing when they have overstepped into ecclesiastical tyranny.”
Seems to me that radical 2K ism has wrapped itself up in the priestly office in order to avoid the difficult tasks of the prophetic office. Personally, I don’t see how churchly denunciations of gay marriage, abortion, etc. are signs of ecclesiastical tyranny. Separation of church and state is not the same as separation of morality and the state.
LikeLike
Vern,
We radicals separate sin, which the Bible denounces, from which sins the state should enfore against and how, which the Bible does not specify. Mormonism is a sin. Whether the state should allow it is not in the Bible. Fornication is a sin. If the state proposed a law to make it illegal, there would be Christian liberty among believers whether to support that law or not. It would be legalism for the pastor to tell his congregation how to vote in that matter.
LikeLike
So, Todd, this is what the R2K position seems to be advocating: the danger that the church will do wrong is so great that the church can’t risk doing right.
LikeLike
…what the R2K position seems to be advocating: the danger that the church will do wrong is so great that the church can’t risk doing right.
No, Vern, that’s a premise of cowardice instead of propriety. Think of it this way: I don’t go across the street to tell my neighbor how to run his household because I have no jurisdiction over it, not because I am afraid I might tell him the wrong thing. Indeed, I might have some pretty great advice to give him that he could really use, but my showing up is fundamentally flawed. I mean, that’s just human relations 101.
LikeLike
Vern,
Well, is it “right” for the state to outlaw Mormonism, or fornication?
LikeLike
Wasn’t it legal in Rome to expose infant children (i.e. to abandon them to die) when Paul wrote his letter to the church there? It’s a wonder he didn’t ask them protest or picket or something.
LikeLike
Todd, originally the States could very well outlaw both Mormonism and fornication. The States still had established churches even after the First Amendment was passed (meaning it only kept the Federal government from outlawing false religion).
So yes it’s hypothetically permissible for a state to outlaw Mormonism, or fornication.
Since the States dis-established their churches (the last around 1830), they no longer can outlaw Mormonism and be consistent with their State constitutions.
The States pass legal codes, along with cities & counties, and could very well outlaw fornication. Neither the Federal government, nor the Supreme Court for the most part, can legitimately interfere with intra-state domestic issues.
Zrim, would you let the “no jurisdiction” argument persuade you to keep silent when your neighbor’s children are playing on a busy street?
Vern
LikeLike
Vern, but you have assumed what you have not proven, that it is right for the church as institution to oppose public sin. Where is the example of this from Scripture? (Israel doesn’t count because theocracies ceased.) The Reformed hermeneutic of the sufficiency of Scripture says that the church must have a biblical warrant for what it does. I can see why you think it good for churches to oppose public immorality. But the standard for the church is higher than good intentions or effectiveness. It is “thus, sayeth the Lord.” So where does the Bible say that the church as church must oppose public sin (or by good and necessary consequence)?
But the problem goes deeper. How many Christians in the public square are saying what only the church can say — that is, sinners may find forgivness in Christ. Plenty of believers and non-believers oppose various evils; the left and the right are as moralistic as you can be. I’d pair Al Gore with Sarah Palin any day. So what does the church actually add to these debates that is different is she is simply saying “X is wicked” and “you ought to be ashamed.” Isn’t the church’s task actually to declare forgivness for sins through Christ. Wasn’t that what Christ told his disciples in John 20:23?
And one more layer of difficulty: if the church comes out with its public message as “be moral, don’t be immoral,” then people tend to think that Chrisitanity is about being good instead of being about being forgiven. And I for one am a Christian who knows that even this side of regeneration I need more encouragement to be forgiven than I do to be good. We are hard wired with the Covenant of Works, not the Covenant of Grace, which runs completely against the moral grain.
So public statements by the church may be one step forward in your view, but in mind they are 1200 steps backwards to the fall and condemnation.
LikeLike
Zrim, would you let the “no jurisdiction†argument persuade you to keep silent when your neighbor’s children are playing on a busy street?
No, but, to keep the analogy going, I think most like to interpret things they disagree with to be more than that in order to justify meddling. So my neighbor spanking becomes my neighbor beating, or my neighbor having a later curfew for his kids than me becomes my neighbor letting his kids play in a busy street.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
This is only tangentially related the discussion above, but I wasn’t sure how else to contact you. In the not too distant future I’m hoping to start a doctorate in history and I would like write on Machen. I have a couple of ideas focusing on his primary intellectual influences and his approach to culture/politics. I’ve only read the published version of your dissertation and it’s possible you may have already dealt with a lot of the areas I’m thinking of. Off the top of your head, are there any areas of his life that need further work? Of course I’m not asking for a dissertation prospectus or anything like that, just some general ideas. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
LikeLike
Vern,
I didn’t ask whether it was permissible for the state to outlaw Mormonism, I asked if the church had a responsibility to instruct the state to outlaw Mormonism because the Word teaches tha state must do so. If not, then we would grant Christian liberty and not speak authoritatively on the matter, which is the 2k position.
LikeLike
You guys remind me of the docile, passive, *embarrassed* people obediently sitting outside the gates of Heaven, not moving until being told to move by the guy at the table with proper paperwork. Then Bunyan’s knight in black armor appears, draws his sword and overcomes the guards posted at Heaven’s gate, forces his entry…to the sound of what? To the sound of cheering from inside the gates of Heaven.
LikeLike
But the jurisdiction question is low-hanging fruit. There’s no question that the state has some jurisdictional independence from the church.
The real question is, if you were a Christian law-maker, would you feel a Biblical responsibility to pass a law outlawing Mormonism?
If so, why? If not, why not?
See, “Christian liberty” is easy enough — but it only addresses one man vis-a-vis another. Christian liberty is no answer to the question, “How then shall I govern?”
LikeLike
By pass, you mean what? Draft? Speak in favor of? Vote for? Trade favors for support? What if you can only get support for either that or an abortion ban? What if those that would support your abortion ban are Mormon? Or what if it’s an election year, and everyone is more worried about the economy?
How is Christian liberty not the answer? Even our presbyters are allowed discretion and nuance in how they vote on an elder accused of (perhaps unwittingly) teaching justification by works. As others have pointed out, the relationship between the intent of a law and its realized fruit is complicated, often unexpected, and not a matter of exegesis. wrt your example, banning polygamy created a mess of subterranean tunnels in downtown Salt Lake, while the practice died eventually for its own reasons.
I don’t see a Biblical responsibility to either pass laws banning Mormonism or spend our time trying to imagine what we would do if we worked in another field, whether politics or plumbing.
LikeLike
Todd, the churches learned through painful experience that it was not a good idea to interfere with matters of conscience or faith. So no the churches shouldn’t try to influence the state to outlaw Mormonism. Christianity benefits from freedom, as Witherspoon said.
It’s different when we are talking about moral issues that affect the body politic. The churches have a right and responsibility to speak out on those issues. I take it that the church is more than just the minister speaking out. It’s the whole congregation that should be involved. Religion and morality are indespensible for the success of good government, as Washington said.
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.â€
LikeLike
Mike K: How is Christian liberty not the answer?
Christian liberty is a framework in which one man “mayn’t” (good word, Zrim) say to another “do X” unless there is good and sufficient warrant from Scripture.
It’s a good framework, and it’s designed to separate the word of God from the word of man.
BUT
Christian liberty by itself does not provide the believer with any understanding of how the word of God is to be handled. Christian liberty does not help one actually discover the good and sufficient warrants from Scripture.
When one looks at the WLC on the decalogue (qn. 98 – 151), it turns out that the Westminster divines were very expansive in their interpretation of how the decalogue applies to everyday life.
I don’t see that same willingness here to say, “Here’s how the decalogue applies to plumbers”; rather, I see an aversion to that question. It’s assumed, in fact, that the decalogue has nothing to say to plumbers.
Why?
Even our presbyters are allowed discretion and nuance in how they vote on an elder accused of (perhaps unwittingly) teaching justification by works.
Yes, but this is different from “the Spirituality of the Church.” SOTC bifurcates our lives into church life (narrow) and common life (liberty). You’re speaking to liberty within the church, which is a different question.
LikeLike
Put this another way: the classic second use of the law in Reformed thought was “judicial.” The “general equity” of the Mosaic Law was held to be binding on nations (WCoF 19.4).
I have yet to see any SOTC-er mention the second use of the Law in two years of discussion.
Why?
LikeLike
It’s different when we are talking about moral issues that affect the body politic. The churches have a right and responsibility to speak out on those issues.
The problem, Vern, as dgh pointed out just above, is that to the extent that all sorts of religionists agree on all sorts of moral issues, what makes the church distinct is her exclusive right and duty to declare the reconciliation of sinners to God through Christ alone. The church actually diminishes her unique task by joining up with those who agree that homosexuality and fornication are immoral and bad for the flourishing of the temporal order but who also disagree withus and believe everything from we are little gods to sinners who contribute to their justification.
LikeLike
Jeff,
When you’ve heard reference to natural law you’ve actually been hearing references as well to the second use.
You’re right that liberty addresses how you and I approach things indifferent but it doesn’t tell either of us how we approach them individually. But I think the question of whether or not to outlaw theological error is one really for the anti-2Kers. They’re the ones who want the Decalogue broadly enforced but seem somewhat selective about it. 2K also wants the Decalogue enforced, but only narrowly enforced for the people of God and without exception, which is to say no Mormonism in the church. And if anybody violates that, s/she is excommunicated, not executed. Big difference.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Okay, a law is proposed to ban Mormonism as illegal. You are a pastor. People in your congregation want to know how they should vote on this according to the third use of the law. Your answer?
LikeLike
Jeff,
I meant second use, sorry
LikeLike
But Zrim, the church isn’t just about teaching justification. It’s also about teaching ethics. And sooner or later, ethical teaching impinges on the polis. I’ll have to finish reading *Secular Faith* before I comment on Daryl’s views.
LikeLike
Zrim: The church actually diminishes her unique task by joining up with those who agree that homosexuality and fornication are immoral and bad for the flourishing of the temporal order but who also disagree withus and believe everything from we are little gods to sinners who contribute to their justification.
I agree with you, at least to an extent. But notice that we’ve demoted SOTC in this argument from a doctrine to a strategy. That is, instead of arguing that SOTC is needed because the Bible requires it, you’re arguing that SOTC is needed because it is wise, or because the opposite is perilous.
LikeLike
…the church isn’t just about teaching justification. It’s also about teaching ethics. And sooner or later, ethical teaching impinges on the polis.
Vern, you almost make it sound like these two are more mechanical than organic. But Reformed teaching is that biblical imperatives are tied to the heel of biblical indicatives, which makes it impossible conceive of Christianity as a glorified moral system that is eventually good for statecraft, which seems quite different from a message that is meant to reconcile sinners to God and cultivate soul-craft (sorry, Mr. Washington, but I cannot tell a lie). It seems to me that Kantian Christianity may begin by suggesting that doctrine and ethics can be compartmentalized with an eye toward the Good Society.
But notice that we’ve demoted SOTC in this argument from a doctrine to a strategy. That is, instead of arguing that SOTC is needed because the Bible requires it, you’re arguing that SOTC is needed because it is wise, or because the opposite is perilous.
Jeff, I’m not sure I see how you’re getting that from what I said. In fact, my comment about sticking to the supernatural message to which the church is uniquely and exclusively called (and foregoing intuitive truths everybody naturally knows) was a way to suggest that the SOTC is needed precisely because the Bible requires it. But since when were biblical rules and wisdom mutually exclusive? I tell my kids not to lie because truth-telling is wise and because lying is perilous.
LikeLike
Todd: Okay, a law is proposed to ban Mormonism as illegal. You are a pastor. People in your congregation want to know how they should vote on this according to the third use of the law. Your answer?
I would say, Consider the relevant Scriptures. It’s clear that Mormonism is a corruption of Christianity and is contrary to the decalogue. At the same time, it’s also clear in America that “Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion” — which has legal precedent since the 19th century as applying to the states as well. So Rom 13 becomes relevant here.
There might be others also.
And then, since there’s nothing in Scripture that says, “Thou shalt vote in this way”, I would tell them that their consciences are free with regard to specific commands in Scripture.
LikeLike
Zrim: But Reformed teaching is that biblical imperatives are tied to the heel of biblical indicatives, which makes it impossible conceive of Christianity as a glorified moral system that is eventually good for statecraft
That’s not the point. The point is, whether Christianity is good for statecraft or bad, its ethics are not suspended for Christians in the public square.
So to the extent that Scripture informs one’s public calling (which the WLC seems to imply), then it makes more sense to explore that extent than to tilt at “glorified moral systems.”
Yes: those are out there (DJ Kennedy’s “New Israel”, for example); but No: Vern is not advocating one.
In fact, my comment about sticking to the supernatural message to which the church is uniquely and exclusively called (and foregoing intuitive truths everybody naturally knows) was a way to suggest that the SOTC is needed precisely because the Bible requires it.
You mean, that the Church is called to make all men Christ’s disciples? I agree.
So is a man Christ’s disciple in his common calling? If so, then the Church has a business in saying how. Not exhaustively; but to the extent that Scripture covers it.
If not, then why in the world not?
LikeLike
Technical note: 14th Amendment did not take away the power of a State to establish a religion, much less morals based on religion. See Raul Berger’s *Government By Judiciary* for a critique of the incorporation doctrine.
LikeLike
Jumping off of Todd’s hypothetical (for anyone): You are a pastor. The much-vaunted Christian magistrate not only exists but is in your congregation. He is contemplating a ban on Mormonism. What do you tell him?
I’m no historian, but I recall one who showed that American Presbyterianism flourished — as much as it ever does — in only the disestablished states, like New Jersey (woo!). I don’t know how those presbyterians felt about established churches stateside, but I’m pretty sure they all agreed that things didn’t work out so well across the ocean. Given our own history, or at least my understanding of it, flirting with government-approved theology is as perplexing to me as government-approved healthcare is to conservatives.
LikeLike
Darryl, you write at the end of your excellent blog,
“leavened with the potent supplement of amillennialism taught by Vos, Murray, and Kline, has made Orthodox Presbyterians less impressed with the good, but ultimately fading, culture of this world.”
Is it not potent amillenialism that supplies the Bayly’s and Keller with the raison d’etre for their rejection of R2K and viewpoints on engaging the culture? Certainly they would agree it does?
If this is in fact the case, how can amillenialism be claimed to be a strong support for R2K? Who is more true to the amillenialism of Vos, et. al., R2K, or non-R2K, Hart, or Bayly?
LikeLike
Ted, if you can explain to me how the Baylys are amillennial, I’d sure appreciate it. Their affinities for Wilson, who is avowedly postmill, plus Tim Bayly’s whiggish interpretation of evangelicalism and social reform are about as far from amill as you can get.
Keller may be more sympathetic to amill and that may explain his reluctance to fight in the culture wars. But transformationalists like Kuyper were generally postmill. Even Vos had his transformationalist moments.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Saying the Scripture supplies no political manifesto is not saying there are no Scriptures that inform our life in the public square as believers, which you seem to keep suggesting we are saying. Besides Rom 13, Matt 7:12 may be the most relevant. But your answer to my question is my answer, so the only difference may be your fear to identify with us 2k “radicals.”
LikeLike
Jeff,
The point is, whether Christianity is good for statecraft or bad, its ethics are not suspended for Christians in the public square.
My point is that construing Christianity as good for statecraft bad for Christianity because Christianity is only good for soul-craft. But, I agree, its ethics are not suspended for Christians in the public square anymore than they are suspended for them in the private sphere.
So is a man Christ’s disciple in his common calling? If so, then the Church has a business in saying how. Not exhaustively; but to the extent that Scripture covers it.
Yes, of course s/he is Christ’s disciple in his/her common calling (whether it be private or public). And, yes, it then follows that the church has business in saying how. When she is a making law to legalize abortion she mayn’t actually have one. When he is making law to legalize idolatry, prostitution, divorce, fornication or gay marriage he mayn’t actually engage any.
(You’re right, “mayn’t†is an awesome word. Thanks go to Miss Phillips, my second grade public school teacher, a former nun. She drilled “gots†out of my vocabulary with public shame and instilled the can/may distinction with a bathroom pass: “Can I go to the bathroom?†“I don’t know, can you?â€)
LikeLike
Yes, one hears that latter question in my classroom also. Along with
“Can me and Luke go to the media center?”
“He’s not mean!”
LikeLike
todd: Saying the Scripture supplies no political manifesto is not saying there are no Scriptures that inform our life in the public square as believers, which you seem to keep suggesting we are saying. Besides Rom 13, Matt 7:12 may be the most relevant. But your answer to my question is my answer, so the only difference may be your fear to identify with us 2k “radicals.â€
The reason I suggest that “we” say this is that Dr. Hart and I have had a couple of rounds over the question “Does the Bible have anything to say about plumbing?”
I say “yes” — in the sense that I’ve been responding to you — he says “no.” (Except that he agrees with the particulars that I raise, so …)
So can understand why I might suggest that.
I don’t have a fear to identify with 2k radicals. I’m in a far more fearful place: I see value in the multiperspectival approach of John Frame. This marks me as a dangerous latitudinarian and an unReformed radical biblicist.
Or so goes the theory.
LikeLike
Okay, Jeff, what does the multiperspectival biblicist approach say to a Christian magistrate about legislation banning Mormonism in his jurisdiction? I myself see no reason to ban Mormonism since I confess a creed that says the magistrate is supposed to protect all people and their beliefs (or lack of them). I am also a citizen of a republic which says no religious tests shall be used for public office, and that Congress can make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. So legally and ecclesiastically my conscience is clear. Is a multiperspective reading of the Bible and our circumstances different?
LikeLike
Okay, Jeff, what does the multiperspectival biblicist approach say to a Christian magistrate about legislation banning Mormonism in his jurisdiction?
Didn’t I just say it?
Is a multiperspective reading of the Bible and our circumstances different?
In this case, no.
LikeLike
Thanks. I’ll ask!, and keep you posted.
LikeLike
“I’m in a far more fearful place: I see value in the multiperspectival approach of John Frame. This marks me as a dangerous latitudinarian and an unReformed radical biblicist.”
Jeff,
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the “biblicist” label because it is often made against those who do care about what our forefathers said about scripture. I think the term should be reserved for those who think they need no help from the greater church (past or present) understanding the Bible, and they are out there. I have been called a biblicist for simply disagreeing with a few statements in the WCF, and that is not how the term should be used. But I was trained on the multiperspectival approach by Dr. Frame at WCS, but really didn’t buy it then because the Scriptures made clear distinctions to me that multi-perspectivalism refused to recognize. I wonder how a multi-perspectival approach can answer clear questions people in our pews have, like Darryl’s outlaw Mormonism question, or the errors with the FV.
LikeLike
I appreciate your reticence with the “biblicist” label.
If you’re curious about a multiperspectival approach to the FV, here’s one.
There’s no question that Calvin was some kind of perspectivalist with regard to the church. He explicitly differentiates between the church as we see it and the church as God sees it.
LikeLike
I was going to ignore these comments.but I do want to make one thing clear. By taking an either.or stance with respect to 2k v Kuyper you have attempted to argue against the very liberty you say you want to safeguard. I accept that the 2k men want to safeguard the spirituality of the Church. And I accept that the Kuyperians want to ensure we acknowledge God’s lordship over the whole of life.
Let me ask you to think for a moment of the implications of John the Baptist telling a soldier what he should do to show he had repented. Did he tell him as a private individual, or as a member of the military? Does it really matter? He was asked for guidance and he gave it to the best of his understanding. John did not split his advice to the soldier into that which was applicable to only his spiritual life – his “do not take money from anyone by force” and “do not accuse anyone falsely” were things peculiar to the soldier’s calling. It’s true there are aspects of the advice which are applicable to others as well, but note his earlier response to the tax gathers: “Do not collect any more than you have been ordered to.” The principles involved in his advice are specifically applied to the workplace of the person asking.
To take the stance argued for in the 2k comments (above) denies there is any need to give such guidance. Is that truly the way you act? Do you not, at that point share a little with the Kuyperians? And as for the opposite tack – some of the most moving sermons I have heard on the need for spiritual renewal in the Church have come from Kuyperians.
Paul says there ought to be differences so the good might be approved. And, in this case I think it lies between the two arguments, and shares some of each.
LikeLike
Hone P.: what on earth are you talking about? Christian liberty for the church as church involves only doing what the Bible commands. Do Christians have liberty not to pray? No. So in some areas, liberty is not the point.
The point of SOTC vs. transformationalism is where does the biblical warrant for the church as church transforming culture come from? What Christians may do is not same as what the church must do.
How you think John the Baptist giving instruction to (likely Jewish and therefore part of the covenant community) soldiers or tax collectors justifies transformationalism is akin to Jesus eating fish in his resurrected body being a warrant for only eating fish.
But if you could tell me how the spirituality of the church is wrong, I’d like to know. The Westminster Confession describes the church’s task as gathering and perfecting the saints. The Belgic Confession says the church is characterized by word, sacrament, and discipline. It adds that the false church adds more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God.
The transformers have upped the stakes. It’s on them to show they have a biblical warrant for transforming the culture, and if they are right, it’s on them to show that the SOTC if wrong and unfaithful.
LikeLike
Hi Darryl,
I asked Tim Bayly his position on amillenialism – here is his response:
Dear Pastor Bigelow,
We’re either a or post–not sure which. Someday I’ll be sure, I think. When I don’t know.
Love,
Tim Bayly
A sincere answer, with some warm tongue-in-cheek.
LikeLike
So Ted, if amillennialism is not what makes the Baylys or Keller tick, but some variety of post-mill, do you want to revise your first comment?
LikeLike
This was so good I hardly know where to start. We left a PCA church after 14 years, for a variety of reasons, but this whole fawning over “culture” was just one of many. Movie reviews, poetry during the service, creeping Anglican liturgy, etc. were all necessary to attract the Ivy League culture-shapers (and perhaps their well-heeled parents?); but a weekly prayer meeting or a regular teaching on the Westminster Confession was out of the question. The PCA is sitting on a huge fault-line; it’s like there are two different denominations living inside one organization. There are a lot of good people in some quarters who just aren’t being taught anything at all about the faith, and at some point something will have to give. I’m glad that we’re gone.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that you say that, Buzz. I just had coffee with a former student who is now at Covenant, and he said that there are basically two groups there (he likes rhetorical effect, but he’s also a serious analyst, as much as a college student can be).
The one group is (his words) “theological types” and the other is “experientialists.”
LikeLike
I’m late to this thread, but from the perspective of the pew, I see three groups.
1. True SOTC churches. Honestly, these solid confessionally Reformed churches are few and far between. They typically only arise in areas where there is historically a strong Reformed presence, such as in the upper Midwest and the mid-Atlantic states. These churches will probably continue to disappear.
2. Populist 1K Churches. These churches believe in cultural engagement. But their cultural engagement is a mish-mash between revivalism, moralism, and social populism. They are social outsiders who lack the academic and professional accomplishments that earn one a seat at the table with the cultural elite. So, they just yell a lot. For examples, see the Brothers Bayly, the late D. James Kennedy, and practically all PCA churches in the South.
3. Anti-populist 1K churches. These churches also believe in cultural engagement, but their members are skilled at how to make things happen. They are the cultural elite, or are at least in the candidate pool. They would rather be caught reading Hustler than World Magazine. They want to make change, but are willing to allow work incrementally. They will engage in no activism that does not have an achievable goal. So, they work quietly and incrementally. Secretly, they loathe everything about populists, but would never admit it. For examples, see Tim Keller and most urban PCA church plants.
The SOTC model will fail because it [rightly] asks populists and anti-populists to worship together. But frankly, we have become too fractured a culture, and it is unlikely that populists and anti-populists will make peace anytime soon. After all, why is Whole Foods so successful? Is it because people like organic food? Or is it because people like to shop around those with whom they share a common social class affiliation? For the same reason, Aldi thrives. And Jewel loses customers.
LikeLike
Bob: good stuff. Better late than never. Don’t you think Starbucks could unite the PCA?
LikeLike
Excellent contenu. Merci de poster.
LikeLike
Thanks a lot for your time and efforts to have put these things together on this web site. Emily and I very much prized your input through the articles about certain things. I’m sure that you have several demands on your program so the fact that you took just as much time as you did to guide people like us through this article is also highly appreciated.
LikeLike