John Piper has a new book on thinking that I wonder if Tim Keller has read. (Do the celebrity figures of organizations like the Gospel Coalition have enough time, apart from their own writing, speaking, and travel to read the work of each other?) The reason for wondering is a tendency that Keller exhibits in many of the pieces I have read – namely, to avoid extremes in favor of a middle way. You don’t need to be Barry Goldwater, the guy who said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,†to know that both-and solutions are often impossible. To keep the Lord’s Day holy you need to avoid work on Sunday (for starters). You don’t work a little, rest some, and work a bit. And to honor your Reformed convictions, you don’t cooperate in ministries with Arminians. You can’t have the five points of Dort and the four points of the Remonstrants. You can’t ordain men only and have deaconesses. Sometimes the truths you profess require a choice.
But Keller does not seem to like being confined to either-or’s and he also apparently thinks that many of the errors in church history stem precisely from binary situations. His foreword to a new book by former Bush administration staffers on Christianity and politics (posted at the Gospel Coalition blog) exhibits precisely the tendency to identify extremism and run to the other side – but only so far, of course.
Here is Keller’s take on H. Richard Niebuhr:
In the mid-twentieth-century, H. Richard Niebuhr wrote his classic Christ and Culture, which helped mainline Christian churches think through ways to relate faith to politics. In the end, Niebuhr came down on the side of universalism, the view that ultimately God is working to improve things through all kinds of religions and political movements. The result of his work was to lead mainline Protestant churches to become uncritical supporters of a liberal political agenda (though Niebuhr himself opposed such a move).
Now, as the recent Pew Forum poll indicated, most Americans do not know their nation’s church history that well and Keller should not be faulted for getting Niebuhr wrong. At the time that the older brother of Reinhold wrote Christ and Culture, mainline Protestants were firmly in the Republican fold and also very bullish on maintaining a Christian America and a Christian world order. After all, H. Richard’s brother was a prominent supporter of the Cold War and one of the architects of anti-communist foreign policy in the Eisenhower administration was the Presbyterian, John Foster Dulles. In fact, the folks in the orbit of Union Seminary (NYC) were so bullish on a Christian America that their rhetoric foreshadowed that of Jerry Fallwell some thirty years later.
In which case, if Keller is going to use history to avoid its mistakes, he should try to avoid mistaken readings of history.
But this is not Keller’s only appeal to history. He goes on in the foreword to answer the objections of evangelicals who say that politics is “a distraction, that we should concentrate fully on the only important things—the defense of orthodox doctrine and the evangelism of the world.†I wish I knew of such evangelicals. I doubt Keller comes across many of them in New York and you can’t even find them at Bob Jones University these days where Keller’s rhetoric of transformationalism has more appeal that the school’s former fundamentalist denunciations of worldliness. Still, to counter the fundamentalist argument, Keller appeals to the errors of history:
. . . as the authors point out, in 1930s Germany, a faulty understanding of how Christianity relates to the political contributed to the disaster of Nazism, which in turn meant the loss of the German Lutheran Church’s credibility, evangelistic witness, and even orthodoxy. Something similar happened in South Africa, where an orthodox Reformed theology, invoking the views of Abraham Kuyper, created a civil religion that supported apartheid, and as a consequence has suffered incalculable loss to its standing in the eyes of the people. Ironically, the Lutherans followed a two-kingdom approach to Christ and culture, in which Christians are not to bring their faith into politics, while Reformed Christianity has been characterized by a view that Christians are supposed to transform culture. Both approaches, when not applied thoughtfully and wisely, have led to cultural, political, and ultimately spiritual disaster.
Several oddities stand out in this historical judgment. Just how many Americans after fighting a war against Germany twenty years earlier were sitting by their wireless, waiting to hear what the Lutheran Churches in Germany were saying about anything, let alone National Socialism? Lutherans never had a lot of credibility with Anglo-American Protestants, not even the American Lutheran communions.
But even odder about the assessment of Lutherans is the juxtaposition with Kuyperians. Keller does well to remember that the political failings of Protestants have been not simply on the Lutheran side. Reformed Protestants have to answer for their own performance.
And yet, Keller’s conclusion does not follow. He says that Lutherans lost their credibility for National Socialism and Dutch-African Reformed for apartheid. And yet, where has Kuyper lost any credibility with American Protestants – even Keller himself – who still rally under the banner of “every square inch� In other words, if the German churches’ acquiescence to Hitler makes 2k theology suspect, why doesn’t neo-Calvinist support for apartheid make Kuyperianism suspect? And yet, it is the Kuyperian-flavored transformationalism that Keller himself consumes and that also accounts for some of the more vigorous critiques of 2k.
So instead of trying to avoid the errors of the past, perhaps Keller and others who appeal to history for directions in the present should understand that the past is complicated, its actors flawed, and that bad things happen to good causes. 2k theology did not create Hitler any more than neo-Calvinism is responsible for apartheid. History has no single causes. History also yields no consequences that disprove ideas. If Keller wants to argue against 2k theology or fundamentalist otherworldliness, fine. But guilt-by-association is not a good form of thinking. I suspect that even Piper agrees.
Old Life 
As a ‘Brit’ I would argue the idea of Keller’s thinking that the Nazi’s had their way being partly the fault of Lutherens and Reformed churches is simplistic to the point of being rightly dismissed. It would be more informative for those seeking an understanding of Germany under Hitler to read a historian like Niall Ferguson in ‘The War of the World: History’s Age of Hatred’ which would give a far better and more interesting insight as to what motivated the Nazi’s. If there is one thing that comes to mind when evangelicals like Keller start writing about politics and nations is that they have show a broad brush mentality which bedevils their comments so often, however much they may be intellectual in style and words. Secular authors usually make evangelicals look embarrassingly shallow in their attempts to write on certain issues. And why does Wayne Grudem likewise see the need to write so extensively about Christians and how they should have a political world view either?
The meat for me though in this thread is in the the way in which Keller, Piper and their chums in the GC seem to indeed write, speak and act in ways which hints at the middle approach, avoiding either/or. Behind the positive front they show, I would love to know what these fellow GC men think of their peers like Mark Driscoll who appears to question the eternal generation of the Son of God (is that a secondary matter?) and how the ‘Reformed’ CJ Mahaney is now at the heart of the Coalition having made a $10,000 donation to the Southern “Reformed’ Baptists a few years ago. And then what about the rising star Kevin De Young who writes about the Heidelberg Catechism and has street cred in some Reformed circles and yet has ordained deaconesses in his church and says in his Heidelberg commentary that the Sabbath is non binding; is the rest of the Moral Law non binding either, Kevin? If I sound like a typical cynical ‘Brit’ then maybe I am, but the questions I am posing are real ones.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth:
Studies show that people who are driven by ideological purity tend to make incorrect decisions more often than those who are more pragmatic or willing to counterbalance ideas against one another.
I can dig up the research if you’re interested.
LikeLike
“So instead of trying to avoid the errors of the past, perhaps Keller and others who appeal to history for directions in the present should understand that the past is complicated, its actors flawed, and that bad things happen to good causes.”
The complicatedness of life often yields the both/and conclusions.
You don’t need to be Barry Goldwater, the guy who said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,†to know that both-and solutions are often impossible.”
I’m wondering what Zrim, the local fan of paradox, thinks of this.
Anyway, a “both/and” solution is impossible *if* we have a bona fide contradiction*. But there’s nothing problematic with both/and resolutions per se, indeed, Christian teaches that Christ is both God and man.
Similarly, we may have people that are both male and female. Once a nuance or a conceptual distinction is found, we find that both sides are right. So, we have cases where a person is genotypically a female and phenotypically a male, or vice versa. She is both male and female, but not in the same sense. Similar examples can be given from the sciences, mathematics, and logic. For example, wave-particle duality. Both/ands happen all the time (you’re failing to read history right; another irony), just not where we have bona fide contradictions. So for your critique to go through on Keller, you have to show he champions both/and solutions where the propositions are used in the same sense and relationship.
Speaking of both/ands, we get that all the time from 2Kers. We are dual citizens. We are both secular and sacred (cf. Darryl Hart’s A Secular Faith). We are both sinners and saints. Christ has already won, but not yet. Christianity is a religion of both ands.
There’s nothing wrong with Keller wanting to notice the nuances, to look at things from multiple perspectives; indeed, that’s wisdom he probably picked up from John Frame’s triperspectivalism. For the third irony: Hart joins hands with Gary North who, in his critique of Frame’s critiques of theonomy wrote, “Sic et non, Frame strikes again!”
________________
* Even this is debatable, for as the dialetheists will argue, there are some true contradictions, i.e., the liar paradox: “This sentence is false” is both true and false, a bona fide contradiction!
LikeLike
Jeff, why is it a question of ideological purity? Either you let your kids stay out to 10:00, or you don’t. Either you prohibit the sale and distribution of alcohol or you don’t. Either you marry one wife or you don’t. Life is about choices, and also about the consequences of choices.
Anyhow, the bigger point is why discredit Lutheran 2k but not Kuyperian transformationalism if you have such bad historical examples? Might it be a tad convenient to condemn the one but fly under the protection of the other?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’d be interested in the research sources you cite. Your suggestion is true to my experience. In the real world, a pure idea or theory often has to acommodate conflicting data that it doesn’t have to accommodate in the lab or classroom.
Often ideological purists are professional academics, which is understandable. Ideological purity seldom survives real world experience any more than a scientific theorem lasts longer than the first actual tests, or a general’s battle plan last longer than encounter with the actual enemy (who doesn’t behave the way the felt board enemies behaved). In some academic pursuits (those that are not hard science, math, engineering, etc.), contact with the real world can be largely be avoided in favor of purely intellectual constructs. This is not to denigrate academics at all, but to suggest that some real world contact is necessary to remain tethered to reality. Real world contact seems to have a way of beating up on ideological purity they way facts beat up theories. Biblical exegesis that concluded that the earth was the center of the universe was fine until Copernicus looked into a telescope.
The best academic theoreticians seem to be those who keep closely in touch with the real world subject matter they study in order to accommodate theory to practice The best law professors are those who maintain active law practices, and the best seminary profs are those who were pastors. I wonder if Keller, being a pastor, doesn’t some insight on how theories of ministry work out in actual practice with real people.
LikeLike
CVD, I find your response pretty ironic given your own rejection of Ross Douthat’s “moderation” on the matter of gay marriage. Some might think that you are pretty pure ideological about the error and dangers of homosexuals in the U.S. And when 2kers don’t meet your standards of purity, we are criticized for moderation.
LikeLike
DGH, I don’t “reject” Mr. Douthat’s arguments; I’ve made them. I said they are not sufficient to move popular opinion or to change law on the subject of gay marriage. I don’t think anyone who works with polls, politicians, or judges would disagree. The shoe is on the other foot. It’s your reflexive criticism of those who oppose gay marriage that reflects ideological fixation with a theory of 2K. I’ve never heard from you or your Amen corner any action to publicly oppose gay marriage, or abortion, or other cultural deformation that you could support. I admit that I don’t read every essay or post, so maybe I’ve missed it.
LikeLike
CVD, give me a break. The overwhelming critique of 2k is inconsistency and hypocrisy, that is, that is it not intellectually pure and consistent. If defending 2k is ideological, then everyone, including Tim Keller, who defends his or her ideas is an ideologue.
LikeLike
DVD, leaving aside the part that it seems to me that the overwhelming critique of 2k is that is is contra-Reformed, contra-Confessional, unbiblical, and subject to reductio ad absurdems.
But leaving that alone, it seems to me the biggest flaw in your post is that the argument is that 2K ideology allows for Hitlers to go unchallenged and for babies to be murdered. Where’s the analogous argument that Kyperianism allowed apartheid? That some *Lutherans* might have lost credibility along with some *Dutch-Reformed* is entirely irrelevant to the argument you’re trying to rebut. You need to show how Kyperian principles can allow for, or allow to go unchecked, apartheid. Now, not that I’m saying that the argument that 2K allows Hitlers and baby killers to go unchecked is a good one, I’m just pointing out the dialectical context that you haven’t engaged.
LikeLike
The book by Piper and the book that Keller wrote the introduction to both seem worthy of reading. Does one know for sure what Keller and the Gospel Coalition crews views are regarding 2k
LikeLike
I hit the wrong key and I posted prematurely. I was asking a question in my last post and meant to say regarding 2K and NL? Van Drunen seems to have a mixed reaction towards Kuyper in his Natural Law and Two Kingdom book. I’m sure the regular posters here have already hashed through this but for those who are fairly new to the site may need to know some backround to the squabble between the GC folks and those who frequent this site. I have read David Van Drunen’s book so I have some knowledge of the debate going on. I do get confused though on those who are who are opposing 2K and NL and their reasons for doing so. On the Reformed side it seems to be coming from those who see Christ reigning in both the culture and the Church and it being the responsibility of Christians to make this known to the culture in an explicit way. To the 2K and NL advocates an explicit explanation to the culture does more harm than good. It is the Christians duty to serve the culture with the gifts God has given us and to expect persecution and suffering in this life in the culture (or, in order to avoid this persecution and suffering do not make the explanation explicit make it implicit). To take over the culture with an explicit explanation of Christ’s crown rights will not cut it. It is approaching the problem with a take-over mentality that irks the 2K advocates the most. Am I missing something here again?
LikeLike
I’m wondering what Zrim, the local fan of paradox, thinks of this [both-and solutions are often impossible]
Sometimes paradoxes work and sometimes they don’t because they are actually contradictions in terms. As an example of the latter, I think of Mclaren’s generous orthodoxy that claims a simultaneous way to be Fundamentalist/Calvinist/Anabaptist/Anglican/Methodist/Protestant/Catholic. I don’t see how those things co-exist since they seem to necessarily preclude one another. Those that do work are sinner/saint, already/not yet, divine sovereignty/human responsibility. I’m still not crystal clear on exactly how the latter work, and I’m wary to try since they seem like the sort of mysteries we’re prohibited from prying into.
But more interesting to me is the larger 2k/Nazi neo-Cal/apartheid point. The problem with neo-Calvinism isn’t that it shares historical space with a socio-political phenomenon that scares 2010 Americans, but rather that it confuses creation and redemption, which is a variant of confusing law and gospel, which seems to lie at the heart of Protestantism. 2k critics seem to think that the problem with 2k is that it shares historical space with a socio-political phenomenon that scares 2010 Americans.
LikeLike
What Zrim says here seems to make theological and common sense to me. I am wondering now how the logicians and critical thinkers will counter this. I found it interesting when reading about Pipers new book that he does not bring logic and critical thinking into the equation about thinking and then loving God and neighbor as a result due to the understanding we are granted as a gift from God. Whether Piper is right or not is another question and it may need logic and critical thinking to try to determine whether he is correct or not. After all, the foundation of his book is found in the thinking of Jonathan Edwards who has been found to be in error in much of his thinking. This seems to be a never ending process in this life.
LikeLike
Are Fuller & Frame the springs from whence flow the effluence of Drs. Piper & Keller?
One could find fault (as does Yeazel, above) with their mentors Edwards and even (gasp) Van Til.
But the issue (pun intended) today is the fruit found in messrs. Keller & Piper who are comfortable promoting N.T. Wright & Rick Warren, respectively.
I doubt Edwards or CVT would go that far (i.e., wouldn’t their “gospel coalitions” differ significantly?), though Frame & Fuller are/ were certainly not known as rabid separatists.
Let us pray that Piper & Warren find Edwards’s light as well as heat, and that Keller realizes why Presbyterians separated from Anglicans!
Hugh
LikeLike
There is a fairly recent Gospel Coalition video that reflects upon the issue of cultural transformation as a good thing, but not the central mission of the church. So I would say that maybe the GC is more nuanced than you might think: check the video discussion with Kevin DeYoung here:
LikeLike
Zrim: 2k critics seem to think that the problem with 2k is that it shares historical space with a socio-political phenomenon that scares 2010 Americans.
Not at all. I perceive it as sharing historical space with a socio-political phenomenon that is very, very comfortable for 2010 Americans: church over here, the rest of life over there.
The motives are different, obviously, but the outcome is a comfortable one.
LikeLike
John Y:
Who found Jonathan Edwards in error “in much of his thinking”?
Please, don’t be so simplistic. Think. And if you can figure out how Edwards relates to this post, please inform us. Why don’t the posters here interact with arguments and substance rather than throw around names and parties (I am of Van Til, I am of Machen, Edwards’ is a loser, N.T. Wright is behind it all–it’s a grand conspiracy). Yikes.
LikeLike
Eliza,
Good point!! From what I understand Edwards veered from the Westminster confessional standards in regards to the ordinary means of grace- he tried to find a place for the extraordinary (subjective charismatic experience) and make it part of the ordinary means of grace. In fact, he made the extraordinary trump the ordinary. He has also been criticized for being in error in trying to synthesize empirical philosophy with reformational theology. This worked itself out in his veering from his confessional ordination vows in a variety of ways in the outworking of his rational theology. In the words of Scott Clark, he made the error of the quest for illegitimate religious certainty which is a form of rationalism. This may be the same error that the logicians and critical thinkers are making when applying this methodology in trying to solve theological “problems” which confessional standards seem comfortable with. At least that is the way I see it at this time and I certainly am open to criticism and may be wrong.
Now I did not continue on in Pipers book to see how he used Edwards thinking. He was basing it in Edwards understanding of the Trinity and the chapters of the book on the internet site stopped.
In regards to relating to this post- it has more to do with continuing dialog that has taken place on this site and is indirectly related to it. I think those who have followed the debate in the past few months will understand what I am trying to say.
LikeLike
JY:
1. Edwards was Congregational; he took no vows to the WCF, although he told the Erskines in Scotland that he thought highly of the WCF.
2. Edwards revivalism is not that of Finney. Edwards preached his most “revivalist” sermons in church–weekly Sabbath fare. If he preached on other days, why not? Calvin did? Better yet, the early church met daily.
3. Please balance your reading with Frame’s rebuttal of Clark’s book. See
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles_date.htm
Check the second entry under 2010.
Thanks!!
LikeLike
To continue, I think most of the disagreements that are a recurring theme in the arguments here are methodological in nature. Those who use confessional standards as the basis to argue from are getting resistance and disagreement from those who are basing their arguments on logic and critical thinking. Is there a solution to this problem?- I am not sure but it seems that never the twain shall meet in agreement. It is kind of like the disagreements between the Lutherans and Calvinists in regards to the sacraments. But perhaps there is no correlation here at all. I certainly have not seen the parties involved in the 2K and 1K debates come any closer in their rebuttals of each other.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, Jeff, but that’s pretty rich: 2k is about comfort and ease. Tell that to the Presbyterian pastor Stuart Robinson who had to flee to Canada during the Civil War and then expelled from the 1866 GA for his SOTC views. And have you tried sitting over here opposite Rabbi Bret and the Bishops Bayly? Heck, even CVD has said he’s praying against what he perceives to be “pacifistic, profoundly foolish, unbiblical, deeply immoral, pious nonsense, exegetically without warrant, logically erroneous, cruel and heartless, diseased reasoning, madness and evil and dangerous naivete.” Pardon the bluntness, but it seems to me your via media is way more cushy.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Good. So you admit both/and is more ubiquitous than Hart’s hyperbolic language employed for point-making.
Anyway, I’ve made this point before, but here goes: a paradox is not a real contradiction; it’s a merely apparent one. All contradictions are apparent ones, but that set is broken into the subset of apparent-but-real and merely-apparent, or apparent-but-not-real.
So, it’s false to say “sometimes paradoxes work and sometimes *they* don’t because they are actual contradictions.” If it is an *actual* contradiction it is not a paradox.
Also, when you tried to dismiss McLaren, you need something much stronger than “I can’t see how it works.” That language is an example of what the problem, akin to the “I am Reformed, I think x; therefore, x is reformed.” Your version is, “*I* can’t see how it makes sense; therefore, it is a contradiction.” But that clearly doesn’t follow. After all, perhaps you’re not looking hard enough, or perhaps you’re not adept at seeing how things can be possible. There’s all kinds of reasons.
Moreover, the examples you mention and that I mentioned too, are not really paradoxes, though they are examples of nuanced both/ands. (And I’ll just add that the only reason responsibility and providence or decree (ahem, not *sovereignty*) seem “paradoxical” to you is because of the starting notion of responsibility or freedom you’re beginning with—a libertarian or Arminian notion. It usually boils down to a form of “ought implies can” or “the principle of alternative possibilities”, both of which are desiderata of libertarianism (a contra-Confessional position).
As far as allowing for mysteries, I lay that out on my blog, as you know.
The basic point was that Zrim agrees that both/and thinking (in other areas besides theology, too, cf. my post) are not nearly as “impossible” as Hart suggested.
LikeLike
Dan, I’m not convinced that the Gospel Coalition is nuanced because it actually sets out to do the work assigned to the church. The last time I checked, it was supposed to be an organization that would actually do the work of word and sacrament.
http://deregnochristi.org/2007/10/23/has-tim-keller-left-the-pca/
Sorry, I find that redundant. I’m also not sure that the Gospel Coalition understands the church.
Eliza, so it sounds like you’re of Edwards. But are you really going to resort to John Frame’s review of Scott Clark to defend JE? That sounds like a stretch. What would happen if Edwards did put too much emphasis on affections. And what would happen if his doctrine of the atonement leaned toward the governmental theory?
LikeLike
DGH:
Re Edwards–the poster I responded to said things that were wrong, so I wanted to correct it. Fair?
Why does Frame’s review of RRC sound like a stretch? It’s very enlightening. And he does say some good things about Clark..
Did Edwards put too much emphasis on affections? Hmmm…I need to get my affection-meter out. If the Bible puts a stress on them and Edwards attains to that emphasis, is that OK? Do I need to give you verses that uphold Edwards’ view? Start with Deut. 6: 4,5; 10: 12; 30:6 Ps. 63: 1, 2; Luke 24:32; Rom. 12:11; I Tim 1:7; Rev. 3:15, 16, 19.
His doctrine did not lean toward the governmental theory, but since you are casting aspersions on Edwards, please provide some back up from his writings so I can respond to something definite.
LikeLike
Eliza, I think it odd to defend Edwards by a review in which Edwards is not cited.
Edwards may very well have put too much emphasis on affections if the quest for true Christian experience does not account for the faith of a mustard seed which moves mountains. If a little faith is all you need to be saved, then going through 12 marks of religious affections may very well be overkill.
On Edwards and the atonement, I don’t have my copy of Edwards’ works on Kindle. But his views on the imputation of Adam’s sin were the kind that could raise difficulties for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Also, Edwards A. Park, named for Edwards and a professor at Andover, tried mightily hard to show that the Govt. Theory was in Edwards. I’ll admit though that Edwards’ writings were so occasional that it is hard to pin him down systematically.
LikeLike
“Not at all. I perceive it as sharing historical space with a socio-political phenomenon that is very, very comfortable for 2010 Americans: church over here, the rest of life over there.
The motives are different, obviously, but the outcome is a comfortable one.”
Jeff, this may be a low point in your usually thoughtful and charitable posts (don’t worry – the ratio is about one in three for me, so you’re doing pretty good). It is like literal 24 hr. dayers assuming any Christian with a different view must be seeking acceptance with higher academia. How is your life any different than ours with your political/Christian views? How do you suffer more than us for them? Are the Christians in China wimps and cowards for not publicly opposing the policies of the government? And throughout history, yes, even with Hitler, churches suffer who do not come on board and support the regime, which no 2ker could do. Those Churches who outwardly opposed Hitler and those who refused to support him were equally persecuted. How much courage does it take to go on-line in a free country and state your political views, or even from a pulpit? We all have it pretty easy so I find the talk of courage from either side rather self-serving.
LikeLike
Paul, yes, I am familiar with your tutorials on paradox and contradictions. But I think the original sub-point about both-and was a little less pedantic than that. I think it was merely to say that sometimes both-and doesn’t work, as in both Reformed paedo’s and Arminian credo’s laboring in ministry (which makes as much sense as the modern creature who calls himself a 3-point Calvinist or “Calminian,” which makes as much sense as saying one has discovered a whole number between four and five).
But, again, I think it’s the larger point here which is compelling. If new schoolers are going to point to the Third Reich to demonstrate the bankruptcy of 2k then don’t they also have to take better stock of the Kuyperianism that propped up apartheid? But it’s interesting how old school 2kers don’t try to draw the kinds of straight lines from social evil to the new school the way new schoolers do with 2k, so it’s not that old school 2k wants to return the favor by in/directly blaming new school Kuyperianism. It’s to wonder why Third Reich era 2k gets kicked in the teeth while Apartheid era Kuyperianism gets a wrap on the knuckles.
And for me, it’s also to wonder why it is thought that either is finally tested by the reality of social evil, which is more pragmatic than principled. Keller writes, “Both approaches, when not applied thoughtfully and wisely, have led to cultural, political, and ultimately spiritual disaster.†It’s almost as if he thinks the Third Reich and Apartheid are the result of bad 2kers or bad Kuyperians. Talk about narcissism; I think both regimes would’ve gotten along just fine without the particular outlooks of old and new school Lutherans and Reformed. I think what may be more disastrous is to suggest the sort of connections Keller does because you end up persecuting ideas instead of disciplining people.
LikeLike
DGH:
“I think it odd to defend Edwards by a review in which Edwards is not cited.”
But I wasn’t. I was simply recommending Frame on general principles. JY needs to read Frame.
“If a little faith is all you need to be saved, then going through 12 marks of religious affections may very well be overkill.”
“Religious Affections” is about the nature of true religion. It is amply supplied with Biblical backup. It is not about how *much* faith one has, but rather about the nature of one’s faith. Not everything that purports to be faith is (see book of James).
I await any proof that Edwards taught a governmental theory of the atonement. I do not tend to regard very highly the work of a prof at Andover-Newton (on general principles)…again, you’d need to show evidence in order to prove your point.
LikeLike
Todd, I was drastically unclear. Sorry about that.
The motive of a pc-2k-er, as I understand it, is quite a noble one: to set the church apart from the world as something distinct, and in so doing, to express the idea that the kingdom of God and the work of the kingdom takes place in the church.
So there’s no lack of courage there, not at all.
Now, the structure advocated by pc-2k-ers is a radical separation of spheres, with the Christian living in one sphere on the Sabbath and another sphere on the other six days. By erecting a “rigid wall” (Zrim’s term) between the spheres, it is hoped that Christians will not confuse the spheres, which for Zrim is a kind of confusing law and gospel.
[In the discussion here, some nuances have been offered: We all agree that Christians must obey the Scriptures 24/7. We all agree that common-grace reasoning is sometimes necessary in church (Robert’s Rules). I don’t want to leave those nuances unacknowledged.]
Here’s the trouble: for entirely different reasons, middle America also wants a radical separation of spheres, with the Christian living in one sphere on the Sabbath and another sphere on the other six days. In fact, they consider it the American way to have completely different set of rules on Sun and Mon – Sat, and it is an offense to suggest that Scripture should inform one’s conduct on Mon – Sat.
So unlike Zrim and DGH, who willingly grant that Scripture norms the believer at all times, middle America believes in two distinct sources of ethical norms, mixing and matching at will. Oprah and Scripture, Scripture and Oprah — whichever one feels right.
And the “wall of separation” doesn’t really hold, either — the ethical norms for Mon – Sat begin to come into the church, which is precisely what pc-2k wants to avoid!
Why do I say this? Because I live in the middle of it (Christian school, church), and even see it in myself at times.
So my complaint is NOT AT ALL a lack of courage, but rather that the advocated structure of pc-2k has unintended consequences. It appears to make the world safe for Christians who want to live in the world, of the world.
Certainly, in practice, pc-2k does not always lead to “of the world”ism. Stellman’s Dual Citizens charts a course of “in the world, not of the world.” And Zrim, with his catechizing zeal, probably raises his kids to be in the world and not of it.
I just wish that Zrim would admit that in so doing, he is bringing Christianity to bear on daily life, that his catechizing is teaching a Christian theory of life. If Zrim could admit that the “rigid 2k structure” isn’t what he actually practices, we might get somewhere.
LikeLike
Because I’ve seen references to Hitler here and other places, I thought I would offer a few thoughts on the matter. Historically, there is no way to argue that 2K theology was responsible for the church’s acquiescence to Hitler during the Nazi era. The record is far more complicated than that. If anything, a good case could be made that the “German Christians” were responsible for the church giving up so much ground to the National Socialist Party. This group was very diverse, although they were generally united against 2K theology and for a rather straightforward Christian theocracy under National Socialist rule, so I guess that would make them 1K theologians. Some of the German Christians were Nazis, and so were ideologically motivated in addition to whatever patriotic Christian convictions they held. But there were more than a few who were simply trying to be “good” Germans, and who thought that the Nazis would support Christian values of God and country etc., leading to a spiritual revival in the land and the strengthening of the church.
All that to say, it is historically absurd for some to argue that 2K theology was responsible for the church’s muted witness in the “German Church Struggle.” If anything, 1k Christian patriots played a role in facilitating the tragedy.
LikeLike
FT, the Simon Weisenthal Center’s Museum of Tolearance is expressing the view that Lutheran two kingdoms beliefs muted the church’s opposition to the Nazis in pre-war Germany, citing a variety of historians. That doesn’t make it right. But it illustrates that the Lutheran version of 2k is widely credited with silencing the church’s criticism of the state under the Third Reich. That perception is exceedingly widespread.
LikeLike
Well since we’re talking about principled vs. pragmatic arguments. I want to know how we get from;
“Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands….” 1 Thessalonians 4:11 …
to “claiming every square inch….”
These seem to be irreconcilable ambitions.
LikeLike
Sean,
What is the conflict? I think you’re reading your 2K presuppositions into 1 Thess.4:11 and seeing more than is in the text. Evidently there were some Thessalonian believers who were freeloaders. Commentators believe that, in light of Paul’s upcoming teaching on the second coming, that is is addressing the problem of some who saw the return of Christ as so imminent that they quit their jobs and were urging others to quit their jobs and just sit around waiting for Christ’s return. Paul reminds these to get a job — work with their hands and mind their own business. Not doing so affects the church’s relationship with unbelievers (4:12). This issue will come up again in 2 Thess.
Even transformationalists have jobs. I’m not a transformationalist, but we don’t help the 2k case by poor exegesis suggesting that this verse is a poster text for 2K.
LikeLike
Zrim, “sometimes both and doesn’t work?” That was the point? And who thinks it ALWAYS does? Not Keller. Anyway, “sometimes it doesn’t work” is a tad bit to the left of “they are often impossible.”
To the larger point, I thought I had undermined that.
LikeLike
CV,
You prove too much. Your exegesis completely marginalizes the text and limits it to an immediate historical context/phenomenon that largely no longer exists. You’ve made the text a quaint historical window. Despite it’s legitimate historical context, that context doesn’t therefore lighten it’s weight as a legitimate charge of how the christian is to approach his interaction with the culture outside his door. That charge dovetails quite nicely with the solely spiritual nature of the kingdom of God (my kingdom is not of this world), and the pilgrim motif presented not only by Christ in the gospels but by the behavior highlighted by the author of hebrews of the saints of old waiting on and looking to a better city, to note just two examples. So, it’s not merely or easily a matter of a 2ker reading his presuppositions into an isolated text that can be contextualized away, it is a legitimate charge and exhortation that to this christian seems at odds with a charge of “claiming every square inch….” these are mutually exclusive ambitions.
I too believe transformationalists have jobs. kudos to them and to all of us gainfully employed
LikeLike
Jeff, thanks for the clarification. But, first, I live there as well and I’m not so sure you’ve really captured middle America. For starters, the very term “Sabbath” isn’t even in the lexicon, which is to say that middle America is pretty non-Sabbatarian, so how you have middle America categorizing they way you do is a bit mystifying to me.
Second, even if you have captured it, you seem to be saying that middle America and pc-2k might look the same but are really pretty different. That sounds like saying legal secularists and Christian secularists might look the same but are really pretty different, which is what pc-2k freely acknowledges. So one wonders what your point is.
CVD, nobody is against sound exegesis. Yours is certainly fine and fair (though one does wonder what being quiet and attending one’s own business has to do with star gazing–seems to me that sitting around looking into the sky is a pretty quiet activity). But we are still left with the problem for where there is any scriptural support for dominionism’s conflating of the cultural mandate and Great Commission. So while Sean’s exegesis may lack his point still stands.
LikeLike
Sean,
I’m not persuaded that the text can be used to critique transformationalism. I’d be interested in how you think it does. First, I have not “marginalized the text” to its immediate historical context. Every text has an immediate historical context and meaning, and all exegesis must start there. The exegesis I offered if the one offered by most commentators. The question then is what is the application beyond that context. I can think of many applications beyond the immediate context, so recognizing its immediate meaning and context does not marginalize it. But one of those applications is not a refutation of transformationalism.
You have to prove how there is any exegetical connection between 1 Thess. 4:11 and Jesus’ declaration, or the Hebrews statement about looking for a better city, etc. I don’t see any authorial, textual or other connection there. You connections seem to be wholly speculative, and what ties them together is your supposition about 2K. Paul in 1 Thess. 4:11, however, was not addressing the issue of whether Christians should seek to transform the culture or impact government policy or anything of the sort. I see nothing in the 1 Thess. context to suggest Paul is concerned with pilgrim theology. At least I don’t see it. His concern was addressing the problem of freeloaders and busybodies who had over-realized eschatology. As the following pericopes show, that is the context. If you don’t accept that interpretation, what is your interpretation, and how do you tie it exegetically to pilgrim theology?
LikeLike
Zrim, to answer your question: the commentators suggest that Paul was addressing the problem of believers, who are in the grips of rapture fever, urging others to follow their example by quitting their jobs and be unproductive while waiting for Jesus to return next week. They should mind their own business and stop exhorting others to be freeloaders, and they should get to work and be productive. Understand I’m not arguing for transformationalism, but in critiqueing it I would turn to other passages than 1 Thess. 4:11, which has no application to this context. I’d argue for 2K covenantally as DVD does.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, first, I live there as well and I’m not so sure you’ve really captured middle America. For starters, the very term “Sabbath†isn’t even in the lexicon, which is to say that middle America is pretty non-Sabbatarian, so how you have middle America categorizing they way you do is a bit mystifying to me.
Obviously, it’s a different kind of Sabbath: Go to church in the morning, have the day off from work (but not sports). But the real difference is not so much in the day but in the location: we have one set of mores at church, another elsewhere.
Zrim: Second, even if you have captured it, you seem to be saying that middle America and pc-2k might look the same but are really pretty different. That sounds like saying legal secularists and Christian secularists might look the same but are really pretty different, which is what pc-2k freely acknowledges. So one wonders what your point is.
Yes, I think I am saying that. And my point is, it’s bad pedagogy, on two fronts. First, it leaves serious errors undisturbed (namely, the belief that God is the Lord of my church life, but not my whole life). Second, the “rigid wall” terminology doesn’t properly describe what you really do — which is to submit to Scripture in both your church life and your common life.
LikeLike
CVD,
It’s entirely fair that you are not persuaded of either the text’s further application or it’s suitability to sustain additional application beyond it’s immediate historical context. I do. And unless we are eager to marginalize brotherly love and sexual purity( the additional context of the passage) much less preparations for how to live in this age in anticipation of the coming of our Lord as exhortations that primarily exist in a historical vaccuum, I don’t accept your charge that I’ve engaged in an speculative exercise or eisegesis. I think the text is entirely capable of sustaining an application of how to live in an age between Christ’s first advent and His second which is the broader view of the text. The text doesn’t have to carry the entire weight of 2k nor was that my intent, but it’s a text that is entirely consistent with, and couched in, a context of interadvental living and being and doing.
LikeLike
CVD, to add to this exchange, you say there is no tension between a quiet and peaceful life and every square inch. Well, when was the last time you heard a neo-Cal recommend a quiet life? I may have missed it. But the whole point of Kuyper’s argument is to turn activism into a holy calling.
And while we are noting tensions, Kuyper’s activism is some distance from Calvin’s idea of vocation as a sentry post from which we watch for the Lord’s return. Neo indeed.
LikeLike
Jeff, so you don’t believe in a radical separation between Christians and non-Christians? This does seem to me to be one important dimension of 2k. For which people is Christ Lord — who actually bows and confesses — and for which people is he not? This seems like the huge hang up. The anti-2kers keep wanting to assert that Christ is Lord of all and somehow 2k denies this. But anti-2k doesn’t want to deal with the reality of people for whom Christ is Lord but don’t submit, and then on top of that, how do those who do submit live in society with those who don’t.
That antithetical point is a radical separation between the saved and the lost. And what is important to see is that the 2k critics take the antithesis and apply it to everything, even the activities and territories that Christians share with non-Christians.
So in point of fact, separation of a radical kind applies to both sides. You can’t have Christianity without some distinction between the holy and the profane. But it is actually 2k that tries to address the complicatedness of the common. And it is the anti-2k, 24/7 Christians who can’t acknowledge that messy middle. They want to subject it to Christ’s rule even without requiring faith and repentance — hence, Christ is Lord of all people the same way and Christ is savior of television even if all people don’t believe and even if television doesn’t have a soul.
On the other side, I will gladly accept the radical separation you assert because 2kers are the best Sabbatarians out there. The reason is that we can tell the difference between the holy and the common, and can make sense of the Catechism’s teaching that to do common things on the holy day is to profane the Sabbath. In the anti-2k 24/7 world of integration and hostility to all dualism, the sabbath has blurred into one long day/age so that we can participate in our “kingdom” work whenever we want because it’s all good.
2k aims at greater precision. Anti-2k revels in mushiness.
LikeLike
Eliza, I appreciate your bluff on Edwards’ sanctity. But I do think you need to admit that the wheels came off the Edwardsean project early on and I wonder how you account for the failings of the New Divinity. Or maybe you’re going to keep holding your cards and play like you have four of a kind.
And for Edwards rigor in trying to discern genuine faith, you can’t see how that kind of prying can turn Christians away from looking to Christ and trusting the promises into navel-gazing? That’s certainly the effect that Edwards had on me. And his accounts of converts often suggest that he had little room for Christians who say “I believe, help thou my unbelief.”
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m just not convinced. In point of fact, it’s just the opposite: middle America is pretty anti-2k. It wants religious belief to have a direct and obvious bearing on common life. It looks at Sabbatarianism like it has two heads. Middle America is much more accomodating neo-Calvinism because both are all about religious relevancy. It wants pastors sitting on the local hospital’s ethics committee and marching in the streets against one social evil or another (nevermind if one cause contradicts another). It wants to know God’s opinion on economics, medicine, education, statecraft. Middle America is precisely where pragmatic religion thrives and principled Christianity suffocates.
CVD, again, I’ve no problem with the precise exegesis you’re representing (anti-rapturism and anti-world withdrawal all the way). But if 2k is biblical then don’t you think it’s at least possible that the text can be tied in to the principles of 2k?
LikeLike
DGH:
I’ve read everything out there by Edwards and it did not have that effect on me. But I know what you mean. I sat under that kind of a ministry some time back (in the OPC). It was dreadful.
There’s no bluff on my part re: governmental theory of atonement. The fact that you cannot supply proof means I’ve called your bluff. Nice try.
The only people I’ve heard mention Edwards and the governmental theory are the American Presbyterians (a tiny denomination–break off of Bible Presbyterians). I’ve also heard that Edwards was the seedbed of Unitarianism. The answer, given by a distinguished philosophy professor & Reformed Christian, “the seedbed cannot be blamed for the seeds planted in it.”
You’ll have more success attacking Jonathan Edwards’s son, who appears to have gone off the orthodox rails pretty badly.
Cheers.
LikeLike
Ah, the tried and true “Nazism” plus “_____(idea or movement I don’t like)” or “Apartheid” plus “_____ (idea or movement I don’t like)”. Honestly people, do the aesthetical thing and read Aimé Césaire.
And take it from this 20-something OPC’er (who openly acknowledges her distaste for most things under the big ‘E’), politics right or left usually makes me move in only one direction: away from the person who is talking. This sort of thing makes me move extra fast. (Gee, is it totally lost on these people that particulars fare better in young-adult land than abstractions?)
I wonder, putting aside the effort required to read through book x, y, z… ( what’s his name Wagner squeezed between required reading of JS Mill and J. Locke, of course), who can actually buy this stuff? Where do these GC’ers get their pocket money? I say, first order of business is to have a federal subsidy to get these books handed out to everyone. Then, we can all participate in middle-class American subculture.
LikeLike
Eliza,
I wasn’t at all familiar with the debate regarding Edwards and governmental theory, so after I read the exchange between you and Dr. Hart I decided to look into it a bit further. It seems that while Edwards didn’t explicitly espouse governmental theory there were several connections to it in his writing. I found an interesting piece on Edwards and governmental theory on the APC website. They cite a lengthy quote from Allen Guelzo’s book Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate that implicitly connects him to the theory through his private notebooks, Miscellanies, and through his endorsement of Joseph Bellamy’s True Religion Delineated. It seems that if you are going to contend that Edwards is free from the implication that he had nothing to do with governmental theory, you are going to have to deal with Guelzo’s scholarship.
Here’s the link: http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/the_atonement.htm
Like I said, I am not as familiar with the subject, but I thought this was worth sharing.
LikeLike
DGH, I don’t know what a “quiet and peaceful life and working with your hands” means to you, but to Paul in 1 Thess. 4:11 it meant getting a job, being productive, and not quitting your job and not urging others to quit their job due to rapture fever. We fulfill it by getting a job. Neo-Calvinists have jobs. So what’s the problem? What this verse has to do with anti-activism escapes me. It sounds congenial to the withdrawal-from-the-world temperament of some 2Kers, it is pressed into service it was never meant to serve. But isn’t that kind of Bible reading more akin to the evangelicals at the home Bible study “what does this text mean to you” mentality?
LikeLike
CVD,
Sorry man, I couldn’t help it. 2 Thess. 3:6-12 are the verses that deal with continuing to work in light of the immanent return of Christ.
1 Thess. 4:11-12 does speak to a quiet life marked by hard work so as not to ordinarily be in need of the generosity of others. This is how the Thessalonian believers were to live before the outside world. Now I am not sure that this verse has activism in mind, but it sure seems that the Thessalonians were to be distinguished from the world less by rhetoric and more by their mode of living.
I am not an anti-activism guy per se. I think activism is in the DNA of our Republic. However, you are going to have to go to great length to find warrant in the NT for any sort of activism in the name of Christ. Even the descriptions of martyrdom (ex. Stephen’s stoning) and persecution in the Acts narratives were as a result of the proclamation of the gospel or remaining faithful to one’s confession. This carries over throughout the NT on into Hebrews and culminates in Revelation where believers overcome the horrific persecution orchestrated by Satan by “the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony” (Rev. 12:11). If there is any call for the Christian to be vocal to the watching world it is merely to be faithful confessors of Christ regardless of consequence.
Activism in the civil kingdom seems to be an issue of conscience and wisdom. Since activism is in most cases lawful here in the U.S. of A., heck, it can even be a valid vocation. However you are going to be hard pressed to find warrant in the NT that demands it, or even the support of it by others of differing conscience. This is especially the case for a guy like you who identifies himself as a 2k proponent.
LikeLike
Jed, one of the problems with blogging is the imprecision in rhetoric. Short sound byte posts don’t permit development or qualifications. “Activism” is so vague that it really is a useless category. I keep imploring some of the 2K bloggers to be concrete and specific as to real world cases. No progress is made in advancing ideas if we’re always at 35,000 feet. You have to land and deal with real world cases. Whenever I’ve cited real world cases (e.g., the San Diego pastor, the Michigan Christians stopped by police, or a thousand other specifics), the bloggers flutter out of the specifics, leave earth, and start soaring back up to where the air is thin and they can toss out generalities and slogans. That is not helpful. In my law classes, we teach by socratric method and only be case studies of real cases and hypothetical factual situations. General principles must be applied to concrete, specific, actual cases, or they are worthless and worse, no one knows what they really mean. What are the limits and boundaries of the principle? What if I change the facts about 15 %, does that change the result? We’re all mushy headed by default, and concrete cases force us to think more clearly and crtically. Most of this 2K/activism discussion is of little value because it’s all at 35,000 feet. When we get to cases, I’d suspect there would be large areas of agreement about specific programmatic actions to be taken, but maybe differences in opinion as to the supporting rationales.
A verse for “activism”? How about the Good Samaritan? He was active.
LikeLike
Aside from CVD’s objections to my use of 1 thess as a proof-text and the limitations of combox shorthand for developing arguments, I’m still hard-pressed to find warrant for the exhortation, commitment or philosophical predisposition for “claiming every square inch” as a legitimate NT or post fall or post theocratic Israel mandate this side of glory or in this interadvental period. Unfortunately, this isn’t a mere academic or semantic exercise for us pew-sitters in reformed churches as this is, for many of us, the “gospel message” we receive week in and week out. I’d trade out transforming my neighborhood for some heavenly minded rhetoric on sunday morning. I get my fix of this world/age monday thru saturday. Plus as a former RC, I can point you to some monastic orders that do one whale of a job on the mercy ministries. If transformation is the gospel, I crossed the bridge in the wrong direction when I made my move out. As a result, I’m much more interested in the principled argument over the pragmatic.
LikeLike
CVD,
You are right about the limits of the blogosphere. However the blogosphere is far more agile than other more elaborate forms of print media. There was no way we could have had the debates we did regarding the recent overturning of Prop. 8. As testy as they may have been we were able to establish basic lines of agreement and disagreement on the issue as well.
In general I have no issue with activism, people whether they are Christian or not are free (especially here in the US) to engage in activism over issues they deem important. The only problem is when Christians insist that I become active in their cause and attempt to make it an issue of obedience to Christ. Christians are free to be activists over a great many of issues or over none at all. So long as those who are more inclined to activism understand this (and there are a fair amount who do) I am fine with that.
LikeLike
Sean. Agreed. Well said. Full-throated transformationalism rarely adduces any biblical texts or serious theological argument in support of its project. Rather, it’s rightness is usually assumed, and it rarely occurs to most of them that Christ may rule the civil sphere differently than the church. They’re often impatient with distinctions because they get in the way of the “obvious” goal line. DGH exprssed it well when we said that 2K is more “precise.” Exactly.
Jed, I’m in favor of good activism and against bad activism.
LikeLike
CVD, if by “coming down from 35K feet and getting concrete” it’s the Good Samaritan you want to use, fantastic.
The text isn’t about helping people left to die in gutters, an imperative we all know by nature and is not very profound. It’s actually about justification, something not understood by us naturally. The teacher of the law is trying to trick Jesus with the question of how to gain eternal life. Jesus gives the GS parable and tells him to go and do the same (“Do this and live”), which is actually a sort of re-publication of the CoW. The point is that we, beaten up by our enemies (the world, the flesh and the devil), are left for dead and unable to help ourselves. The religious leaders passing by are the ones who leave us in our sins by heaping on law instead of gospel, and Jesus is the Good Samaritan, leaving glory to do for us what we are helpless to do ourselves. The only one who has ever done a good work that deserevs eternal life is Jesus in his incarnational mission to save sinners. We know to help people left for dead in gutters by nature. We don’t know Jesus’ message by nature. The reading you suggest, the former, is another example of reducing the text to ethical and activistic religion instead of redemptive history, a tactic used by Protestant liberalism which thinks Christianity is about fulfilling the Golden Rule and a very popular but very misguided understanding of the text.
So, if on the basis of better exegesis you want to fault Sean for linking Thess. up to pilgrim theology, ok, but you can’t prop up a program of activism to Luke 10 for the same reason: because it’s about justification, not activism.
LikeLike
Jed:
Yes, the American Presbyterian stuff is what I referred to above.
Someone told me about this years ago; I am familiar with the arguments and am not swayed by them.
I hope you realize that having one person write on an issue does not make it so!
LikeLike
Eliza, so if Edwards followers went off the wagon, what’s your explanation? I mean, if Edwards is so great, why did his students get it so wrong? Surely, you have to have some theory beyond a bluff to account for that. And btw, it’s more than the American Presbyterians who tie the govt. theory to Edwards. It’s the Edwardseans.
Again, without my Kindle, I’m hard pressed to find chapter and verse in Edwards. But then again, most people are since Edwards didn’t write ST but did write occasionally, as in occasional pieces.
LikeLike
CVD, do you really mean to imply that neo-Cals are only about working with their hands or getting a job? What about all that rhetoric of taking every thought captive? (and please don’t tell me that this is only what Paul prescribes for the church because the passage, at least as Calvin interpreted it, had far more to do with Paul’s defense of his own ministry as a preacher of the word.)
LikeLike
Zrim, your exegesis of Luke 10:25-37 is good as far as it goes, but it only covers the Second Use of the Law. The ultimate horizon of meaning is to see Christ in this law parable: the good news of the gospel is that through the death and resurrection of Christ and his perfect law keeping God has loving grace for law-breaking sinners who are not good neighbors. But his hardly exhausts the meaning or application of the parable, unless you deny the Third Use of the Law. Traditional Reformed exegesis would see that for Christians this parable is an exhortation to be good neighgors. This is traditional Third Use of the Law (what Calvin called the primary use of the law for the Christian), and it is basic NT interpretation. Do you deny the Third Use of the Law?
LikeLike
DGH, I never said or implied anything about neo-Cals, only that the 1 Cor. text is wildly misapplied by 2kers as a proof text for world withdrawal and quietism. There are many better texts to use to express disagreement with transformationalists, but this isn’t one of them.
LikeLike
DGH: Why did Edwards students get it so wrong? It’s called sin. Judas was a disciple of Jesus, but Judas went off the rails. Is Jesus to blame? Was His teaching at fault?
The criticism of Guelzo is that Edwards didn’t hold to the imputation of Adam’s sin. See Edwards on Adam as a federal head. And also Guelzo says Edwards said men have natural ability to repent. Hardly! His Freedom of the Will is replete with refutation of that.
The AmPres admit Edwards says nothing himself on the govt. theory; it’s the New Divinity folk.
LikeLike
Here is an interesting interpretation of the parable of the GS from a Lutheran Pastor: Edit
Quotes that make me think
by John Yeazel on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 11:24am
“Holiness always has dirt under its fingertips.” (Bill Cwirla- Lutheran Pastor)
This comes from the parable of the good Samaritan. Jesus is not the good person who helps the guy in the ditch on the side of the road. Jesus is the guy who is in the ditch because of our sins. Jesus came to the earth to take our sin upon Himself- He dirtied himself in order to save us from ourselves.
In Luther’s early interpretations of this parable he thought Jesus was the good guy who helped the guy in the ditch while the others passed him by. Later, he changed his mind and thought the better interpretation was that Jesus was the guy in the ditch. Taken in the context of Law/Gospel the latter seems to be the best interpretation of the text.
This is a law parable with a law question attached in the middle of it. The priest was unable to help the guy because it was against the law for him to do so, not necessarily because he did not want to. The key phrase in the parable is justifying himself. Never try to justify yourself before God- it is a losing battle. We have no righteous standing before God except through what Christ did for us and he dirtied himself in order to accomplish that for us. So, holiness always has dirt under its fingertips. He identified, became incarnate with us and actually came to earth in order to be up close and personal with us. Think about that for a minute. Almighty God and maker of the universe condescended to us in the form of a man and was spit on and ridiculed for our sake. He could have destroyed us all but weathered the humiliation and won our salvation for us. The proud and self-righteous cannot stand this. Those who think they are something end up being nothing. If that does not shake up your world nothing will. We are bombarded with the opposite type of thinking in the culture 24 hrs a day. The riff raff love this stuff- the proud, self-righteous and those who are “moral” in their own eyes cannot stand it.
Eliza, Come on, think; sometimes condescending remarks come back and haunt you- yikes!!; I suppose a better man would have let that slide. I realize you were just trying to get me to be more specific, give some examples and stay on topic. This is the internet though and we are usually arguing from what we know and do not take the time to qualify our remarks all the time. It is different from writing a formal paper.
Someone should categorize and trace the origins of the current objections to 2K theology. From those on the reformational side of the debate the objections seem to be coming from those who are influenced by John Frame and Gordon Clark. DVD pointed out in his book the source of much of the varying interpretations can be traced to some unclear statements by Kuyper which was expanded upon by Dooyeeweerd (sp?) and Van Til. Barth was mostly influential in critiquing the problems of natural law which had a baring on his views of 2K theology.
The Arminians and Wesleyans usually take some form of the radical reformers (Anabaptists) thinking on social thought. It all can get a bit complex in trying to sort it out.
LikeLike
John Yeazel:
Thanks for quoting Bill Cwirla’s interpretation. He’s a great Lutheran pastor, and what’s more, offers a more Reformed take on the passage than the usual Law-Gospel Lutheran. That is to say, he goes beyond justification to also make a Third Use of the Law application, exhorting Christians to be good neighbors to all. Here is Cwirla:
“Neighbor is not a concept to be debated or defined, but a flesh-and-blood person in the ditch waiting to be served. You can’t define your neighbor in advance; you can only be a neighbor when the moment of mercy arrives.” See Willaim M. Cwirla, “What Must I Do? A Question of Law,” Modern Reformation, (Nov./Dec. 2002):6. He urges Christians to help the person right in front of us, Christian or not. A good Reformed version of Law-Gospel-Law.
LikeLike
Zrim: Well, at least we agree that middle America has a problem. 🙂
DGH: If 2k aims at greater precision, then would you be willing to answer my question from before (perhaps got lost in the flurry):
You admit a certain degree of overlap of spheres: you use Robert’s Rules in session meetings; and you keep the decalogue in your common life.
So what principle do you use that distinguishes between “good” overlap and “bad” overlap? How is it that you do not fall down the slippery slope that you fear in others?
LikeLike
CVD, after all our going round and round about the virtue of civil obedience versus disobedience (my championing the former, you the latter), and trying to make the general point that the Christian life is all about obedience, do you really wonder if I deny the third use? But the “do this and live” language of the parable is covenantal language. It hearkens back to Sinaitic and the Edenic command to “do this and live/don’t and die.” If you want the GS to be as much about the third use as the second then don’t those have to be as well? But traditional Reformed theology places the accent on the pedagogical use in the law-gospel formulation because the normative use isn’t even a consideration without it. Put another way, the imperative isn’t possible without the indicative. The pedagogical is necessarily a priority to the normative, same for indicative to imperative. This isn’t to say that the third isn’t resident within the parable, of course, but that’s not really the main intention. So, if I can admit the third use is somewhere in Luke 10:25-37, even if better exegesis concludes the second is the real point, maybe you can admit that a quiet ethic is somewhere in 1 Thess. 4:11 even if a better exegesis concludes that it’s about getting a job?
But again, by appealing to the GS you seem to want to find a way to make the case for Christian activism while maintaining your 2k card by claiming not to be a transformationalist (a few posts up, “I’m not a transformationalist”). Some might say that there’s more to being 2k than not being a transformationalist. Sort of like there’s more to being Protestant then not being Catholic.
John (and CVD), if Jesus is the one in the ditch then who is the Good Samaritan? Are you saying that it’s us helping Jesus out? That seems to be the implication of finally reading the parable as an imperative. But it seems to me whenever someone gets the title of “Good” in the NT it’s Jesus.
LikeLike
Zrim, all law has three uses in Reformed theology. The GS is a law parable. Therefore it has three uses. All Reformed exegetes I’ve ever consulted stress the Third Use of the Law in the GS parable over the Second Use. Lutherans usually stress the Second Use, if they are traditional conservative Lutherans, so I’m impressed that a conservative Lutheran such as Pastor Cwerla strsses the Third Use in this parable. I don’t think any responsbile exegete would agree with you that the Third Use is “not the main intention” in the parable — it may not be your main intention.
I’m sorry hear that you deny the Third Use of the Law. That’s an over-reaction against evangelical legalism. Just because the evangelicals do all law doesn’t mean you have to swing to the other extreme to counter-balance them. If they brush their teeth, do you knock yours out? Just brush your teeth correctly and don’t worry about E’s.
I never “championed the virtue of civil disobedience.” I urge Christians to follow Romans 13 and obey the laws of the land as a general proposition.
I don’t know what you mean by “activism.” Machen was a Christian activist by my reckoning(lobbied Congress, testified, wrote and spoke publicly about political matters — didn’t seem like he lead a quiet life), but is DGH’s poster boy for 2K. Was he wrong? Or does 2k require a smidgen more nuance than the B/W categories you trade in?
LikeLike
Eliza,
The last portion of the quote seems clear enough. Guelzo implicates Edwards w/ gov. theory:
“The really odd fact that must be stacked against the last chapter of Freedom of the Will and its apparent “limited atonement” is that it was Edwards who contributed the preface to Bellamy’s True Religion Delineated in 1750, describing it as “a discourse wherein the proper essence and distinguishing nature of saving religion is deduced from the first principles of the oracles of God.†Even if we disregard all the other evidence pointing to Edwards’s governmentalism, and the direct implications of un-limitedness which governmentalism always carried into discussions of the extent of the atonement, it is plain that Edwards had no hesitation about putting his imprimatur upon the New Divinity doctrine of the atonement; to the contrary, he pledged his own reputation on its appearance.”
You asked for some demonstrable implication of Edwards with gov. theory – here is at least one from a fairly credible source (from what I heat Guelzo is a decent historian), and from your response I am not even sure you read it. Comon Eliza I know you have got more than that.
LikeLike
I haven’t read Guelzo, but the quote is rather faint damnation. Writing a preface to a book hardly constitutes endorsement of every item therein. Why should Bellamy’s views be considered evidence of Edwards’?
If we’re talking stacks of evidence, the Freedom of the Will is tall and weighty — it contains direct statements by Edwards contra Arminianism (the soteriology associated with the governmental theory of the atonement).
While a preface to someone else’s book is, well, a thin page.
Just sayin’
LikeLike
Guys,
On Edwards and Governmental atonement:
I haven’t see a pretty inportant distinction applied. That between Grotian or Arminian version, and the New England or Calvinistic version of the governmental view. This is a pretty big distinction, since the former is riddled with many problems that the latter escapes. If we’re going to reference scholars, let’s move past historians who simply *report* and get into the stuff of theologians and analytic theologians/philosophers.
So on Edwards’ version of the atonement I appeal to the highly respected and esteemed Thomas Crisp, see his essay “Penal Non-Substitution” (J Theol Studies (2008) 59(1): 140-168). Though Crisp concludes that Edwards’ theory is not without its problems, he defends it from many attacks and shows that it “is a robust account of atonement that should be taken much more seriously than it has been in the recent literature.”
It’s not going to be enough to just tar Edwards with “Governmentalist!”
LikeLike
CVD, one of the Reformed tests of the sort of interpretation we’re wrangling over is to ask whether it’s a message for which Jesus had to die. Did he have to die for telling people something they already know by nature, namely to be a good neighbor? It is doubtful. What is more likely is that murderous conspiracy is aggravated by suggesting to a teacher of the law who fundamentally believes the opposite that there is no way to satisfy God even a little by our works, by implying indictment of the teachers of the law and by portraying their natural born enemies (the Samaritans) as the protagonist and them as the antagonist. And, again, the third use always flows out of the second use, so it’s not as if my interpretation is somehow deleting the third, it’s just putting into a priority.
And maybe it’s my fault for not being straight-forward enough: I do not deny the third use of the law, I heartily affirm it. I’m not sure how you’re getting that uncharitable conclusion unless you’re simply bound and determined to continue suggesting antinomianism. (If so, good luck. Myself, I find it a tiresome effort: antinomianism is a hard charge to make stick anybody since we’re natural creatures of law, which makes legalism is far easier to find.)
I know it doesn’t work for you, but if it’s nuance you want I’d suggest there is at once a fine line but significant difference between a Christian being active and a Christian activist (the sort of nuance which says that while Christianity isn’t a way of life but there certainly is one resident within it). To the extent that he opposed the Christian activism of the liberals I’d render Machen to be the former. Being active is a function of being a world-affirming Christian as opposed to a world-flight Christian who, knowing only two categories, seems to react against flight with fight.
What are “B/W categories�
LikeLike
Thank you, Jeff & Paul. Good points with which I agree.
Now to John and Jed:
Guelzo says Edwards may have something to do with New Divinity’s [ND] “unlimited atonement,” but it is true that NOTHING JE published openly promotes it.
By way of which, he claims as his minor point, that JE abandoned Adam’s sin as ground of natural depravity. As I noted above, see Edwards on Adam as federal head. That demolishes Guelzo’s argument here.
Second, Guelzo’s more important point (in his own thinking) is JE’s notion of natural ability of all sinners to repent. As noted above, see his magisterial Freedom of the Will. In sermons pre-dating 1733 Guelzo finds that JE says that all the sins of those who truly come will be forgiven.
A quick check of these pre-1733 sermons reveals only one which relates in any way to Guelzo’s remarks. It’s called Great Guilt No Obstacle to the Pardon of the Returning Sinner, in which JE says that the satisfaction of Christ is sufficient for the removal of the greatest guilt. Do John, Jed or DGH have an issue with that notion? Please inform us if you do. Especially if you have taken vows to the WCF. JE goes on to quote a multitude of proofs for his position: 1 John 1:7; Acts 13:39; Rom. 3: 25, 26; Gal. 3:13 as well as the “universal call” verses (Ho, everyone that thirsts; Come unto me all ye that labor; Him who comes to me I will in no wise cast out.)
I don’t own Guelzo’s book (nor does DGH, Jed or John; I think they are just posturing). I don’t own Bellamy’s book either. The AmPres don’t seem to have it on their website either.
I think the governmental theory notion is a smokescreen and that the problem with Edwards is because of other things Edwards said other things that the Escondido crowd do not like.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Wikepedia has a pretty thorough explanation of the parable of the GS but they do not say anything about the man in the ditch being Jesus. They go into a variety of explanations of who the GS might be and say nothing of him being Jesus either. It seems to come down to an exhortation for humans to show mercy to each other when the situation arises which can be counter-intuitive to the way we normally think for many reasons explained at the Wikepedia site.
Perhaps Jesus in his humanity did really feel the need for the help of those who loved him. That adds another dimension of God being able to relate to us and our human condition after the fall.
LikeLike
For all you guys out there who constantly refer to Kuyper’s “every square inch”, please don’t forget to add on Machen’s
“let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God” (from Christianity & Culture)
CVD is absolutely right about Machen’s activism–his lobbying Congress, etc. are often left out of the picture.
Wish I had time to read more of this thread between CVD, et al.
LikeLike
Zrim, thanks for your thoughts on the GS parable. I find the traditional, Reformed interpretation more satisfying.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. You had written: “After all… do you really wonder if I deny the third use?” It took that to be a denial of the Third Use consistent with your interpretation of the GS that it was all about justification. I’m happy to hear you do not deny the Third Use. BTW, I don’t think that denying the Third Use necessarily makes one an antinomian, and that was not my point. Historic Lutherans grossly de-emphasize the Third Use, and while I don’t agree with them, I wouldn’t call them antinomian because in practice they teach and obey God’s law. Historians believe that Luther had a de facto Third Use, even though he didn’t expressly talk about it, in that his Larger and Shorter Catechism teach that believers must obey God’s law out of gratitude and love. A generation later, with the first wave of the Reformation behind him, he might have written much more like Calvin about the Third Use.
Machen, BTW, did not limit his “being active” to combating liberal churchmen. He also argued politics, government, and education, and testified before Congress. I don’t care if you call him “active” or “activist,” he didn’t lead a “quiet life” of disengagement. Somehow I suspect that if it were a Christian constitutional lawyer doing the same things as Machen, especially a Republican conservative, he would be anathamaztized as a culture warrior, activist, confusing the two kingdoms, neo-Cal, crypto Kuyperian. But because it’s Machen, he gets a pass. I think Machen’s career illustrates the need for abandoning the term “activist” and using a lot more discernment and nuance in our application of 2k.
LikeLike
Eliza,
Let’s not knock my hometown now. Some of those @ WSC who take and issue with JE do so for good reason. As to the smoke screening you accuse me of, I openly admitted my unfamiliarity with the debate and I was seeking clarification. What I offered wasn’t proof, rather an implication from a fairly reliable source. All I was asking for was some interaction with the excerpt. Paul is the only one who offered any meaningful interaction with the issues Guelzo raises. To say that Guelzo isn’t implicating JE with gov. theory is to misread the article. Dismissing questions and then calling accusations of posturing are just silly. Since you are so familiar with JE, maybe you could explain why he gives such a glowing endorsement of Bellamy who held some highly suspicious views on the atonement.
I am not a JE hater as you seem to assume. I do have some major reservations about the introspective religion he champions, and I have chosen an piety and practice that is different than the pietism and revivalism that he defends. However, much of his work is insightful and worth reading. He is the most prominent theologian in American history for a good reason.
LikeLike
I could not find Luther’s further commentary on the parable and who he thought the GS might be. I am sure Calvin commented on it in one of his commentaries too. I wonder if Luther and Calvin’s understanding of the two natures of Christ and how they communicated to each other had some differences inherent in them which led to the division?
LikeLike
“Eliza,” I’m not posturing (which is an odd accusation for someone who uses an alias). The problem with JE is that anyone can interpret him any number of ways. He wrote so much and was not systematic. But the problem may be that substitutionary atonement model does not yield the revival results he wanted. That’s certainly what Nathaniel Taylor and Charles Finney found out. BTW, I believe Doug Sweeney argues for continuity between JE and Taylor. Yikes!
LikeLike
As to Machen’s “activism.” Let’s pay attention to context and details. Consult our host’s book on Machen: Defending the faith : J. Gresham Machen and the crisis of conservative Protestantism in modern America. It is hardly correct to back-label Machen as an “activist.”
Machen’s activities with respect to the politics of the day were precisely and pointedly his personal actions. JGH was at completely out of step with the Northern Presbyterian church’s penchant for making denominational pronouncements concerning then current events. It possibly cost him the Chair of Apologetics at Princeton. At the end of a lengthy meeting of Presbytery of New Brunswick, when many had left (they probably did not have a quorum any longer), the issue of expressing support for Prohibition was raised. Machen quietly voted no, as it’s not church’s business to issue those kind of pronouncements. His opponents raised this as a character issue.
It’s all about corporate/Church roles and duties vs personal christian liberty and duty,
LikeLike
Jeff, I am surprised after all the exchanges we have had that you keep expressing confusing. I’m also adverse to the use of the r’ word (radical) in application to 2k.
But here is just one more try:
The distinction is between what God’s word reveals as necessary for salvation and what God’s word leaves to Christian liberty. This means that the distinction between gen. and spec. rev, is important, but also who ministers God’s word (church or non-church), and then those persons under the church’s ministry.
In other words, what can a church require of believers? What is binding on their consciences? Only what God reveals in his word (expressly or by good and necessary consequence). Which means that in the other areas of life, outside the bonds and obligations of church membership, Christians have liberty. Which also means that NL guides those areas. (Sometimes it also informs aspects of church life where Scripture is silent. Robert’s Rules, for instance. The church isn’t binding anyone’s conscience on Robert’s Rules — though Stringer Bell tried to in his drug gang in Baltimore).
This seems straightforward and relatively simple. You seem to like to exalt the gray areas. And from there everything else becomes gray — as in, “see, 2k is also gray.”
The problem with this construction is the Lordship of Christ. You seem to be one who wants the Lordship extended everywhere. Certainly, that is Frame’s MO, and why he extends the RPW to all of life. (Which leaves no room for Christian liberty.) NL allows the Lordship of Christ through the natural order of creation and providence. But many want a full bore Lordship, with tongues confessing and knees bowing. And to try to get that through the extension of the RPW to all of life is to flub the gospel. The only way to follow God’s law is first through faith and repentance.
So without the distinction between gen and spec rev (which assumes that the Bible is silent on things like alcohol and meat offered to idols — silent in the sense that it does not require it), between those charged with ministering the word and those who aren’t, and between those who are under the oversight of the church and those who aren’t, you have a fairly useful and careful way for negotiating the matters of cult and culture.
Without these distinctions, you get juggling in worship and Christian aerobics. I mean, really, Jeff, do you not think that much more confusion exists on the non-2k side of these matters? As if 2k is more guilty than those who are baptizing America and her first president in Christ’s name (not sure yet if the Father and Holy Spirit have been invoked).
LikeLike
Chris D, thanks for your post with which I agree. In fact you are making point. Machen in his individual capacity as a private citizen was actively engaging the culture and government (as well as liberal churchmen). Some of the 2K advocates have a rather knee-jerk reaction against precisely that kind of individual-citizen engagement that marked Machen’s life, and on 2K grounds. They argue that this kind of activity by private citizens is “unwise,” inconsistent with the SOTC/2K, inconsistent with “pilgrim theology”, is not “leading a quiet life and minding one’s own business and working with their hands,” is being a dreaded culture warrior, etc. etc. To be fair, these critics’ brand of 2K is quick to add that such unwise activity is within “Christian liberty,” but nonetheless they go hammer and tong against it as an unwise confusion of the two kingdoms.
It’s at this point I respectfully disgree, and contend that while the church institutionally (qua church) may not conduct such activities, they may be proper for individual Christian citizens. Just clarifying.
LikeLike
CVD, though I’m loathe to try and pin “antinomian†one anyone in general, it does seem to me that strictly speaking to deny the third use is one giant leap toward being antinomian. And I think Fesko has sufficiently shown that historic Lutherans do NOT “grossly de-emphasize the third use.†Maybe some Lutherans do, but not historic Lutherans—not too unlike some Reformed grossly de-emphasize the spirituality of the church, but not historic Reformed.
We’ve been here before, but you seem to think that pilgrim theology is about “living a quiet life of disengagement.†But making the charge of world-flight stick is almost as hard as sticking the charge of antinomianism. Being still and doing nothing are not the same thing. You keep demanding discernment and nuance but can’t seem to process the sort I am suggesting. It’s almost as if by nuance you simply mean that transformationism is only misguided when it’s not your kind of transformationism.
P.S. I’ll believe you “respectfully disagree†with those not personally persuaded of your manner of public engagement when you retract your litany of Tennent-esque descriptions in the past.
Eliza, I’m not sure what a sound-bite from C&C is supposed to show. But, yes, let’s liberally evangelize the world. Let’s just not conflate the cultural mandate (law) with the Great Commission (gospel).
LikeLike
Zrim, the nuance I’m suggesting is to deal with specific cases and not vauge slogans like “transformationalism” and “activism.” You tend to tag labels and slogans on anyone engaged in an activity that smells to you like a neo-Cal, rather than focus on the details of the case or the reason for the action. That imputes motives that you lack any reasonable basis for knowing, in most cases.
Machen lobbied Congress. Dobson lobbied Congress. Same actions, but for two different rationales. On the surface, both actions look the same, and may be the same. If you don’t drill down to the underlying motive and reationale, it’s easy to tag both with the label “transformationalist.” But Machen was not aiming at Christianizing America, Dobson was. Machen was trying to improve the secular, civil realm by preserving liberty; Dobson was trying trying to impose Christian theology on a nation. Machen understood that the civil realm would never be transformed into the Kingdom of God; Dobson thinks it should be and is trying to take back America.
Advocates of 2K/SOTC can have lots of rationales for their actions, and not be trying “transform” the civil realm or take back America.
But to someone who paints in broad strokes, who only looks at the surface actions, and tags labels, everything looks like Dobson-stle activism. My plea is to drop labels and deal with specific cases. Unless, as I suspect, you have never seen and cannot conceive of any public political/cultural engagement that a Christian could take that would not be “unwise” on your principles. Honestly, I may have missed it, but I can’t recall any case or instance of public political/cultural engagement that you would approve of as not “unwise” and a 2k infringement. By my rough calculations, you’re about 0 for ten.
LikeLike
Jed:
“Since you are so familiar with JE, maybe you could explain why he gives such a glowing endorsement of Bellamy who held some highly suspicious views on the atonement.”
Yes, I hope George M. Ella’s word will do. He seems to know his stuff:
“The tragedy is that Edwards did not see that his pupils were building their faith on his philosophical ideas rather than on his experimental sermons. He actually thought they were showing great intelligence in their philosophical dissertations. Thus when, in 1750, Edwards was asked to read through Bellamy’s True Religion Delineated and author its Preface, he read it as a philosophical work, praising the logical deductions in it as “a discourse wherein the proper essence and distinguishing nature of saving faith is deduced from the first principles of the oracles of God.â€
http://evangelica.de/articles/joseph-bellamy-and-true-religion-delineated/
BTW, I think introspection can go too far. I’ve seen the damage that can be done by it. But just because a thing can be abused (pushed too far) does not mean we should avoid it completely. Sorry if I’ve made any false accusations. Really. I do think that the whole “govt. theory” thing is not the real objection to JE. I think the piety/revival stuff that you mention is more to the point (so thanks for saying so as a gentleman).
.
LikeLike
Eliza,
Thank you for your quote of George Ella, which explains a lot. I appreciate your informative and eloquent posts about JE and am learning more about him from your posts. I have loved his Freedom of the Will, and many of his sermons, but your posts have prompted me to resolve to read more.
LikeLike
CVD, talk about painting with broad brush strokes. You don’t want the 2k side to use labels, but you have no trouble saying that 2kers cannot conceive of “any public political/cultural engagement that a Christian could take that would not be ‘unwise.'” Wow, that a mouthful of brush.
Unless one is living with Thoreau, one is engage in culture. Actually, to live with Thoreau is to exist in society and to engage culture. But the only kind of cultural engagement that seems to count with you is legal and political.
And since you have invoked Machen, he did not “lobby” Congress. He spoke there as part of a political group — not a religious group — the Sentinels of the Republic, a bunch of Massachusetts libertarians.
What you seem to miss is that 2kers have all sorts of reasons for engaging culture. What they lack and consider unwise is baptizing one cultural approach as the Christian or the faith-based approach. Common callings are fine. Religious secular ones are oxymornic. Maintaining social order is fine; restoring Christian America is folly.
Why do you have such trouble understanding this?
LikeLike
Ok, CVD, specific case: I refrain from participating in lobbying efforts to culturally and politically disenfranchise a particular class of sinners called homosexuals. If I recall, you deem this to be “sitting around growing turnips.†But have you ever considered that to abstain from something is actually to make a statement about it? Have you considered that to refrain from certain political activism is perhaps even more political than the activists presume? I have rationale for not participating in culture war: it’s self-contradictory because it does way more to erode the very culture that warriors are trying to save by fighting their perceived enemies. It actually expedites cultural erosion and does ironic damage to cultural cultivation.
I think warriors on whatever side of culture war are equally misguided. I fail to see how being categorically opposed to culture war infringes upon the liberty those who aren’t. Sometimes it’s just disagreement about the best way to culturally engage. I think this aggravates you because it obviously is the sort of outlook that keeps names from your petitions. Sorry, but maybe it will help to know that I don’t lobby against your right to behave in a way I don’t think is pursuant to better cultural engagement. I think this is the part where you rehearse your lawyerly expertise, enlist the behavioral and sociological experts about how damaging it is that homosexuals exist and then call on all Christians to take up proverbial arms against them and any who don’t are at least indirectly responsible for the fall of western civilization. But, sorry, homey don’t play that.
LikeLike
DGH, you would do better to read more carefully.
First, I did not characterize all 2Kers, of which I’m one. I addressed my remarks to only one 2Kers, Zrim.
Second, your second paragraph makes my point, except I don’t believe the only kind of cultural engagement that counts is legal or political.
Third, Machen did lobby Congress as testifying before Congress is textbook lobbying. And that it was political was my point exactly.
Fourth, your fourth paragraph expressed the very argument I made above, and have been making for months.
LikeLike
Zrim, you’re 0 for 11. I’m still waiting for any public example of political/cultural engagement of which you approve. Or is everything “culture wars”?
By affixing the label, you’ve signed off. You even objected to the San Diego pastor defending his right to hold a home Bible study against a local County offical’s mistake (who was reversed by the simple expedient of a couple letters to his superiors) because to defend a legal right was “culture war” and violated the Christian’s duty to suffer persecution. I wonder if there is anything that is not culture war, in your playbook, any kind of public engagement, any kind of action to hold the magistrate accountable to the law, that would pass 2K muster when performed by a private citizen in his capacity as a citizen. I haven’t yet heard it from you.
LikeLike
DGH: The distinction is between what God’s word reveals as necessary for salvation and what God’s word leaves to Christian liberty.
If this is where we are, then I’m very happy with that. Well, I might quibble that there is a third category: things that are not left to Christian liberty, but are not necessary for salvation. But in broad outline, this would be my preferred boundary marker also.
In defense of my confusion, I proposed exactly this a few threads back and got shot down by Zrim.
So one reason that I’m confused — besides being fallible, and sometimes prone to insomnia — is that I don’t get a fully consistent account of pc-2k’s notion of boundaries. Sometimes the Church is governed by Scripture, culture by Natural Law. Other times, there’s overlap. At still other times, the Natural Law is the Decalogue; but then, sometimes it isn’t.
And while I admit to being fallible and sometimes prone to insomnia, I also try pretty hard to pay attention to what is said. And so I notice, and am baffled by, the seemingly shifting description of pc-2k (I don’t remember saying “radical” — if so, it was an oversight).
DGH: This seems straightforward and relatively simple. You seem to like to exalt the gray areas. And from there everything else becomes gray — as in, “see, 2k is also gray.â€
No, this is a misunderstanding. I *probe* the gray areas in an effort to arrive at greater clarity. I see tissue under the microscope. It contains cells whose boundaries are indistinct. I zoom in so as to understand the fine structure that marks one cell from the other.
Same here: there is a 2k structure. It makes sense in the broad outline, but there is fuzziness, combined with insistence that the boundaries are “rigid.”
So I probe: what defines the boundaries? Let’s get it clear. Far from reveling in the gray areas, I’m seeking to banish them (to the extent possible).
If the boundaries are irreducibly fuzzy, then I’m OK with that — but then I move to strike the language of “rigid boundaries.” Or if the boundaries are rigid, then I’m OK with that, but then I move to have clear justification and clear markers on the table.
One or the other; just not both at the same time.
DGH: The problem with this construction is the Lordship of Christ. You seem to be one who wants the Lordship extended everywhere. Certainly, that is Frame’s MO, and why he extends the RPW to all of life. (Which leaves no room for Christian liberty.)
I’m not sure you’ve properly understood Frame on that point. I picked up the notion of Christian liberty from … surprise! … Frame. Though I will say that discussions here have helped shape that notion somewhat.
Frame’s extension of the “RPW to all of life” is qualified by two major thoughts in his famous essay:
(1) The RPW in any area of life is bounded by the positive commands of Scripture on the one hand and the silence of Scripture on the other. Where Scripture does not speak, either directly or from good and necessary consequence, there is liberty. He’s actually quite clear about that.
(2) From this, the “RPW in all of life” functions differently than it does in worship in particular. It does not amount to a worked-out Christian theory of life, but rather this:
In everything we do, we seek to obey God’s commands.
There it is (and it’s hardly controversial, right?). Our lives are not “free” for the purpose of indulging ourselves, but free for the purpose of loving God and neighbor.
It is that large-scale structure to which Frame refers the idea that we must do nothing except what Scripture commands, in all of life.
Besides: Do you deny that the Christian is subject to the Lordship of Christ in every area of life? It’s practically a rhetorical question, right?
So if we three (you I and Frame) agree that Christ is Lord for the Christian in all areas of life, then I don’t think the dispute really lies there.
LikeLike
Zrim: I refrain from participating in lobbying efforts to culturally and politically disenfranchise a particular class of sinners called homosexuals.
I wasn’t aware of the movement to deny gays the vote?!
LikeLike
Jeff,
I wonder whether you could elaborate on this third category you’ve proposed, namely “things that are not left to Christian liberty, but are not necessary for salvation.”
In some ways, this seems to be where the rub lies. Christian social conservative activists generally recognize that social conservatism is not a defining feature of the covenant. But, in my experience, they’d rather not share pews on the Lord’s Day with those who aren’t sympathetic, at least in some measure, to their activism.
Granted, this is not a new feature of Protestantism. For example, paedobaptists and baptists rarely worship together on the Lord’s Day. Few of us would argue that a particular view of baptism is necessary for salvation. But for various reasons, we don’t worship with baptists. We remain separate from them because of their refusal to baptize covenant infants.
If I’m reading you right, it seems that you would like to see the church divide similarly along the lines of whether or not folks are sympathetic to the activism of the Christian Right (e.g., anti-abortion activism, anti-gay activism). You’d rather not attend church on the Lord’s Day with people like me who, despite being a member in good standing of an OPC church, disfavor criminalizing early-term abortion and favor extending the legal entitlements of civil marriage to same-sex couples. Is that the gist of it?
In other words, you want to be part of a church community that is fully supportive of anti-abortion and anti-gay activism, although you recognize that such activism is not necessary for salvation.
LikeLike
Bob,
You’d rather not attend church on the Lord’s Day with people like me who, despite being a member in good standing of an OPC church, disfavor criminalizing early-term abortion and favor extending the legal entitlements of civil marriage to same-sex couples. Is that the gist of it?
I wonder whether you could elaborate on this, and does it imply you’d favoring criminalizing late-term abortions?
LikeLike
CVD, if you agree with my points, why are you always here and at Heidelblog objecting to my understanding of 2k? Talk about dualistic.
LikeLike
Jeff, it is unfair and a cheap shot to say that sometimes the Bible governs the church, sometimes natural law governs the culture, and then there’s overlap. What exactly do you have in mind? But to boil 2k down to this is very misleading and seems purposefully dismissive. And it fails to address the question of whether the 2k critics are have fewer gray areas. In my estimation, without the clarity of 2k, the whole cultural world is either bright gray.
What is particularly annoying is that the 2k position actually takes Scripture seriously. Where people think 2k disrespects Scripture is when 2k advocates say that Scripture is silent on a host of human endeavors. But if Scripture speaks to all of life, why don’t we have catechism questions on the arts and plumbing? Well . . .
So the critics of 2k want to have it both ways. The Bible speaks to all of life but we love our Shorter Catechism which summarizes the Bible and says nothing about Shakespeare. The magistrate must uphold the 10 commandments but I like my Mormon neighbor and don’t want him sent into exile. The Bible needs to interpret general revelation and unbelievers can’t interpret the Bible rightly to interpret gen. rev, but I sure do like my Jewish dentist or I sure do prefer the insights of Bill Bennett on my drive to work.
Talk about consistency.
As for Frame’s qualifications on his position, the key difference is the idea that where Scripture is silent Christians have liberty. That is not the RPW. Where Scripture is silent the church may not act. Lutherans and Anglicans believe that where Scripture is silent then the church may do it. And that leads to Frame’s problem (and yours) that where Scripture is silent we have still a biblical basis for what we do, whether it be a Christian form of politics, or a Christian expression of art. How can you possibly have a Christian anything where the Bible is silent?
LikeLike
CVD, I approve of most forms of political/cultural engagement. What I’m highly skeptical of is engaging in ways that really only amount to dividing and power struggle. I know, 35K feet. But when fellow Reformed engage the wider world like my old fundamentalists who also knew only two categories (flight or fight), I like to think I know a Reformed piety that knows a better nuanced take. Does it help to know that fellow Reformed who choose flight think I’m way too interested in political/cultural engagement? I can’t win with either of you guys.
Jeff, I wasn’t aware of movement to deny gays the vote either. I’m referring to the marriage thing. It seems a lot like a version of orthodox Protestants trying to stick it to heterodox Mormon neighbors for their practice of polygamy by refusing Utah into the Union on the basis of violating natural law. (Hey, maybe we should boot out the New England states for making it gay marriage legal?) No, I don’t think marriage should enjoy the sanction of marriage, but I’m just as skeptical of efforts to disenfranchise homosexuals. I know some here think it’s a simple question, but I think human beings and their projects are pretty complicated and answers aren’t so easy to discern.
LikeLike
Bob: I wonder whether you could elaborate on this third category you’ve proposed, namely “things that are not left to Christian liberty, but are not necessary for salvation.â€
I would put WCoF 23, “On Marriage and Divorce”, in that category. That chapter is good and necessary consequence from Scripture; yet agreement on those matters is not necessary for salvation.
LikeLike
Sorry, ch. 24, “On Marriage and Divorce.” I’ve had chap. 23 a little too much on the brain. 🙂
LikeLike
DGH: Cheap shot? Yikes, no. It’ll take me some time to collect various quotes across various threads to illustrate what I mean, but the burden is this:
The pc-2k view presented here has not been consistent.
That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a consistent idea in your mind; it just means that the way it gets expressed leaves the rest of us with conflicted notions of what you actually practice.
There’s no cheap shot. I am earnestly unclear on what you actually think and practice.
LikeLike
Not to take the comments off-topic, but the longer I’ve been 2k, the more useful Tim Keller has been for me. I understand that his views on the Sabbath, worship, deaconesses, etc. are sub-confessional at best. But a recurring argument here (and especially at the Confessional Outhouse) is that sub-confessionalism is endemic in American Reformed communions. See also Eliza’s earlier comment about being under a pastor obsessed with introspection and pretty much everything in Gordon’s “Why Johnny Can’t Preach”.
To me, deciding which version of “evangelical Reformed” is worse is not really that interesting, so they each get a point and I move on. But Keller then strives to understand and respect the secular world. In the opening to “The Reason for God,” he grounds common values and virtues between Christians and others in the imago Dei, not in common grace, and goes on to say,
“Christians, then, should expect to find nonbelievers who are much nicer, kinder, wiser, and better than they are. Why? Christian believers are not accepted by God because of their moral performance, wisdom, or virtue, but because of Christ’s work on their behalf. Most religions and philosophies of life assume that one’s spiritual status depends on your religious attainments. This naturally leads adherents to feel superior to those who don’t believe and behave as they do. The Christian gospel, in any case, should not have that effect.” (p. 19)
This is four pages after a Wendell Berry reference. Any transformationalism is invisible to me, other than recurring concerns about justice on earth, which is a much more biblical theme than one’s Christian obligations when in a voting booth or under the kitchen sink. And it’s an actual book, instead of a pamphlet telling unbelievers that they already believe the Bible, but they just need to be epistemically self-conscious when deciding to not eat their children.
To coexist peacefully with my neighbors, to work with them in legitimately good endeavors, though proximate, and to talk with them about religion as a fellow creature affected equally by sin, if hopefully more aware of his state, were among the most attractive elements of the 2k position. Keller’s emphasis on civility and his embracing a pluralistic society make him a model evangelist for 2kers, afaict, even if we disagree about almost everything wrt life inside the church.
LikeLike
“I understand that his views on the Sabbath, worship, deaconesses, etc. are sub-confessional at best”
Mike,
I don’t know about you but when a reformed pastor is in favor of flattening out cultic particularities in favor of an approach that blurs the lines between civil religion and sunday practice, I find it difficult to get out of bed. As has been said before, nobody lives in the “hallway”, no real living gets done in the hallway, it’s pleasant and necessary and convenient but I don’t wanna throw down a cot and take up residence there. Maybe it’s because I came from the rc world where we talked of grace and faith and Christ and the church and helping the poor and less fortunate and submitting to church authority and yet I came to understand that my faith didn’t reflect the faith of scripture and that leaving Rome, was ALL about the particulars and doctrine and rightly dividing the word. I don’t need Keller to help me get along with my neighbor, “I got that”, I need Keller to preach to me Christ and preach Him in a particularly nuanced protestant way (forensic, apart from, outside of me), and then lead me in how I worship God in the here and now.
Quite frankly, on the rest of it he’s a “johnny come lately” and if you wanna see some professionals at work at “natural” religion and “transforming the city”, I’ve got some nice old nuns to introduce you to, who don’t just traffic with or major in the “high-brow” crowd. But, if you want some of them too, then I have some Jesuit professors/teachers you might wanna hang with.
Maybe all that is just a reflection of an american evangelicalism that is so bankrupt and “misfitty” that Keller comes across as a breath of fresh air and a voice of sanity. For me, It’s less than compelling reason to have left Rome in the first place.
LikeLike
Mike,
Soft transformationalism is always better than hard, so for my part I can go a lot farther with Keller than the Bayly’s. But soft Reformed transformationalism is still categorically different from 2k Reformed confessionalism because the former still thinks the gospel is somehow relevant for worldly cares. I’m very glad that Keller points out that the true gospel norms against those who believe feeling superior to those who don’t believe.
But when the ecclesiastical vision isn’t so much to reconcile God and sinners by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone but is “to bring about personal changes, social healing, and cultural renewal” it seems to me that what is given with the right hand is taken away with the left. I mean, it sure seems to me that the implication of such a vision is that those who have eternal faith have a leg up on those who don’t when it comes to temporal endeavor. In other words, superiority still seems to abide, and superiority with a smile still has teeth.
LikeLike
The most convincing defense of 2K I have heard on this post is the Water Is Thicker Than Blood article. In order to maintain the liberty we enjoy here still we have to be constantly vigilant and watch developments in both the Church and the State. The Church needs to get back to teaching the Law and Gospel rightly, administering the sacraments properly and maintaining the discipline of its members. The State needs to abstain from power struggles, partisan lobbying politics and get back to administering justice and protecting its citizens from terrorists and enemies who would seek to do us harm. We all have a responsibility to pray for this, work towards it and do our part to make it happen.
LikeLike
Jeff, how is Frame’s view more consistent if he thinks juggling in worship is possible?
If by consistency you mean that the same norms that Christians follow should be the norms for all people, then I guess inconsistency is a fair charge. But that only means that some kind of theocratic arrangement where special revelation is the norm for all people and all of life is the consistent position. And really, the advocates of this view are never consistent. They are full of inspiring and totalizing rhetoric, but then when it comes to Christian plumbing it only means being honest, not a material made especially from biblical instruction for pipes.
So are you willing to acknowledge that your position has more inconsistencies than mine?
LikeLike
CVD, here’s me getting concrete and “dealing with a specific case.â€
So, Paul, I’m thinking of the hypothetical you have given me where certain state legislation to either criminalize or legalize abortion comes up for a vote. Assuming Bob votes according to what appears to be his conscience, which is to say to keep certain forms of abortion legal, does he now become subject to ecclesiastical discipline to your mind? For my part, I disagree with Bob’s civil outlook (i.e. I favor outlawing early-term abortion), but I cannot fathom bringing him up on ecclesiastical charges because of it.
LikeLike
So Zrim, are you saying violations of the 6th commandment don’t earn ecclesiastical discipline? Or do you not think voting to keep murder legal (if you can’t say that it’s murder, then you can’t hold Christian Jane under discipline for *having* an abortion; maybe she just reads the scientific evidence different than you do, and so acts according to her conscience) is not a violation of the 6th? If so, I admit that’s an odd way to interpret “do nothing whatsoever that tends to the destruction of the life of any.” That’s even odder than your claim that saying Kennedy “lived life badly” is an odd way to interpret “show respect for the king.” Perhaps even odder than “you may engage in civil disobedience” is an odd way to interpret “submit to the government.” Since you have asserted the latter two, and since my example is surely a relevant analogy, I’m wondering how you square your hermeneutical method with these examples?
LikeLike
DGH; in responding to my video link from the Gospel Coalition wherein one of it’s supposedly emerging leaders, DeYoung, declares his reticence over transformationalism, you simply dismiss it with this comment:
“Dan, I’m not convinced that the Gospel Coalition is nuanced because it actually sets out to do the work assigned to the church. The last time I checked, it was supposed to be an organization that would actually do the work of word and sacrament.”
To which I respond: check again. Looking at some blogger’s distorted and weak interpretation of what the Gospel Coalition is up to is not ‘checking’; it is lazy lack of due diligence. The Gospel Coalition doing Word and Sacrament? Show me where.
LikeLike
Paul, it was a simple question, at least I thought it was. I take it the answer is yes. If so, let’s continue with the hypothetical. Let’s say you and I are elders in Bob’s church. You say yes, I say no. Do I now become subject to discipline for not stopping “whatsoever that tends to the destruction of the life of any”? I’m just trying to get a bead on how far back you want to prosecute from someone who actually violates the sixth in his/her own body, which to answer your question, is who earns ecclesiastical discipline.
Well, that plus show CVD I can at least try and operate at ground level.
LikeLike
DGH:
They [the advocates] are full of inspiring and totalizing rhetoric, but then when it comes to Christian plumbing it only means being honest, not a material made especially from biblical instruction for pipes.
So are you willing to acknowledge that your position has more inconsistencies than mine?
Do you *want* them to have “Christian theories about pipes”? I would think that you would, as a 2k-er, want your Christian brothers to be reasonable rather than otherwise. Why demand Christian theories about pipes when no-one seems to have promised them?
Perhaps you may have overinterpreted the “inspiring and totalizing rhetoric.” What if all that Frame’s rhetoric means is this: Scripture provides norms that govern the Christian in all of life. In that, case honesty is precisely the kind of thing that he ought to be meaning, rather than Christian theories of pipe construction.
I made it all the way through DKG twice without ever thinking that Frame was on a quest for the Christian Theory of Everything. It always seemed to me that he was trying to coordinate Scriptural knowledge and common grace knowledge.
And unsurprisingly, so are you; but oddly, you criticize him for not producing a Christian Theory of Everything. Did he promise that? Did you want him to produce it? I think the answer to both of those is No, so … ?!?!
And anyways, I find honesty in plumbing to be refreshing, having experienced some of the opposite. Surely you aren’t suggesting that vanilla obedience to Scripture is uninspiring? Don’t we glorify God by uninspiring stuff like that?
So: I’ll fess up to my inconsistencies if you fess up to yours. 🙂
Actually, I’ll go first, if you’re ready to be specific. I’ve got to wade back through threads.
LikeLike
Dan, from http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/who
“Our desire is to serve the church we love by inviting all of our brothers and sisters to join us in an effort to renew the contemporary church in the ancient gospel of Christ so that we truly speak and live for him in a way that clearly communicates to our age. We intend to do this through the ordinary means of his grace: prayer, the ministry of the Word, baptism and the Lord’s supper, and the fellowship of the saints. We yearn to work with all who, in addition to embracing the confession and vision set out here, seek the lordship of Christ over the whole of life with unabashed hope in the power of the Holy Spirit to transform individuals, communities, and cultures. You will find attached both our Confessional Statement and our Theological Vision for Ministry—a vision rooted in the Scriptures and centered on the gospel.”
As I’ve argued elsewhere (http://deregnochristi.org/2007/10/23/has-tim-keller-left-the-pca/ ), not even the National Association of Evangelicals attempted to do the ministry of word and sacrament.
LikeLike
Jeff, well, at one time you were here arguing for Christian plumbing, and you were doing so in a way that was critical of 2k. Now you seem to be singing Kum Bay Yah, Frame and DGH are really saying the same thing.
Maybe you are only a soft Dooyeweerdian, but a strain of “Reformed” thought exists out there that denies all neutrality and Enlightenment approaches and strives for a Christian foundation for all walks of life. Some of those arguments are more epistemologically-centric, and some are biblicist. Frame seems to partake of both.
But when Frame writes, “God is not only Lord of the ‘sacred’ realm, not only Lord of salvatoin. He is Lord over every area of human life. We cannot understand the point of any human activity, whether preaching, music, or journalism, until we see how that activity is related to God,” or theology “is the key to everything human, and therefore to culture. . . . We see cruelty in human government, nihilism in human art, lies in human journalism. But redemption changes people comprehensively, so that they carry God’s wisdom into their workplaces: compassion and justice into government, meaning into art, truth into journalism” I see some fairly large claims. These are claims that I would not make out of an effort to be more careful, consistent, and true to what I know about God, his revelation, and his salvation.
I don’t want to speculate on motives, but it does seem to me that Frame’s rhetoric is great at inspiration and for leverage in the culture wars. It is, however, very thin on the actual doing of life.
Btw, I’d be much more inclined to follow Wendell Berry than John Frame on most topics of living in this world. And the reason is that Wendell understands creation better than Frame. And Frame is not so good on creation because he is so inclined to read it through the lens of redemption. The gospel turns the wisdom of the Greeks into folly — as far as salvation is concerned. But for running a city government, the Greeks have a point about the folly of the gospel.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m not sure your not wanting to prosecute (in the situation you gave) is something that tends toward the desctruction of any life whatsoever. If you think it is, I’d be interested in hearing the argument. However, I think it is clear, crystal, that voting that some people may murder other people is something that tends toward the destruction of a life. So at this point your question is a red herring.
In any case, I’ll never get why you continue to insist on begging the question. The vote is something that actually violates the sixth with the body—a *body* must go into the booth and check the box. A *body* (Jane’s) does an *action* (voting) that *tends toward the desctruction of life* (abortion). On your view, I guess you don’t think those who hire hitmen are guilty of murder. Perhaps Mafia dons are innocent in your church. When the heads of the five families get together and vote that Jimmy Fingers should be killed by Tony the Tiger, they apparently didn’t do something that tends toward the destruction of life.
LikeLike
What if all that Frame’s rhetoric means is this: Scripture provides norms that govern the Christian in all of life. In that, case honesty is precisely the kind of thing that he ought to be meaning, rather than Christian theories of pipe construction.
Then is Frame simply saying true faith demands obedience to the law, Jeff? If so, who could argue? But, first, why go through massive efforts to say what Reformed orthodoxy already does more simply? Second, as DGH suggests, and without impugning motives, the efforts as well as the specific language seem to suggest that much more is being said, as in faith not only demands obedience but also prescribes how that obedience is carried out.
LikeLike
Paul, so people who whose political consciences are different from yours and mine are now conflated with Tony Soprano, Paulie “Walnuts†and Christopher Moltisanti? Wow. The pro-life rhetoric is sometimes more than I can fathom or bear. Again, no direct answer to my direct question.
But part of my point is that there are not only lives to protect—remember, I have anti-abortion politics and ecclesial views that would discipline those who actually perform such things in their own bodies or with their own hands—but also consciences. I can’t see in your outlook how there is any way to do the latter. What I see is a way to press the church into the service of enforcing a particular political view. Maybe you do esteem conscience, but when it comes to this particular political question the rules that would otherwise protect conscience seem to be out the window. It’s almost as if when it comes to protecting conscience you have Soprano’s hermeneutic: playing by the rules is fine when it benefits me, but when it doesn’t fugetaboutit.
LikeLike
Zrim, no, people who whose political consciences are not different from yours and mine are now conflated with Tony Soprano, Paulie “Walnuts†and Christopher Moltisanti? How on earth did you draw that inference from what I said??? I think what I meant to imply was clear and am guessing you didn’t read my post again. Also, I gave you a very direct answer to your question. I said I don’t believe that your opinion that Jane should be disciplined is a disciplinable offense. But if you think it is, I’d like to hear the argument. If you’re paying attention, you’ll note that I put you on the horns of a dilemma. I’ve either got around your attempt at a reductio, or I’m going to make you argue that it is actionable. In other words, heads I win, tails you lose.
As far as consciences: I agree there is protection for it. Why do you insist on ubiquitously reasoning fallaciously? Even if you thought I condemned conscience in this instance, it wouldn’t follow that I don’t allow for freedom of conscience at all. However, you’re begging the question again. I made an argument from the Confession you supposedly submit to, and the argument is that this isn’t an instance of freedom of conscience. You’re not interacting with the argument, Zrim. You’re simply repeating your original premise.
So, I am not trying to press the church into service of a particular political view. I could say the same thing about you. you said you’d discipline for Christian Jane having the abortion. But why not allow freedom of conscience? perhaps Jane lets natural revealtion inform her exegesis and she’s not convinced that her 8 week old fetus is a human person. And she’s certainly legally allowed to do it. If you don’t think that matters, you’ve lost the debate. The Confessions say that she is not free to tend to the destruction of the life of any whatsoever. Why aren’t you getting this? Zrim, the Confession says that it is an objective and public violation of the 6th commandment to do anything that tends to the destruction of any life. And since you think the Confession (catechsim) summarizes what is taugt in the Bible, then you believe that the Bible teaches that no one may do anything that tends to the destruction of any life.
Now, since, according to our thought experiment, voting to keep or make abortion legal on a single issue ballot is something that tends to the destruction of the life of some, then logic demands that you must believe that Christian Jane who votes in this way is guilty of an action (not a thought) that falls under the violation of the sth commandment. There’s just no out on this for you, Steve.
Show me where my logic is faulty or what premise is untrue. If you can do neither, you cannot rationally object to my argument.
LikeLike
1. If anything tends to the destruction of the life of any, it violates the 6th commandment.
2. Voting to make or keep abortion legal tends to the destruction of the life of some.
3. Therefore, voting to make or keep abprtion legal violates the 6th commandment.
Zrim accepts premise [1] (he’s a Confessionalist, after all). I can’t see how Zrim could deny premise [2]. Therefore, Zrim must accept [3].
Furthermore, Zrim argues with everyone under the sun about “Confessionalism.” Let’s see how serious he is. Here’s from the larger cathechism:
Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;
Since voting down the issue on a single ballot or referndum would be a “lawful endeavor” that “preserves the life of ourselves and our neighbors”, a Christian has the duty to vote it down (and I’m not even commenting on the problem that the Confession says we have the DUTY to not even THINK in certain ways).
Now check out the Heidelberg:
Q & A 105
Q. What is God’s will for you
in the sixth commandment?
A. I am not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor—
not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture,
and certainly not by actual deeds—
and I am not to be party to this in others;^1
rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge.^2
I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself either.^3
Prevention of murder is also why
government is armed with the sword.
Q & A 107
Q. Is it enough then
that we do not kill our neighbor
in any such way?
A. No.
By condemning envy, hatred, and anger
God tells us
to love our neighbors as ourselves,^1
to be patient, peace-loving, gentle,
merciful, and friendly to them,^2
to protect them from harm as much as we can,
and to do good even to our enemies.^3
Logic, the Confessions and Catechisms, and the Bible (since Zrim holds the Confessions are summaries of what’s in the Bible) all seem to agree that a Christian should and may not vote, on a single ballot ticket, to make or keep abortion legal (if we grant life starts at conception).
I know Zrim loathes agreeing with logic, will he agree with the COnfessions and Catechisms he claims to “submit” to? Let’s grab the popcorn and wait.
LikeLike
Paul,
As an outsider to this debate your scenario seems a little wooden. Why can’t I object on the grounds that it’s bad politics? Why can’t I make distinction(vote) in favor of limited federal intervention on the issue, which the referendum may violate. After Living in california for half my life I’m fairly convinced that ballot initiatives and voter referendums are much of the problem with california politics (redundancy and duplication on the books, all show and no go enforcement etc).
Can’t I discriminate against poorly crafted legislation even if in it’s wording it favors life? Are you gonna grill all your congregants, in session, on the whys and wherefores of their voting practices? Or maybe just the members who are also legislators?
I don’t care how you design your political hypothetical, politics is highly nuanced.
What if I’m convinced as a legislator, that the best course of action to preserve life is to pull it off the front page (red meat issue) and deal with it via taxation or penalty or beaurocratic malaise. What If I know as a legislator that part of it’s continued funding and support is because we’ve been unsuccessful in defining the argument in our favor and if we can just move it out of the public forum, it’ll die of it’s own weight. I’m not saying that this is the case with abortion, but it could be, there’s a lot of different ways to do politics. Straight up and down votes often don’t reveal the whole truth much less accomplish want your stated goal may be. It may make you sleep better at night and feel all righteous but it may be very poor politics.
I know if I was on a session I’d want no part of parsing out a legislator’s or a members motives for why they may have voted one way or another. Quite frankly, if I saw my session do that to a member I’m fairly certain I’d pursue charges against the session for overstepping their bounds.
LikeLike
Paul,
I wouldn’t allow for freedom of conscience for someone who did something that tended to the destruction of any life in his/her own body. But I think what s/he does in the voting booth is an entirely different question. And that’s the point here. I think what is still dividing us is a presumption about the nature of politics. You over-realize politics by suggesting that to vote for something that tends toward a destruction of life is the same as personally destroying life. But is voting against raising minimum wage, which can tend toward impoverishing lives, the same as personally impoverishing someone (as in withholding due wages)? I’d hope you’d say it isn’t. I sure don’t.
And what Sean just said. Why not make a political argument against a political view with which you disagree instead of conflating political action with personal behavior and suggesting ecclesiastical punishment? I know you’ll hate this, but it just seems to me that the argument you make (and which seems pretty popular, all the way to Rome where political agreement on this one is absolutely demanded) is the sort of conflation some political losers make: don’t agree with my political outlook? Fine, I’ll take the keys and shut heaven on you. Nyah. But shutting heaven is pretty serious business. For my part as a political loser, I’d rather be way more cautious about who gets shut out, and I am content to draw the line at what one does in his/her own body.
LikeLike
Sean,
“Paul,
As an outsider to this debate your scenario seems a little wooden.”
Right, it’s a test case scenario agreed to by Zrim and I.
Anyway, I see you’re trying to bring other issues into the discussion. You’re trying to offer other things that could be on the ballot. But, that’s not what we’re talking about.
Your last point is to simply speak in generalities and so it is unhelpful. The parameters have been defined and agreed to. I have laid out a valid argument. If my premises are true, you cannot deny the conclusion. Moreover, I showed that voting to keep abortion legal on a single issue ballot would be contra-confessional. Confessionalists who deny that those who vote for it to remain legal are guilty of violating the 6th are simply Confessionalist in word only.
Zrim
“Paul,
I wouldn’t allow for freedom of conscience for someone who did something that tended to the destruction of any life in his/her own body.”
I see, so you deny the Confession. The Confession doesn;t say “his or her own body.” It says the life of any.
“But I think what s/he does in the voting booth is an entirely different question.”
I know what you think. What you’re not able to do is argue for what you think or defeat my arguments against you.
And that’s the point here. I think what is still dividing us is a presumption about the nature of politics. You over-realize politics by suggesting that to vote for something that tends toward a destruction of life is the same as personally destroying life.”
This is a lie and I have discussed this before. Why would you think that I think the voter must be the Dr. doing the abortion or the woman having one? However, the Confession makes it clear that you can be guilty of murder even if you don’t yourself murder. The Heidelberg makes that clear. Where’s your counter argument?
“But is voting against raising minimum wage, which can tend toward impoverishing lives, the same as personally impoverishing someone (as in withholding due wages)? I’d hope you’d say it isn’t. I sure don’t.”</i.
Of course this is simply ignorance of the facts of economics, but this is a red herring so I'll leave it alone. Anyway, what is the analogous CONFESSIONAL point you’re trying to make here? Does the Bible imply this?
“And what Sean just said. Why not make a political argument against a political view with which you disagree instead of conflating political action with personal behavior and suggesting ecclesiastical punishment?”
Again, the Confessiona does this. Since the Confession gives a universal proposition, it covers everything that is an instance of it. Your argument is with logic and the Confession, not me.
“I know you’ll hate this, but it just seems to me that the argument you make”
The argument I make is logically valid and if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
“Fine, I’ll take the keys and shut heaven on you. Nyah. But shutting heaven is pretty serious business. For my part as a political loser, I’d rather be way more cautious about who gets shut out, and I am content to draw the line at what one does in his/her own body.”
Discipline need not be shutting out, Zrim. And, you’ve given no argument for how you can draw the line at what one does with his/her own body in this case. There is no certain exegetical argument (like there is for, say, the requirement for salvation), and there’s no limit to the natural revelation she could pull out which informs her exegesis. And there’s no Confessional argument you can appeal to because she’ll question how you can arbitrailly draw the line and not follow it in other cases of murder.
LikeLike
Paul,
This discussion has been pretty interesting so I’ll go ahead and dive in. The first issue is a question regarding the hypothetical ballot measure – what if a congregant didn’t vote on the issue at all? Would they be held liable for violating the 6th Commandment?
The second issue isn’t a question, just an observation that would complicate the issue were it a real ballot measure – The church would have to go to some uncommon measures to determine who voted what in a secret election. Any inquiry that the church makes into the voting record of its congregants would likely be an invasion of privacy and several other election regulations. This would at a minimum imperil the church’s tax free status among other problems that the church would face on the legal front.
Maybe your church experience has been different than mine, but even the churches that I attended with some inclination toward political involvement (voter guides, etc.) wouldn’t go as far as this hypothetical scenario proposes.
I agree that abortion is a violation of the sixth commandment, and those who vote (hypothetically) to uphold abortion rights have to answer at the very least at a conscience level how their political stance or vote squares with the implications of the 6th commandment. However the enforceability of these issues by the church is complicated to say the least.
LikeLike
Paul,
After reading your response, I’d have to agree with Zrim; you overrealize your politics. Which on further reflection is rather obvious I suppose, you’re trying to find valid application for an ecclesial document to a “common world” political scenario. You know what they say in logic about starting points….
Just for the record, I wasn’t trying to bring in other “ballot considerations” I was trying to highlight the NATURE of politics. But that’s ok. I realize you’re trying to hang a picture in a room that doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
Zrim,
>I wouldn’t allow for freedom of conscience for someone who did something that tended to the destruction of any life in his/her own body.â€
So you think the Confessions (Heidelberg, Larger Catechsism) bind the conscience by telling believers that they cannot THINK in certain ways?
What if a believer thought this: I think women may abort their unborn children. ??
Do you agree that it is their DUTY not to THINK this?
LikeLike
Sean,
“Paul,
After reading your response, I’d have to agree with Zrim; you overrealize your politics.
That’s an assertion minus an argument.
Again, I made an argument with a valid form. If the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. So, to deny my conclusion you can either deny the form or the premise. Specify which one and explain how, exactly, the form is either invalid or the premise untrue.
Of course, I don’t think I am doing what you think. I am 2K and I agree with Horton, Gadbois, and Stellman on this issue. Why these those 2Kers “over realize” politics.
I understand the NATURE of politics, thank you very much. You don’t seem to understand that stringing a bunch of assertions together isn’t an argument.
LikeLike
Jed,
“Paul,
This discussion has been pretty interesting so I’ll go ahead and dive in. The first issue is a question regarding the hypothetical ballot measure – what if a congregant didn’t vote on the issue at all? Would they be held liable for violating the 6th Commandment?”
Yes, and the Confession seems to support this. What if the good Samaratin “did nothing?” Indeed, the others that “did nothing” were not the ones who gave the beating, yet they were still morally blameworthy.
“The second issue isn’t a question, just an observation that would complicate the issue were it a real ballot measure – The church would have to go to some uncommon measures to determine who voted what in a secret election. Any inquiry that the church makes into the voting record of its congregants would likely be an invasion of privacy and several other election regulations. This would at a minimum imperil the church’s tax free status among other problems that the church would face on the legal front.
Right. It’s obvious that if no one told what they did, no one would fine out. However, in our agreed thought experiment, the voter makes it known. Notice that Zrim is defending the absurd example that will probably never see its way to a ballot box. He made initial claims that NO vote could EVER be disciplined. I cam up with this vote. He’s defending his initial claim, rather than backing down.
“I agree that abortion is a violation of the sixth commandment, and those who vote (hypothetically) to uphold abortion rights have to answer at the very least at a conscience level how their political stance or vote squares with the implications of the 6th commandment. However the enforceability of these issues by the church is complicated to say the least.”
If to vote for it is a violation of the 6th, then, as the Confessions say, the Christian has a moral duty to vote its legality down.
If I told my pastor that I hated Mr. Jones, he would tell me that I need to not hate Jones, but love him. My pastor would say that I am violating the 6th. If I continued to hate Jones, thought that I could hate Jones, and refused to repent, my pastor could discipline me (ask any Reformed pastor). Since the confessions cited also covers cases of voting for abortion (in our given scenario) under the ruberic of “murder” my pastor could do likewise.
LikeLike
Paul,
You selectively site the parts of my responses that allow you to rebut my conclusions. I’m not much interested in restating my reasoning over and over again, or submitting to your one man tribunal. I’ll stand with what I’ve said, if you find it lacking so be it.
LikeLike
Thought experiment for Zrim and Sean:
An Island country called Zwyla is a recognized country and has a total of 22 citizens. There are 11 Christians and 11 non-Christians.
Due to some local beliefs about the nature of man, etc., the Island’s political leaders (none of whom are Christian) agree that one of the citizens, Smith, may be killed. Smith is a non-Christian. Smith is legally innocent. He’s broken no law.
The country happens to be democratic and they say that they will have a vote on the matter. They draw a line in the sand and say that those for killing Smith stand on the right, those against stand on the left side.
If all the Christians go to the left, Smith will not be killed.
All the nonChristians go to the right.
10 Christians go to the left.
It’s a tie.
One Christian, Jones, thinks about it and then goes to the right.
This ensures that Smith will be killed.
Question: May Jones’ paster discipline Jones?
LikeLike
Sean,
I did not do so. If you think you answered me, so be it. Notice that you did not rebut the logical form of my argument or single out premise(s) that are false. Again, if you can do neither, my conclusion MUST be true. That’s just a logical point. Having to deny logic to remain “unconvinced” by my argument is enough evidence that you’ve lost the argument.
LikeLike
Sean, FYI, violating limited government does not morally trump murder. Anyway, Zrim and I had agreed that it was on a STATE’S ballot. I could go through and debunk your claims that are based on, as you admit, being an outsider and being uninformed on what Zrim and I have agreed to, but why should I? The point is is that none of what you said showed a illogical form or a false premise. Which means my argument goes through. Why should I respond if you haven’t rebuted my argument?
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, well, at one time you were here arguing for Christian plumbing, and you were doing so in a way that was critical of 2k. Now you seem to be singing Kum Bay Yah, Frame and DGH are really saying the same thing.
Go back and look at those old posts. (E.g., here).
As a refresher (with italics to simulate the “memory reverb” effect in 70s TV shows):
Zrim: … is the Bible necessary and/or relevant to any temporal enterprise?
JRC: … if you mean “everyâ€, then I would answer: the norms of Scripture are always “on†for a Christian. Those norms may restrict liberty in some cases and permit liberty in others. So some temporal enterprises — say, being a burger-flipper — might have so many degrees of freedom that the norms of Scripture might not be frequently obviously relevant. But the norms don’t disappear because of that; they simply recede into the background.
In some circumstances, a Christian burger-flipper may have to think about stealing, or working as unto the Lord, or loving neighbor as self, or executing his calling to the glory of God. And in such circumstances, the norms come into the foreground; and at those moments, the burger flipper should think Christianly and not commonly.
Wasn’t I arguing then, as now, that “thinking Christianly” about burger-flipping means nothing more nor less than obeying Scripture as needed?
Surprise! I meant it then and now.
—
I do think WSCal (and friends) and Frame would do better to find common ground than to carry their disagreements to the grave. If married couples must find ways to live with one another, how much more the body of Christ?
—
I don’t sing Kum Bah Yah with a straight face.
—
DGH: …a strain of “Reformed†thought exists out there that denies all neutrality and Enlightenment approaches and strives for a Christian foundation for all walks of life. Some of those arguments are more epistemologically-centric, and some are biblicist. Frame seems to partake of both.
Maybe the problem here is that I’m not at core a foundationalist (neither is Frame). So when you start talking about Christian foundations for all walks of life, I just don’t resonate at all.
I would say that there is a Christian framework for all walks of life. And I would point to the Confession as an excellent expression of that framework.
JRC
P.S. Not your fault, but I’m beginning to really dislike the term “biblicist.” When we get to the point that “biblical” is good, but “biblicist” is bad, we are torquing language to the breaking point.
LikeLike
DGH: You wrote: “CVD, if you agree with my points, why are you always here and at Heidelblog objecting to my understanding of 2k? Talk about dualistic.”
As I’ve always said, I am a 2K proponent in the WSC and Machen mold. Therefore, I agree with your general principles of 2K. Where I part company is when you or your followers who post regularly here and elswhere push 2K (a distortion, in my opinion) by improvident applications. Those applications are extreme, in my view. In effect, I believe you and your followers do not leave room for vigorous action by Christian citizens to participate in the civil realm as members of a democratic republic. At least your followers on this blog offer up strong rhetorical opposition to all forms of individual Christian-citizen political and social action with the same vehemance as if the actions were taken by the insitutional church. You and your followers apparently never can find a single instance of political-social-cultural engagement by individual Christian citizens that is not unwise or a confusion of 2K. (I may have missed one as I don’t read every essay or post, but I have not found one.) I can only characterize this verion of 2K as “radical” or “extreme” because it is outside the mainstream, at least as it is represented by the faculty of WSC to the degree they have made their views known. This verion of 2K, as expressed by some of your followers, would have condemned much of the political-cultural engagement that Machen undertook.
This extreme version of 2K (that sees all Christian political and social engagement as “culture wars” that is unwise for Christians) goes well beyond the WSC 2K paradigm, as I understand it. For example, even Prof. Horton, a strong proponent of 2K, has written approvingly of certain forms of individual-citizen political and social action (e.g., Christian-citizen action to oppose the slave trade, to abolish slavery, to enact child labor laws, to obtain a minimum wage, enivornmentl activism, Christian-citizen action to obtain civil rights for African-Americans, lobbying for civil rights, and Christian-citzen action to preserve Christian civil liberties and civil rights). But your followers on this blog, and apparently you, disapprove of such actions as “unwise” “activism,” a confusion of the kingdoms, etc. They argue Christians should “lead a quiet life”, accept infringement of their civil rights without complaint or cavil to the government, and not take action to protect their civil rights or the rights of others.
In short, on the general principles, I’m in total agreement with your expression of SOTC/2K. In the application, I respectfully disagree. And that is the reason for my expression of disagreement. I had though that was clear, but perhaps not. Hopefully now it is.
LikeLike
Paul, you’ve spilled a lot of pixels. But I’ve explained why I wouldn’t violate Bob’s conscience as it pertains to our agreed upon hypothetical. Predictably, it’s not nearly good enough for you. You’ve explained why you would bind Bob’s conscience, and predictably, it’s not nearly good enough for me.
But you wrote that “the Confession makes it clear that you can be guilty of murder even if you don’t yourself murder.” This is true, of course, but I think the point being made is that we are murderers even if we sit in a box all day, actually speaking and touching nobody, even if our unseen sinful being doesn’t actually manifest itself in visible and physical ways. I don’t think the point is to figure out who is an accessory to murder by how they vote, etc. And it seems to me that if your point is that we need to scrutinize how political outlooks translate into the personal behavior of murder we also have to do so for the other laws. So, if I think idolaters should be civilly protected and free to publicly practice their idolatry does that mean I am personally guilty of idolatry?
Jeff, I know this will sound pretty flippant, but after (what?) a year or so of the same line of questioning and the same answers given I suppose at some point pc-2k is like what they say about riding Harleys: for those who understand no explanation is necessary, but those who don’t no explanation is possible. That’s not a refusal to keep engaging you, just a pressure release valve for me. Carry on.
LikeLike
Jeff, I do live with Frame. He is in a NAPARC church. I don’t burn his books. But he is wrong about the RPW and that error is responsible for his strange view of worship and of the state. It is fuzzy through and through. It is also radical. Juggling may be possible in worship? An implicit defense of theonomy?
What I don’t get, and I think you are reasonable, is that you think 2k is radical.
LikeLike
CVD, you miss a lot.
1) 2k is fine with engagement in culture. It is impossible to avoid it unless you are a desert monk.
2) 2k has problems with cultural engagement that speaks of a Christian culture or a cultural mandate. The activity may be legitimate, the reasons for it are not. I don’t see how you can be 2k and think you are redeeming the state.
3) 2k is different from political philosophy. One may be 2k and a Democrat (Stellman, maybe). One may be 2k and a paleo-con (Hart). One may be 2k and a Whig (Horton). Because 2kers disagree on policies or laws doesn’t invalidate 2k.
Here is where you keep flip-flopping. On the one hand you seem to want approbation for what you do as an attorney defending Christians from the secular onslaught. Your rhetoric does suggest a culture war posture. Sorry, but it does.
On the other you seem to think that disagreement with you on certain policies or laws is a form of indifference to morality (i.e., antinomian). And you say you understand and approve of Machen. Well, Machen opposed child labor laws. Why? Because he was an uncaring curmudgeon? Maybe, but he also thought a host of progressive laws were changing the nature of federalism and republicanism in the United States. Sometimes bad things happen through well intentioned laws (such as Adam’s instruction to Eve, don’t even touch the fruit from the tree. . .)
If you were really 2k your rhetoric would change along the lines of the battle between Christians and non-Christians and you would be able to tell the difference between theology and policy.
LikeLike
DGH: What I don’t get, and I think you are reasonable, is that you think 2k is radical.
Where did the talk of “radical” come from? I missed the part where I said “radical.”
LikeLike
Oh, Zrim, you just refuse to attack the real deal instead of straw men, don’t you?
“But you wrote that “the Confession makes it clear that you can be guilty of murder even if you don’t yourself murder.†This is true, of course, but I think the point being made is that we are murderers even if we sit in a box all day, actually speaking and touching nobody, even if our unseen sinful being doesn’t actually manifest itself in visible and physical ways. I don’t think the point is to figure out who is an accessory to murder by how they vote, etc.”
Of course, this thought experiment of ours isn’t contingent upon “finding out” how people voted, the people make it known. Anyway, since it seems you’ve now admitted that voting for abortion to remain or be legal (in our scenario) is “murder,” then it seems you hold that Christian Jane “ought not” vote that way.
As I told Jed: “If I told my pastor that I hated Mr. Jones, he would tell me that I need to not hate Jones, but love him. My pastor would say that I am violating the 6th. If I continued to hate Jones, thought that I could hate Jones, and refused to repent, my pastor could discipline me (ask any Reformed pastor).”
I know you say you’re unconvinced, but an argument’s goodness and effectiveness is not dependent upon the interlocutor crying uncle. You can continue to assert that you’re not convinced, but that undercuts nothing I’ve said.
So I guess we’re at loggerheads again :,-(
LikeLike
Darryl said Horton is a Whig? That’s odd given his many criticisms of modernism, consumerism, modern market-oriented economy, and industrialism.
LikeLike
Jeff, Here it is, your comment on Oct. 6.
“Now, the structure advocated by pc-2k-ers is a radical separation of spheres, with the Christian living in one sphere on the Sabbath and another sphere on the other six days. By erecting a “rigid wall†(Zrim’s term) between the spheres, it is hoped that Christians will not confuse the spheres, which for Zrim is a kind of confusing law and gospel.
“[In the discussion here, some nuances have been offered: We all agree that Christians must obey the Scriptures 24/7. We all agree that common-grace reasoning is sometimes necessary in church (Robert’s Rules). I don’t want to leave those nuances unacknowledged.]
“Here’s the trouble: for entirely different reasons, middle America also wants a radical separation of spheres, with the Christian living in one sphere on the Sabbath and another sphere on the other six days. In fact, they consider it the American way to have completely different set of rules on Sun and Mon – Sat, and it is an offense to suggest that Scripture should inform one’s conduct on Mon – Sat.”
What was annoying about this comment is not only the use of “radical,” but also to use it in a way that clearly undercuts the very “confessional” separation our theological standards make, which do call for a division between one day and the other six. Not only do you go around the standards and apply a non-confessional one to us, but you also open the floodgates for a middle America which I believe you seriously misjudge. Everyone seems to want integrity not duality, and that’s why middle Americans want their churches to have a Starbucks in the lobby and a nice prime rib after the service at the local steak house (at least when the economy was chugging) before going home to watch some professional athletes break the Sabbath.
In other words, it’s the 2k boys who are much more concerned to uphold the Sabbath than the world transformers. When will the transformers notice their selective appeal to the Law and to the Standards?
LikeLike
Ah, now I see. Guilty as charged: I used the word “radical” (twice!).
I was wrong to use the term. I was searching for a synonym for “rigid” and landed on “radical.” The offense was inadvertent. A better term would have been “complete.”
What I should have said is, “Now, the structure advocated by pc-2k-ers is a complete separation of spheres, with the Christian living in one sphere on the Sabbath and another sphere on the other six days…”
DGH: Not only do you go around the standards and apply a non-confessional one to us, but you also open the floodgates for a middle America which I believe you seriously misjudge. Everyone seems to want integrity not duality, and that’s why middle Americans want their churches to have a Starbucks in the lobby and a nice prime rib after the service at the local steak house (at least when the economy was chugging) before going home to watch some professional athletes break the Sabbath.
How is this “integrity”?!?! Seems obvious to me that it is a bifurcation: “When I’m in church, I listen to the Bible. When I walk out the door, I listen to my gut.”
How is it a manifestation of integrity to say, “Yes, abortion is wrong, but it shouldn’t be illegal”? (Hint: if abortion is wrong, it is wrong for a reason — and the 14th Amendment ought to kick in. IF we cared about integrity).
How is it a manifestation of integrity that I walked into WalMart yesterday to buy a cell-phone and ended up with a plan that was different from the advertised plan?
How is it “integrity” seen in our recent financial crash? In political advertisements? In our dealings with foreign countries? In our insane drug policies?
America doesn’t care about integrity. It cares about image.
Anyways, we could argue about middle America until we’re all speaking Chinese. The real question is, am I applying a non-Confessional standard to you?
I don’t think so. I’m simply noting that the Confession requires us to use Scripture in our common lives. And you don’t deny it — except that sometimes you seem to.
As in:
JRC: In fact, they consider it the American way to have completely different set of rules on Sun and Mon – Sat, and it is an offense to suggest that Scripture should inform one’s conduct on Mon – Sat.
DGH: What was annoying about this comment is not only the use of “radical,†but also to use it in a way that clearly undercuts the very “confessional†separation our theological standards make
Do you really think it is non-Confessional to believe that Scripture informs our behavior Mon-Sat? That’s how it appears.
LikeLike
Jeff, how about letting Scripture inform the Lord’s Day? You don’t seem to mind that people break the Sabbath. This is what I don’t get. The transformers don’t seem to want to keep the Lord’s Day holy. But they want me to think about the Bible when I’m writing footnotes.
The other important difference is that you don’t seem to be willing to grant that the Bible is silent on a whole host of activities in which we engage during the week. That’s why we have this thing called Christian liberty. But when you try to apply the RPW to all of life, you don’t have Christian liberty, which is the flipside of the RPW. Where the Bible speaks we obey. Where it is silent we have liberty, except for the church which has no liberty to bind consciences apart from the Word.
This is really a simple point that Frame (and you?) seem to miss. But it is everywhere evident in the exchange between Frame and T. David Gordon on the RPW.
BTW, I was using integrity in contrast to duality (you know, a unified life as opposed to a bifurcated one), not as a form of honesty or virtue. People these days don’t like distinction between formal and informal, public and private, sacred and secular. Most want those distinctions broken down so that the Lord’s Day looks like any other day. At least the New Schoolers were good Sabbatarians.
LikeLike
Paul, yes, we have always been at loggerheads. There is a basic principle at stake, one that concerns the liberty of conscience. You are saying that an individual’s political views and actions are finally no different than personal behavior, and I am saying there is a significant difference between the two. You employ logic to conflate them, I employ common sense to distinguish them. If you ask me, this particular political question, while admittedly something of a third rail, is pretty good for putting the doctrine of conscience to the test. And from where I sit, and I know you’re completely unconvinced, if we don’t allow Bob his political outlook without threat of ecclesiastical sanction then we fail the test, and it becomes very unclear who’s next in line to be have his voting record checked and then his conscience misguidedly (tragically?) bound.
Maybe you think conscience is less important than life and thus we can afford to let it slide for the sake of lives. But keep in mind that the highest temporal good, even life itself, is something that Jesus said ought not to come between us and him (i.e. it’s a point about idolatry and casting the radical difference between this penultimate life and the ultimate life to come). If Jesus is right when he says we ought to hate our lives then it seems to me he is putting a sobering perspective on how important we think temporal life is, and maybe conscience gains a little more importance. And maybe, as a bonus perhaps, we back off a tad more when casting our political opponents as wild-eyed and blood-thirsty “baby killers†or mafia thugs.
LikeLike
DGH: You don’t seem to mind that people break the Sabbath. This is what I don’t get.
That’s actually not true. And in particular, I’ve moved to a more Sabbatarian stance over the last five years.
Where we disagree is on why people are not Sabbatarian. On your account, this is because they want all days to be the same. On my account this is because they want to isolate their church life to their actual church time. God gets this time-slice; once I’m out the door, I’m done with that.
So being Sabbatarian would break the bifurcation: now, God gets some of my non-church time.
It may be that both of our analyses have elements of truth. But I find it counter-intuitive to argue that
(1) Transformational Christians want to move Scripture into all of life, so
(2) They want to ignore Scripture on the Sabbath.
Wouldn’t (2) be the opposite of (1)?
DGH: The transformers don’t seem to want to keep the Lord’s Day holy.
I’m not sure you’re entirely right about the first. I’ve certainly seen some instances of transformers dissing the Sabbath, so I don’t want to dismiss it out of hand. But the arch bogey man transformers, the Federal Visionaries, are just as strongly Sabbatarian as you. So mark me as ambivalent.
DGH: But they want me to think about the Bible when I’m writing footnotes.
And so do you. Writing footnotes (under circumstances where one ought) is a form of keeping the 8th commandment, is it not?
DGH: The other important difference is that you don’t seem to be willing to grant that the Bible is silent on a whole host of activities in which we engage during the week. That’s why we have this thing called Christian liberty.
“silent’ is an absolute term. I don’t grant that Scripture is silent on any activity; I do grant that it has more or less to say on this activity or that. And that to the extent that Scripture doesn’t specify, we have liberty. I know that’s not the way you want me to say it, but I can’t swallow the term “silent.” And, I don’t find that the relative silence divides up along sacred and common lines. Jesus has a lot to say about money and family; not so much about church government.
DGH: But when you try to apply the RPW to all of life, you don’t have Christian liberty, which is the flipside of the RPW. Where the Bible speaks we obey. Where it is silent we have liberty, except for the church which has no liberty to bind consciences apart from the Word.
The Real Rule is: what Scripture says, we must follow. In the cases of worship and faith, Scripture provides an RPW stricture; so following Scripture results in the RPW for worship and faith.
DGH: This is really a simple point that Frame (and you?) seem to miss. But it is everywhere evident in the exchange between Frame and T. David Gordon on the RPW.
You notice that Frame doesn’t think that T. David Gordon correctly captured his view.
For my part, I think Gordon is correct to criticize Frame for failing to connect the RPW and Christian liberty. BUT, I think Gordon (and you) are incorrect to say that Frame doesn’t believe in Christian liberty. He does; he just expressed it differently in the “Fresh Look” article.
Look, it’s nonsense to say that Frame doesn’t believe in Christian liberty. Right there on the first page, he affirms it:
When I change a tire, I should do it to the glory of God. The details I need to work out myself, but always in the framework of God’s broad commands concerning my motives and goals.
How is that any different from WCoF 20.2-3?
DGH: BTW, I was using integrity in contrast to duality (you know, a unified life as opposed to a bifurcated one), not as a form of honesty or virtue.
I understand. The two are not completely divorced, however. Integrity-as-honesty requires a unity between one’s words, principles, and actions.
I think we can agree here: not all compartmentalization is bad.
Can we agree that compartmentalization can be dangerous?
For example, my cell-phone kerfluffle was probably not caused by dishonesty. It was (given the situation as it unfolded) probably caused by the ignorance of the salespersons involved.
But why ignorance? Because the information they need to represent the products fairly is hidden away in obscure places. A lack of data integrity resulted in a lack of sales integrity. That lack of sales integrity, if it becomes common, is tantamount to dishonesty.
Structure will out: the structures we create for ourselves become the fundamentals that shape our behavior.
—
So where are we? Zrim is riding away on his Harley.
I’m standing here wondering whether “rigid” is supposed to mean “complete.” When you say there is a rigid wall between the spheres, do you mean that there is complete separation between the spheres?
LikeLike
Jeff, it was just a joy ride to unwind a spell.
Where we disagree is on why people are not Sabbatarian. On your account, this is because they want all days to be the same. On my account this is because they want to isolate their church life to their actual church time. God gets this time-slice; once I’m out the door, I’m done with that…I’m standing here wondering whether “rigid†is supposed to mean “complete.†When you say there is a rigid wall between the spheres, do you mean that there is complete separation between the spheres?
To the extent that you seemed in this original criticism to say 2k and middle America (allegedly) are the same you also seem to be saying something here about 2k, namely that 2k’s rigid distinction between the Sabbath and the six days results in a noxious bifurcation and hopeless irrelevancy. And to the extent that my original rejoinder to you was that middle America is actually more friendly to evangelical religious relevance and hostile to 2k antithesis, this is a pretty classic evangelical criticism. It stems from a low view (even if alongside a high opinion) of the Sabbath and all that it entails in its activities and to that which it ultimately points. From my own experience within it and my own efforts to try and be a good one long ago, the evangelical outlook basically wants religion to be relevant and is categorically opposed to any idea that there is in point a fact a time to be sacred and time to be secular—this is why the book of Ecclesiastes is the epistle of straw to the evangelical neo-cals and the most inspiring book of all to 2k paleo-cals. The Sabbath and its resident rituals and contemplations ARE different and accenting their differences is absolutely key. The evangelical translates that into irrelevancy precisely because he fails to understand the irrelevancy of relevancy. All of life isn’t worship because only worship is worship. Just like if everything were grace nothing would be, if all of life were worship then nothing would be. The evangelical turns his nose up here and accuses the confessionalist of being “one thing on Sunday but another on Monday-Saturday.†Well, yes, that’s exactly true, but not because we are duplicitous but because we are dualists, big difference. The irony is when the evangie turns worship into homeroom where we gather to get the latest news, three songs and a pep talk he actually does what he accuses the confessionalist of doing: punching in once a week and then turning from the mirror and forgetting his own image.
LikeLike
Zrim: To the extent that you seemed in this original criticism to say 2k and middle America (allegedly) are the same …
“The same”? That lacks the precision of the original. They are similar in structure, quite different in motive. Not “the same.” If we’re going to draw distinctions and stuff, then here’s one to draw. A fish and a whale are similar; they aren’t the same.
… you also seem to be saying something here about 2k, namely that 2k’s rigid distinction between the Sabbath and the six days results in a noxious bifurcation and hopeless irrelevancy.
No.
I’m saying that pc-2k-ers don’t actually practice what they preach.
You say that there is a rigid wall between the spheres, but you also say that there are exceptions. So much for rigid.
Then you say that the RPW governs those exceptions, such that special revelation governs the Sabbath and general revelation, the commons. “Scripture is silent about the secular realm!”
But then you grant that Scripture has a lot to say about the family and money, two of the biggest areas in the common realm.
And I imagine that *in practice*, you don’t look much different from me: Scripture informed by conscience, you exercise your liberty while attempting to be wise and glorify God.
Right?
If so, then the words you use just don’t add up to the things you do.
The words you use create this stark architecture — which then suffers the death of a thousand qualifications.
All I’m saying is, if a non-pc-2ker can get WCoF 20 and live with it, then why should anything else be necessary? This whole business about spheres and rigid walls isn’t the real rule.
LikeLike
I’ll admit though that Edwards’ writings were so occasional that it is hard to pin him down systematically.
Not the east of which is his apparent occasional-ism in OS. 🙂
LikeLike
“This whole business about spheres and rigid walls isn’t the real rule.”
I would beg to differ. I’m sure it’s been discussed before, but I haven’t noted it lately here, and that is a challenge to the assumption that cultic norms SHOULD norm a non-cultic world, and life in the common sphere. Actually, I take that back, Hart’s been doing this with Frame discussion. Everywhere in scripture post-fall cultic status is privileged status not assumed birthright (except ethnic Israel- and that because of their privileged status). In other words, the reason you don’t apply the RPW to a common world is that that world/culture doesn’t have a right to it. God hasn’t covenanted with them uniquely and set them apart as a people with particular cultic practice. Since the fall cult and culture have undergone, by God’s hand, because of man’s sin, a violent bifurcation. This is plainly seen in the Israelite theocratic state over against their neighbors culture. It’s a state of existence peculiarly identified by cultic practice and is why Paul makes claims such as; remove the sexually immoral from among you but not yourselves from the sexually immoral of this world (unregenerate)- for what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church who you are to judge?. God judges those outside
This is why we don’t stake out maternity wards waiting for a chance to throw water on the newest infant. Baptism paedo or otherwise is privileged status. It’s according to God’s demarcation not our own. The scriptures talk of other countries being jealous of Israel’s God, and Israel’s practices but they had no right to them, they had no claim on God. God had not chosen them.
This scriptural phenomenon hasn’t changed, covenant status is privileged status, chosen status. The primary reason you don’t norm a common culture with cultic norms is they don’t have a right to it. They haven’t been chosen for it. The sabbath and the sacraments ( particularly cultic practices) bring this in bold relief. The common cultural institutions are still governed by God and are still good but they aren’t sacred they aren’t cultically set apart, so they don’t get normed the same nor should they. The only commonality they share is that natural law does some double duty (i.e. robert’s rules), but this isn’t something new for reformed folk we’ve long argued for large continuity between natural law and the moral law, what else would you expect if you hold to imago dei. So general revelation is more than adequate to norm a people and a culture without particular cultic status.
Sorry to be so remedial about this but as I read these discussions I see these boundary lines get blurred and trampled on, and I’m not so arrogant as to believe that neo-cals don’t acknowledge these distinctions except in the most extreme of cases, but they do seem to get left behind as I see certain particular applications or developments get argued for.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I asked you a question about thinking. The Confession says that THINKING in ways that violate the 6th is a violation of a moral duty. Does the Confession deny liberty of conscience? Besides that, your point gains whatever force it has by being cast in generalities. Of course it sounds better to cast me as saying “that an individual’s political views and actions are finally no different than personal behavior,” but of course that’s not what I’m saying. First, we’re talking about *one* view. Indeed, we’re talking about more than a view (but remember the confession covers THOUGHTS). We’re talking about an *action*. And I have given an argument from the Confession, which you claim to submit to, that says our person in our situation is guilty of violating the 6th. I gave an argument for that and you have, I repeat myself, not shown how the form is fallacious or whether any premise is false.
You claim that you apply common sense to distinguish them, but here’s the problem with that move. I don’t think so. Indeed, I think my position is the common sensical one. But I’ll go you one further. The Confession you submit to says that if we even THINK in ways that violate the 6th, then we are immoral. Now, suppose a Christian has the political view that our Government can round up all the homeless and kill them. The Confession would say that this man is immoral for THINKING—let alone acting—this.
So, with that I’ve defeated your argument from freedom of conscience and have shown you, again, to be out of bounds on the Confession. You must understand why I don’t take your praise of Confessionalism as anything other than mere lip service.
LikeLike
All I’m saying is, if a non-pc-2ker can get WCoF 20 and live with it, then why should anything else be necessary?
Because, Jeff, we have the Paul Manata’s of the world at once affirming WCoF 20 and telling us we must bind the consciences of those whose politics aren’t ours. That’s duplicitous. We also have folks like the Bayly’s who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, nurture the spirit of civil disobedience.
But I’ll go you one further. The Confession you submit to says that if we even THINK in ways that violate the 6th, then we are immoral. Now, suppose a Christian has the political view that our Government can round up all the homeless and kill them. The Confession would say that this man is immoral for THINKING—let alone acting—this.
First, you keep creating analogies and coming up with hypotheticals that are pretty absurd. Nobody really thinks this way. Aren’t you the one who keeps saying we have to engage the best of our opponents’ views, instead of creating the worst and then knocking them down? And even the crackpot few who might think this way are still only guilty of being loons, not personally and publicly breaking a law the way the guy who walks downtown and shanks a homeless person is. Second, and again, the point of saying that we are guilty in our thoughts isn’t to smoke out bad politics, it’s to make a spiritual point about our total depravity. When Jesus says we are guilty for having lusty thoughts he isn’t saying that people who want to legalize prostitution are personally guilty of prostitution, he’s saying all men are pigs no matter how enlightened they think they are and eternally guilty for what the flesh considers the slightest infraction.
LikeLike
This is why we don’t stake out maternity wards waiting for a chance to throw water on the newest infant.
+1 for humor. The image is hilarious. 🙂
Now, -2 for logic. 😦
In other words, the reason you don’t apply the RPW to a common world is that that world/culture doesn’t have a right to it.
I’m sorry, I was under the impression that Christians live in this common world also? In which case, some of the world/culture has a right to it, and some does not.
And in any event, this talk of spheres keeps overlooking the main thing: the RPW applies to two actions — faith and worship — and not to one sphere or the other.
The church belongs in the cultic sphere. But the RPW does not apply to all activities of the church.
The individual Christian belongs, supposedly, to the common sphere in his common actions. But if the government orders him to contradict Scripture, then WCoF 20.2 sanctions disobedience. (And I’ll send anyone who disputes this to vanDrunen’s NL2K).
The reason I keep “trampling on these boundary lines” is that appear to be incorrectly, inconsistently drawn. It sounds and feels great to say that the world doesn’t deserve Scripture, but Christians live in the world.
And what about that natural law, anyway? Is it not the Law of God, the decalogue? The world “deserves” that, somehow, right?
Zrim: Because, Jeff, we have the Paul Manata’s of the world at once affirming WCoF 20 and telling us we must bind the consciences of those whose politics aren’t ours. That’s duplicitous.
Then argue that instead of going on about spheres.
If all you really mean with this talk of spheres is that people ought to take Christian liberty more seriously, then argue what you really mean. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Machen was long on liberty and short on spheres.
LikeLike
What can I tell you Jeff? You and I have different conceptions of the RPW and it’s legitimate use. In my mind your use flattens out distinctions. All of life is worship, on the ground, looks like everything is the same without distinction, which is an obliteration of spheres not just a blurring of lines. Thus 2k vs 1k I suppose.
And yes Christians do live in this common world and they need to live in it in such a way as to not confuse the sacred with the secular or the temporal with the eternal. I really am not sure how to lay that all out any better than it has already been, and not particularly by me. If these aren’t commonly understood or accepted concepts to trade upon in this conversation, I’m fairly certain I won’t have the patience or time to hammer them out in a combox. I suppose I can try, I’m just not very good at saying the same thing over and over again but differently. It makes me grumpy. I would need to borrow Zrim’s hog.
LikeLike
Jeff, and to jump on the pro-distinction bandwagon, you need to think seriously about the idea of the Bible’s silence. If the Bible is as expansive as you suggest — you used to defend Christian plumbing and now you’re down to money and family — then the church may bind the conscience of all Christians on everything. Do you really think that the Bible has a position on national health care? But your position would send all theonomists, hard and soft, in search of instruction on how Christians should vote, xian legislators should legislate, and xian Magistrates should magistrate.
And here is your big inconsistency. The Bible speaks to everything and yet no one is bound by it because its speaking to everything does not yield one right position. In other words, biblicism actually breeds relativism. Sorry, but I’d actually like a Bible that is authoritative.
LikeLike
The individual Christian belongs, supposedly, to the common sphere in his common actions. But if the government orders him to contradict Scripture, then WCoF 20.2 sanctions disobedience.
How are you getting this? It’s this side which maintains that faith demands civil obedience to boos and hisses. And just to be clear, as it has been said before, there is place for civil disobedience when authorities instruct direct contradiction of clear moral law or cultic disobedience when they directly instruct suppression of the gospel.
But, no, WCF 20.2 doesn’t sanction civil disobedience (because 20.3 condemns it), it sanctions disagreeing with other believers about that which Scripture is silent. And when other believers, no matter their ecclesiastical station, lend heavenly sanction to their mere opinions it becomes a “tradition of men†that may be opposed freely.
If all you really mean with this talk of spheres is that people ought to take Christian liberty more seriously, then argue what you really mean.
Jeff, talk of spheres and taking liberty seriously go together. It’s both-and, not either-or. But you’ll notice that in my exchanges with Paul where my point is to take liberty more seriously I don’t really bring up spheres, though it is in the background.
LikeLike
Zrim: How are you getting this? It’s this side which maintains that faith demands civil obedience to boos and hisses.
JRC: But if the government orders him to contradict Scripture, then WCoF 20.2 sanctions disobedience.
Zrim: And just to be clear, as it has been said before, there is place for civil disobedience when authorities instruct direct contradiction of clear moral law or cultic disobedience when they directly instruct suppression of the gospel.
So you agree with me, but you’ll throw in the “how are you getting this?” just out of reflex? This is like the “that’s a terrible idea — hey, I’ve got an idea!” schtick. To quote DGH, “Puleeze!”
Or perhaps you agree with me, but wonder where it’s found in 20.2?
Here ya go:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word … So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience
Keeping in mind two things: (1) the rich history of Reformed resistance theory, and (2) the immediate context of the Westminster Assembly, I think it’s hard to not see civil disobedience sanctioned here. You might also consider that Acts 4 and Rev 13 are used as prooftexts for WCoF 20.2.
LikeLike
DGH: You used to defend Christian plumbing and now you’re down to money and family.
I believe you’re mistaken on the record here, and I would appreciate it if you would correct the impression you give.
JRC (March 1, 2010): The issue for me is not, has never been, that the Bible provides additional information about city-building or about plumbing that provide the “secret key to building better cities.â€
JRC (Jan 1, 2010): This approach, even though described as “extending Scripture to all of life†does not thereby make Scripture a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Scripture informs my plumbing; it regulates my plumbing; it does not of necessity dictate every aspect of my plumbing.
JRC (Jan 2, 2010): …and you [DGH] have previously agreed with me that a Christian plumber is still obligated to fulfill the 10 Commandments in his plumbing, and that (under the right circumstances) this might even affect his choice of materials or some other pragmatic aspect of his plumbing … IF the violation or fulfillment of a command were in view.
Well, that’s functionally substantially equivalent to what I mean by “the Bible regulating our plumbing.â€
So I don’t actually object to your practice. You do the same things I do. I only think that “Christ as creational Lord†is awkward and doesn’t accurately describe what you do. As applicable, Christ’s commands are also normative for the believer acting in the common sphere.
DGH: (Jan 2, 2010): And I agree that for you [JRC] and me the practices of a Xian plumber would likely be the same? But why do so many critics of the 2k position go out of their way to argue for Christian plumbing?
Then, as now, I was saying that “Christian plumbing”, properly speaking, is nothing more nor less than a Christian, regulated by Scripture to the extent that Scripture speaks, engaging in plumbing.
And you agreed with me that this was an acceptable procedure.
So I find it very odd that (a) you forgot the agreement, and (b) you have recently tried to tag me with “defending Christian plumbing” in the full-on transformationalist sense.
Just a quick perusal of tags shows that “Christian plumbing” is your issue, not mine.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’ve no problem with your reading if you’re presuming that the civil magistrate is demanding a direct contradiction of clear moral law or suppression of the gospel. So, yes, in that sense we do agree. But I’m also suggesting another problem I think 20.2 covers: ecclesiastical authorities unlawfully binding consciences on matters where the Bible is silent (e.g. Paul disciplining Bob for the way he votes).
And given that we don’t live in a civil context very close to the divine’s Constantinian one anymore, the problem of civil magistrates demanding either direct contradiction of clear moral law or suppression of the gospel, while certainly possible of course, seems sort of irrelevant to our time and place. What seems much more relevant is where ecclesiastical authorities are directly or indirectly binding consciences or in some way suggesting heaven is on their political side and/or against their political opponents. You have to admit, we have way more religious leaders of whatever political stripe suggesting in one way or another that their projects are heaven’s (from MLK and Wallis to Dobson and Bayly) than we have civil magistrates telling us to break moral codes or shut up about Jesus.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“Because, Jeff, we have the Paul Manata’s of the world at once affirming WCoF 20 and telling us we must bind the consciences of those whose politics aren’t ours.”
This is a lie, Zrim. What does the confession say about doing that? You are purposely phrasing my position in highly generalized terms that include obviously false examples.
Second, Zrim, I gave you an argument for my view. Why is it that you are not interacting with it? Let’s leave aside that you have not shown a fallacious argument or a false premise in my formal argument, I just gave you another argument from the Confession and you are not interacting or responding to it in any way. Is it because you can’t?
I take liberty as seriously as one can, Zrim.On your view Jesus bound consciences because he told other people that to hate another person was to commit murder. Why do you think you’re more holy than Jesus?
Again, Zrim, the Confessions bind the consciences at relevant areas. Liberty of conscience, Zrim, only applies to those areas where the Bible says nothing. But I have argued that the Bible covers this area. And so you are begging the question. That is not intellectually virtuous. If you have to ignore the argument of the other side, and then respond to straw men and beg the question, that’s a sign that you have lost the debate, Zrim.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“Jeff, I’ve no problem with your reading if you’re presuming that the civil magistrate is demanding a direct contradiction of clear moral law or suppression of the gospel. So, yes, in that sense we do agree. But I’m also suggesting another problem I think 20.2 covers: ecclesiastical authorities unlawfully binding consciences on matters where the Bible is silent (e.g. Paul disciplining Bob for the way he votes).”
I gave an argument that the the action under discussion was a violation of a moral law. Why don’t you get this, Zrim? The Bible IS NOT silent on the matter. I argued for that from the Confession, which YOU claim properly summarizes the Bible. Moreover, I showed that the Confession says that Christians have a DUTY to not even THINK in terms of taking the lives of legally innocent persons. You are saying the Bible is silent without interacting with my argument to the contrary. Saying so doesn’t make it so, Zrim.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m sorry if I went back on an agreement. But here’s the thing, you do keep trying to say that the Bible speaks to all of life. And you do have problems with the idea that the Bible is silent. I said and still say the Bible is silent on what constitutes plumbing (as opposed to honesty). Where we apparently keep butting heads is over the adjectives. Because the Bible speaks of honesty and because Christians should do all things honestly, then you seem to conclude that the Bible speaks to all of life.
In my mind, this is simply equivocation in the realm of reasoning, and ironically not a very honest way of doing it.
And what it ends up doing is giving Christians excuses for poor work. The plumber can say, I didn’t use the right gasket, but I was honest in how I did it.
And this points precisely to the problem with Frame’s defense of biblicism. By sending Christians to the Bible for all of life, they miss what’s right before their eyes in the order of creation — which gasket to use.
LikeLike
Jeff, by the way, on this point of WCF 20.2, I don’t see how you can read into it resistance theory when 20.4 has the last word in the chapter (i.e., you don’t need to go outside the confession to interpret the confession):
“And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.”
LikeLike
DGH: “Or lawful exercise of it” — ’nuff said.
LikeLike
“And what it ends up doing is giving Christians excuses for poor work. The plumber can say, I didn’t use the right gasket, but I was honest in how I did it.
And this points precisely to the problem with Frame’s defense of biblicism. By sending Christians to the Bible for all of life, they miss what’s right before their eyes in the order of creation — which gasket to use.”
As a Christian and a business owner, I don’t think I can overemphasize how true this phenomenon is, and I was guilty of it, on and off, for a couple of YEARS. It’s one of the more embarrassing episodes of my life. Rather than assume upon or rely upon your skill at a craft, you overthink/analyize the “biblical”, ‘testimonial”, “ethical” aspect of what you’re doing and you screw up the task. Uugh!
That experience/reality alone was enough to cure me of much of my excessive piety.
LikeLike
Paul,
I understand your logic isn’t silent on it, but I believe the Bible is quite silent on how reproductive legislation should be decided. And you’ve taken the position of prosecution of Bob, so it seems to me the burden of proof is still only on you. I’m sure you’ve convinced those who hold your politics and the already persuaded. But I’m also one who holds more or less to your politics (disagreeing with Bob), and I’m not persuaded that he should be ecclesiastically punished.
And, frankly, your line of argumentation so far reminds me of my substance use/worldly amusement legalists who weave together all sorts of arguments for why the Bible isn’t so silent on what we consume, or my educational legalists who argue that the Bible isn’t silent on how education should be delivered to believers. There are soft and hard versions of both, and all think that zigging from their legalist zagging is fit for punishment, whether soft or hard. I know you’re none of these, but it seems to me you’re offering up a political legalism. What’s always interesting to me is how Reformed think they’ve circumvented legalism when really they only circumvent the most popular kind (substance use/worldly amusement). They don’t realize that legalism is a set of principles that can be easily applied to anything. I know you duck when the conversation of education arises in your own Reformed circles, since you employ public education. And my sense is that you do so because you understand, like me, how educationally legalistic our environs can be. Something tells me that might be how the Bob’s of our Reformed environs feel because they know how politically legalistic we can be.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, I’m sorry if I went back on an agreement.
I forgive you. I didn’t think it was purposeful.
As to the rest, I’ll respond later. I don’t resonate with your example (or Sean’s) — to my mind, the excuse “well, at least I was honest” makes it seem like being honest can be decoupled from doing an excellent job at plumbing, as if we can have one without the other.
But Sean, I’m glad that you have abandoned excessive piety. We can certainly agree there.
JRC
LikeLike
I don’t think Dr. Keller is 2K in the same way Dr. Hart is 2K, but I don’t think Keller’s foreward here is critical of 2K theology. He is critical of both transformationalism and 2K theology when “not applied thoughtfully and wisely.” I’ve heard and read enough of Keller to know he believes in transformation as a byproduct of Gospel growth in society, but he doesn’t believe in some mandate to transform culture as Christians. His belief is that if Christians apply God’s law at work, in the arts, etc., those things will be more like the kingdom of God rather than man. Not that the quality work itself will be better, but that it will be ethical, selfless, etc. I think he would be very close to Dr. Hart in terms of the church’s relationship to politics. At least that’s how I read him…
LikeLike
ZZ, I’d say that Keller is implicitly critical of 2k because the belief that Christian work in the culture and arts will be “more like the kingdom of God” fails to recognize what 2k posits, that the kingdom of Christ is distinct from the kingdoms of this world. Keller elevates cultural activities to “kingdom work,” which explains all the talk of word and DEED. That’s a 2k no-no.
LikeLike
I agree, Dr. Hart. Keller is certainly not a thorough-going 2Ker, but there is probably much more common ground than you think…
LikeLike
Jeff, you don’t think it’s possible to do an excellent job of installing a new ignitor on a furnace and charge an outrageous $175 instead of the more honest $12? But isn’t that just as possible as doing a crummy job of installing and charging honestly? True, we all want the best of both worlds, and my Dutch Reformed mechanic gives it to me, but so does the pagan barber, which sugegsts to me that religious belief doesn’t have any bearing on getting the best of both, especially since I’ve also been screwed by both believers and unbelievers (the Christian furnace guy wanted over $3500 to replace a perfectly good furnace, and the Dutch mechanic’s believing father-in-law switched out the ingnitor for $12).
Zeke, it’s hard to believe that Keller “doesn’t believe in some mandate to transform culture as Christians” when his church’s vision statement is “…To bring about personal changes, social healing, and cultural renewal…”
LikeLike
Zrim –
Again, I believe Keller would say that cultural renewal and social healing occur as a result of Christians completely obeying God’s moral law, not through imposing new laws or picketing abortion clinics.
LikeLike
Zeke,
I’ll give you this, I can stomach Keller a lot better than I can all the Keller devotees trying to imitate what he’s doing in New York. They aren’t Keller and they’re in Podunk USA(compared to Manhattan) trying to round up all the monied christians and marry them to the local bohemian sect and sell it as “transforming the city”. Talk about hipster, trust fund baby christianity.
LikeLike
It seems to me that two kingdom theology needs to be absolutely clear when it speaks of the nature of the two kingdoms. Darryl Hart writes: “I’d say that Keller is implicitly critical of 2k because the belief that Christian work in the culture and arts will be ‘more like the kingdom of God’ fails to recognize what 2k posits, that the kingdom of Christ is distinct from the kingdoms of this world.”
The way I’ve heard the two kingdoms described is that one kingdom is creational and one is redemptive, and that Christ rules over BOTH. That is a fine statement and may very well be biblical. But you cannot say that and then make a distinction between the “kingdom of Christ” and the “kingdoms of this world.” Either Christ rules over both kingdoms or he does not. Or perhaps you are speaking of two pairs of kingdoms – in which case you may need to come up with some fresh terminology if you think the Bible teaches two sets. Anyway, confusion abounds.
LikeLike
Zeke, yes, I believe he would as well. And by defining social healing in such a way that is less “outside in” and more “inside out” he would be articulating a soft transformatinalism over against a hard one. The other problem with such a formulation is that it depends on “Christians completely obeying God’s moral law.” How does that square with something like:
HB
Question 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
Answer. Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.
Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?
Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.
WCF, XIII (Of Sanctification)
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
To the extent that you accurately represent Keller, I think it is right to reject this sort of “outside in†effort or more objective means to Christianize, etc. But what Keller seems to suggest as an alternative is what I find even more interesting. Specifically, it seems to assume that the hard models of “outside in†are passé and to be highly questioned, but that, instead, we should perhaps go the way of the “inside out.†Simply put, to make people Christians. I have no quarrel there at all, of course. However, the question is, To what end? And the “inside out” approach still seems to have in mind that just doing this for its own sake is not enough; that converting souls is below the threshold. The final point seems to be to convert souls so that they may be rightly ordered so that they might, in turn, have an appreciable effect on the society in which they live in the here and now (which seems quite different from the paltry idea of merely converting them in order to prepare them for the life to come instead). Changing the world—whatever that might mean—is still the goal, only it should probably be an inside job. That sounds really good until I read the above sections from the forms. But, aren’t we making Christians in order to prepare them for the world to come instead of renewing this one?
LikeLike
akaufmann, it’s really not that hard. England is a monarchy. We could call it the Kingdom of England. Does that mean it’s not under Christ’s creational rule. Would you add “of Christ” to the name of every nation, say, the United States of America of Christ?
Plus, if you keep your eyes on the bouncing keys, you’ll note that no state has the keys of the kingdom and the church is, as the WCF puts it, the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Zrim –
I agree completely with your assessment of Keller. His approach does seem to be one of “inside out” transformation, as you put it. I like Keller a lot and agree with much of what he does in ministry, but I understand your concerns about “making Christians” being the end goal of ministry. My guess is Keller would agree that it is the end goal, but that social transformation is a natural (and desirable) consequence of making Christians.
LikeLike
Zrim,
“I understand your logic isn’t silent on it, but I believe the Bible is quite silent on how reproductive legislation should be decided.”
Right, got it. Apart from your phrasing things in highly contentious, ambiguous, and generalized terms (I never said anything about how “reproductive legistlation should be decided”; indeed, there’s already been a reproduction!), the only snag here is that I argued for my view citing the confession and you have not met the challenge. I also showed that the Confession goes far beyond what I’m claiming. I get the impression you;d like to cut those parts out. If not, how on earth do you square them with your view?
LikeLike
Zeke, I think that is the difference. Some would say that making more Christians doesn’t make the world any better, and to say it does smacks of arrogance. Grand Rapids is teeming with believers, but it’s no better than any other place (some might say it’s worse than some). Making Christians is simply a matter of obedience, and to presume it makes the world better seems to be what some tell themselves who aren’t content with mere obedience.
Paul, again, you’re the prosecutor here, not me. The burden is yours to show how the confessions say Bob should be disciplined for his political views. You’ve made your argument, I’m not convinced, I’m not disciplining Bob. I understand that to you to disagree with your argument is to be wrong (what’s new?), but I’m good with simply casting an opposing vote against his in the voting booth on Tuesday and sitting next to him on Sunday around the Table.
LikeLike
Zeke, Tim Keller’s remarks seem pretty clear that he is a full blown transformationalist and in no sense a 2k devotee. Those many pastors in the PCA who are struggling to mimic him or his ministry get that. Indeed, one of the primary agenda items that is front and center in their knock-off Redeemer churches is transforming the culture to become more like the spiritual kingdom. One Redeemer knock-off pastor admitted that it’s all about transformation. I’m not being critical of Dr. Keller because I admire much of his ministry, particularly his apologetic work and his books, but to be clear, he’s a full on transformationalist, Kuyperian. That doesn’t make him a bad person, just not a 2Ker.
LikeLike
Zrim, your speculation about Keller’s end goal for converting people to Christ is not accurate. Having read a good deal of Keller, I think I can safely say that he has thoroughly Reformed views about conversion. He does not see evangelism or conversion as a means to transforming culture. Evangelism is its own goal, for him. His point is rather that transforming culture happens a lot easier if you do it from the bottom up — if you have a culture that is composed of a whole lot of Christians. Then the cultural norms and laws naturally change. That certainly has historical precedent. Where I would disagree with him is that the civil realm is not intended to be transformed into the spiritual realm because they are divinely ordained to be and to remain distinct.
With that said, Christians in their individual capacity can work for proximate renewal and healing in the civil realm. But not to transform it. The goal is never to force it to become what it cannot be, a redemptive or spiritual realm. It’s important to bear in mind that the same action can be undertaken by a transformationalist or by a 2K Christian, with each having different purposes or goals. For example, I’m working on a series of cases to fight various municipalities’ efforts to regulate and shut down Crisis Pregnancy Centers (run by Christians) through the imposition of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and suppression of free speech. We’re seeking to have these laws overturned and injunctions issue retraining city officials from enforcing them. Some of my colleagues are transformationalist evangelical Christians, while others such as I are 2K proponents. We agree on the action, but disagree on the purpose or end goal. I’m not trying to transform the cities, just preserve liberty for Christians to express their biblical convictions.
LikeLike
DGH: But here’s the thing, you do keep trying to say that the Bible speaks to all of life. And you do have problems with the idea that the Bible is silent. I said and still say the Bible is silent on what constitutes plumbing (as opposed to honesty). Where we apparently keep butting heads is over the adjectives. Because the Bible speaks of honesty and because Christians should do all things honestly, then you seem to conclude that the Bible speaks to all of life.
In my mind, this is simply equivocation in the realm of reasoning, and ironically not a very honest way of doing it.
The “equivocation” comment had me thinking all day long, wondering where you are coming from and contemplating whether you are correct.
So I’m going to attempt to be as careful as possible here, and I’m hoping that you’ll say more as well.
To my way of thinking, “being honest” means “attempting to truthfully represent oneself.” That is, being honest is an action, a verb, NOT a state of being.
As I understand it, Scripture tells us that in all of our activities, we are to “be honest.”
So this means for me, the Christian plumber, that part of my job consists of being honest. If I replace your toilet and then charge you double what I quoted, then besides being stupid, I’m also being a bad plumber.
AND, tellingly, the Better Business Bureau will take an interest.
So to respond to Zrim: if you gave me two plumbers, one skillful but dishonest, and the other shoddy but dishonest, and then asked me to recommend a plumber, I wouldn’t recommend either one.
Now you respond that this gives cover to the shoddy plumber who justifies himself with “at least I was honest.”
I don’t get this. If being honest is part of the job, and being skillful is part of the job, then I would say that our shoddy plumber is … not getting the job done. That doesn’t seem hard to me.
Now, if we’re talking about a pietist plumber who thinks that the state of his heart is the main thing (“I blew the job, but my heart was in the right place”), then I would respond: Being honest is an action. If you said, “I’ll fix your pipes” and then did a bad job at it, then you didn’t honestly represent the work you were going to do.
(What plumber would advertise: We do shoddy work?)
It’s a James-like argument: if you don’t deliver the goods, how can you say that honesty dwells within?
So to my mind, the problem here is (possibly?) that you are thinking of honesty as a state-of-being or a condition of the heart. If instead we think of honesty as an action, the action of Telling the Truth, then honesty is simply one action out of many that Christian plumbers must undertake, along with getting the right address and fixing the right pipe and using the right joint compound. It’s a part of a Job Done Right.
Does this make sense? Do you still think I’m equivocating?
LikeLike
To follow up a little further:
James tells us that love will necessarily connect to action. He does so as a part of a larger argument, that faith will necessarily lead to action also.
For this reason, I view right action as a part of loving one’s neighbor. That is: just as faith is not an inward state of being or a feeling, but a reception of God’s promises as Truth, so also love is not an inward state of being or a feeling, but a commitment to the best interest of my neighbor.
Here’s how this plays out in my teaching. I’m not naturally an organized person (except, oddly, when it comes to computer files and abstract structures). But for the sake of my students, I put effort into being organized. Love, even of a meager sort, informs my work and pushes me to do a more excellent job. I see the need: my students need their papers back on time so that they can have feedback; I devise a plan to meet the need.
I just don’t see that as problematic. Do you?
LikeLike
And just to come full circle: What it means, then, to say that “the Bible speaks to all of life” is to say that the norms articulated in Scripture are always on; they are part of the universal to-do list.
So in all things, I am to love my neighbor. Why? Because it is a transcendent norm found in Scripture. In all things, I am to be honest. And so on.
Every action in life is normed by Scripture.
That doesn’t mean that every action in life is specified by Scripture.
Can you see the difference?
LikeLike
His point is rather that transforming culture happens a lot easier if you do it from the bottom up — if you have a culture that is composed of a whole lot of Christians. Then the cultural norms and laws naturally change. That certainly has historical precedent. Where I would disagree with him is that the civil realm is not intended to be transformed into the spiritual realm because they are divinely ordained to be and to remain distinct.
CVD, his point, then assumes something I don’t. I’m not convinced of the notion of transforming culture be it a sacred notion or a secular one, because both depend on a sunny view of human nature. I think there are religious and non-religious versions of utopianism, where adherents seem to think that if there were more of them and their ideas around and holding sway that things would be better. But I think that flies in the face of the Reformed doctrine of human sin: as long as sinful people are around there will be nothing new under the sun. So, start wherever you like—bottom or top—sin still abides and that is the point missed.
I don’t dispute that there is historical precedent for culture norms and laws naturally changing when a particular religious group gains cultural ascendency. That’s what Constantinianism is. What I dispute is the idea that when we gain such power it is a better arrangement than if others do (again, the sin point). But we and the others are sinners, so that fact pretty much puts the kibosh on notions of transforming things for the better.
Christians in their individual capacity can work for proximate renewal and healing in the civil realm. But not to transform it.
I guess I’m not clear on what the principled difference is between “renew/heal†and “transform.†They seem relatively synonymous. And what I do in my individual capacity is what I would consider a whole lot of maintaining. I really don’t “renew or heal†much. Maybe that’s because I’m not very spiritual or something, but when I observe my fellow believers, even those who espouse transformationalist ideas, I see them doing a lot more maintaining than renewing/healing/transforming as well.
LikeLike
Jeff, I can see how that makes sense if we don’t distinguish between ethics and craftsmanship. If a good craftsman crafts a good product but cheats me somehow then he’s a lout, not a bad craftsman. It’s a comment on his moral character, not his skills. Granted, I don’t recommend the lout who tried to cheat me out of $3500 (I amended his name from “Shafsma†to “Shafts-yaâ€). But it’s not because I don’t think he could install a furnace well, but because he’s a cheat; he’s not a bad HVAC guy, he’s a lout. Still, the point remains that there are plenty of pagans who give me good products and treat me ethically, so it would seem that faith is not necessary to get the best of both worlds.
LikeLike
Zrim,
It’s not that we don’t distinguish; we just don’t divorce.
There are also pagans who say the creeds, BTW. They don’t glorify God in doing so.
LikeLike
Jeff, I regret causing you grief. I wasn’t charging you with dishonesty per se. What I am saying is that to say that the Bible speaks of plumbing is equivocal and dishonest. The Bible does not talk about plumbing. Any person who picked up a copy would know that.
So then you want to say that it speaks about the motives or the adjectives surrounding plumbing. That’s fine and I agree. But it’s that little bait and switch that I find really annoying, not so much in you but in all those 2k critics who say that 2kers are unfaithful, cowardly, and even that we deny the Bible. The reason they do this is through your argument. The Bible speaks to all of life because it speaks to honesty and Christians should be honest in all they do. Well, the Bible doesn’t tell me how to fix a leak. But yes it does comes the answer. Fix the leak honestly. Sorry, but my leaks require more than honesty.
So the problem is back with your discomfort with the Bible’s silence about plumbing. This has been in the background of many of our exchanges. I still don’t understand why you are so uncomfortable with it. I know (from what I can tell at a blog) that you are not a theonomist. But you share the theonomist’s discomfort.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I thought this was about doing good work, not glorifying God? But I agree that unbelief doesn’t glorify God, because only faith does, which means that the believer who does inferior work still glorifes God while the unbeliever who does superior work doesn’t.
(And we don’t divorce either, but sometimes our attempt to distinguish in order not to conflate gets mistaken for divorce.)
LikeLike
DGH:
Back to plumbing again? You are quite funny.
LikeLike
Zrim: (And we don’t divorce either, but sometimes our attempt to distinguish in order not to conflate gets mistaken for divorce.)
YES, indeed. In fact, I spent several months in 2008 thinking you were talking about divorce.
And that’s really where we are: how can we express “distinguish” so that it is very clearly not “divorce”?
For my part, I think that words like “rigid wall” and “silent” (as opposed to “says little”) probably set you up to be misunderstood.
And for your part, it seems that words like “speaks to all of life” are open to misunderstanding also.
And certainly, if we’re getting to the point that we are consecrating our plumbing tools in a worship service, then there’s misunderstanding going on.
So the question is, What is the best language to convey “Distinguish but not divorce”?
DGH: Thank you. I agree with you that there is a theonomist way to run with “the Bible speaks to all of life” — and that this should be pushed back against.
For my part I think that the proper basis is probably to push hard on the “Christian liberty” front in terms of good and necessary inference.
LikeLike
Zrim: I thought this was about doing good work, not glorifying God?
“Good teacher…”
“Why do you call me good? There is only one who is good…”
I would argue that we should not divorce doing good from glorifying God, either.
LikeLike
Jeff, as you know, I perceive a connection between the confusion of creation and redemption and the confusion of law and gospel (little wonder to me that FV has so much theocratic strain within it). It seems to me uncontroversial that Reformed believers should want to protect the integrity of the latter, since it is the basic hermeneutic of the material principle of the Reformation. Equally uncontroversial would be the idea that guarding law and gospel requires quite rigid language, which oft-times is misunderstood. So, because of the connection, I’m as willing to run the risk of being misunderstood when it comes to making points about creation and redemption as I am when it comes to making points about law and gospel. I don’t think it is possible to eliminate misunderstanding, so I don’t worry about it. I do think it’s possible to be clear in saying that creation is no more redemption than law is gospel.
LikeLike
I would argue that we should not divorce doing good from glorifying God, either.
I’m not divorcing, I’m prioritizing. Faith alone is required to glorify God, but not a faith that is alone. It seems to me that if we don’t prioritize like this we can end up saying good work without faith can glorify God, which sounds pretty works-righteous-y.
LikeLike
Zrim:
You contend that we cannot “transform” culture either secularly or spiritually due to human sinful nature. It depends on what you mean by “transform.” We can’t transform the civil realm into the spiritual kingdom because unregenerated people cannot be spiritual or even begin to obey God from the heart, and because God ordained the two kingdoms to be distinct. But we can improve the culture and the human order for the better. It never becomes redemptive, but it can improve. For example, we ended slavery, reduced invidious discrimination, elevated justice and civil order, found cures for diseases, and healed bodies and minds. That’s huge, and it’s pleasing to God. And these things happened despite human sinful nature. They happened in the civil realm. These advancements did not transform the civil kingdom into a spiritual kingdom. Nor did they convert. But they brought improvements that reduced suffering and made a better life for many millions of persons made in God’s image.
Something in your 2K sheme prevents you from celebrating those kinds of acheivements in the civil realm. Your scheme is so other worldly and hyper-focused on the spiritual kingdom that you seem to not only not see any value in these acheivements, nor any value in working for these acheivements, but you deny that they even happen. This is regretable. It’s apparent that your version of 2k ideology blinds you to the obvious.
You assert that it makes no difference to the culture is Christians gain the ascendancy. this is demonstrably false. To take just one example, when the Evengelical Revivals led to mass conversion of person in Great Britain, laws began to express principles of Christian mercy and justice. Child labor laws were enacted, the slave trade was ended, reforms in education occured, and on and on.
Finally, you asked what is the difference between renewal/healing and transforming? As used by neo-Kuyperians, by “transform” they mean to Christianize, to make turn the civil realm into the spiritual kingdom so that there is a functional identity between them. We in the 2k camp deny that that is even possible in principle. The difference, then, is between turning the civil realm into the spiritual realm versus marginally improving the civil realm. But just because the civil realm cannot become the spiritual realm does not mean that the civil realm cannot be improved on the margins, and that we should not try. As Christians take part in these actions to improve the culture, we can bring glory to God, and the Lord is pleased that we showed mercy, helped the poor, and brough justice. Never perfect, but modest improvements.
LikeLike
CVD, one of the problems with your critique of some 2kers is that your ebullience for progress either blinds you (or you simply ignore heuristically) the down side that comes with improvement. So we eliminate slavery and we have Jim Crow. So we heal diseases and now we can turn human reproduction into a factory model for procreation. And we get rid of segregation and see African American institutions decline.
What I see in many of your comments is a habit of equating the “good” developments with Christianity. Not only do you ignore the “bad” developments that come with the good. But at a more basic level, books like Ecclesiastes teach that it’s bad theology to equate the sunshine, wealth and food with God’s favor. I mean, isn’t that what characterizes paganism?
LikeLike
CVD, my skepticism has less to do with a hyper-otherworldliness than it does with a doctrine of total depravity. But my Calvinist-amillenial outlook tells me that the human condition across every time and place neither improves nor worsens as time either progresses or retreats. If it helps, a realistic view is not only good for cooling the jets of those who think too optimistically of human achievement, but also those who are inclined to a gloomy pessimism that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. I’m sure you think I’m a pessimist, or at least not excited enough, but my pessimists think I’m a little too sunny, or at least not sufficiently worried. Realism can’t win for losing.
Your pointing to all the things modern westerners esteem and prize and then tying it to Christianity (and revivals of all things, oh my) to prove that “everyday and in every way it’s getting better and better” is not too unlike my neo-Kuyperian friend who does the same thing. He then asks me, “Are you seriously saying you wouldn’t rather live here and now instead of in Jesus’ time and place?” The implication seems clear: our time and place–with toilet paper, paved roads and democracy–is superior to any other. My answer to him is that of course I prefer my time and place, not because it’s better than somebody else’s but because it’s mine. I think those reasons are significantly different.
LikeLike
DGH, are you arguing against progress and improvement? Should we aim at decline? Should we sit on the sidelines while evil grows?
You seem to assume that if human progress in eliminating evils or suffering in the civil realm is not complete or perfect, it isn’t worth it. The best is the enemy of the better? We can agree that we all live in a fallen world, where improvements are proxmimate, temporary, and imperfect. Does it follow that the improvements are on that account to be rejected, or that work for improvement is unnecessary? If your loved one contracted pnuemonia, would you reject penicillen because science also gave us embryonic stem cell research? If this is your contention, yours is a grim and dark outlook, indeed. If this is your argument, you seem to assume that evils would not befall us but for the improvements. Of course they would, only worse.
How far do you carry this campaign against progress? Since formerly Christian lands were overtaken by Islam, should the church not evangelize?
I don’t necessarily attribute all human progress to Christian faith, but to God’s common grace and the earnest efforts of dedicated Christians working side by side with non-Christians in our common sphere — as Kline describes the civil sphere. I don’t know where you got the notion that I was equating sunshine with God’s favor. I attribute sunshine to God’s common grace that casues the sun so shine on the just and unjust. But as a matter of fact, it is fair to credit Christian citizens with many positive improvements to the civil sphere. Christians have had a major impact on achieving respect for the value of human life, helping the poor, the hospital movement and health and medicine, education, contributing to civil liberties, helping to eliminate the slave trade, positively impacting science, improving life for the family, the civiliizing of he uncivilized, inspiring great art. Christians’ contributions have not been an unblemished record, but nonetheless they have been huge.
LikeLike
Zrim, your and my doctrine of total depravity does not hold that humanity’s native abilities or sense of natural law and justice are obliterated. Unregenerate sinners can come to understand how to build a building or have a good marriage or cure polio or recognize injustice. I still submit that your version of 2K being opposed to improvements in the civil realm is false to scripture and toxic in its effects.
LikeLike
CVD, right, total depravity isn’t utter depravity. This is a 2k point against the theonomists. Unbelievers are remarkably capable of doing temporal good, often outpacing believers–probably because theirs is a temporal project while believers are on an eternal path.
But doing good and bringing about righteousness seem to be two different things. It’s funny, when you say “proximate justice” you sure seem to have an “exact justice” tone.
LikeLike
Zrim, I never said that we aim to do good to bring about “righteousness.” That’s a category mistake, and your citing it is a straw man fallacy.
The overall record of “doing good” temporally by Christians far outpaces that of non-Christians as a matter of history.
As a lawyer who works in imperfect courts with flawed judges, I’m all too aware that justice is never “exact.” It is always proximate and always imperfect under the sun. It’s only perfect under heaven. But some justice is better than none, which is why we are called to generally obey the (imperfect and sometimes corrupt) civil authorities. . The influence of Christian values in western law is huge. Your Michigan civil codes were derived from laws written by Christians trying to track biblical principles. I prefer the version of justice that the Western nations have inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition to other versions that evolved in nations that did not know the gospel (e.g., Sharia law, honor killings, etc.). If you doubt this, read the Qu’ran.
LikeLike
DGH: The reason they do this is through your argument. The Bible speaks to all of life because it speaks to honesty and Christians should be honest in all they do. Well, the Bible doesn’t tell me how to fix a leak. But yes it does comes the answer. Fix the leak honestly. Sorry, but my leaks require more than honesty.
Yes, there sure is an equivocation right there — on the word “how”: (“What steps do I take to fix the leak?” v. “In what manner do I fix the leak?”)
So let’s agree that we want to put a stop to the equivocation.
For my part, I think this is clear enough:
“The Bible puts a framework around all of life.”
To me, it makes clear that
(1) The norms are always “on” — we must be honest, loving, etc. in all that we do; but
(2) The details are not all specified.
Do you object to that language?
So the problem is back with your discomfort with the Bible’s silence about plumbing. This has been in the background of many of our exchanges. I still don’t understand why you are so uncomfortable with it. I know (from what I can tell at a blog) that you are not a theonomist. But you share the theonomist’s discomfort.
I find “silence about plumbing” to be an ambiguous phrase, capable of supporting an equivocation also.
Does it mean that Scripture has nothing directly to say about plumbing? True. Does it mean that nothing Scripture says has any bearing on plumbing? False.
So I’m uncomfortable because “silence” suggests, well, 0dB. No words at all. And of course, that’s not true. Some of the things said in Scripture — few, actually, but some — do encompass plumbing.
Or put another way: The following syllogism is logically valid but disturbing.
(1) Scripture is silent about plumbing.
(2) Scripture tells us to do all things to the glory of God.
(3) Therefore, plumbing is not something we do.
*BAM* my head exploded.
Or put yet another way: isn’t saying “Scripture is silent about plumbing” a kind of wooden literalism? The argument runs, The word “plumbing” isn’t in the text, so we’re done. And of course, word-concept fallacies and just plain silliness are now on the table.
I think what you’re trying to get at is that Scripture does not give us steps for plumbing, SO THAT the Christian plumber has a large degree of freedom in his method, SO THAT many theonomist or transformationalist attempts to box the plumber in with Scripture are simply misguided. Is that fair — that your end goal in saying “Scripture is silent about plumbing” is to preserve proper Christian liberty?
If I’m reading you right, it might be more accurate to say that “Scripture does not give specific guidance to plumbers, and we should not speak where God is silent.”
That kind of language leaves the door open (a hair) to consider the places where God is *not* silent about our plumbing — in being honest, for example; but it also closes the door (in the main) against those who would add to Scripture. It removes the ambiguity.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
CVD, it’s not that anyone has a fight with the sorts of things you cite as evidence of progress or justice, etc. It’s the interpretation you seem to have of them. I mean, who could really oppose the eradication of polio? Not me, my kids have all their shots and I’m quite glad for them. But for every eradicated disease, soft or hard, there are multiple sicknesses that hang on, not to mention the costs that come with eradicating things. These sorts of complications are what bubbly progressives never seem to take into account.
And I have to say, when you say things like, “Your Michigan civil codes were derived from laws written by Christians trying to track biblical principles. I prefer the version of justice that the Western nations have inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition to other versions that evolved in nations that did not know the gospel,” I really don’t know what the principled difference is between your set of assumuptions and those of the transformers you like to ceremoniously ding. That’s precisely how they speak. And I know you like to contrast Christians in power with Muslims in power, but it’s still a matter of sinners in power, and that’s much more significant than their brand of religion.
LikeLike
CVD, it may not be a question of rejecting some of the developments of the modern world as much as it is one of praising them as if they had no negative consequences. I may take penicillin, actually I’m allergic, but that doesn’t mean that don’t see that with antibiotics come other dangers. I don’t see that in your understanding of the world. It’s as if it is always a win-win. This is a poor way to evaluate history, especially modern society.
And if you think I’m pessimistic, have you tried Calvin? Here he is on the cross:
“But if the equity of God is undoubtedly displayed in affliction, we cannot murmur or struggle against them without iniquity. We no longer hear the frigid cant, Yield, because it is necessary; but a living and energetic precept, Obey, because it is unlawful to resist; bear patiently, because impatience is rebellion against the justice of God. Then as that only seems to us attractive which we perceive to be for our own safety and advantage, here also our heavenly Father consoles us, by the assurance, that in the very cross with which he afflicts us he provides for our salvation. But if it is clear that tribulations are salutary to us, why should we not receive them with calm and grateful minds? In bearing them patiently we are not submitting to necessity but resting satisfied with our own good. The effect of these thoughts is, that to whatever extent our minds are contracted by the bitterness which we naturally feel under the cross, to the same extent will they be expanded with spiritual joy. Hence arises thanksgiving, which cannot exist unless joy be felt. But if the praise of the Lord and thanksgiving can emanate only from a cheerful and gladdened breasts and there is nothing which ought to interrupt these feelings in us, it is clear how necessary it is to temper the bitterness of the cross with spiritual joy.”
What you call pessimism may simply be sober-mindedness.
LikeLike
Jeff, way too complicated. As an elder I do not have the biblical revelation to evaluate the work of a plumber. I am not even sure if I have enough to judge whether he is doing it honestly.
But your extensive response suggests to me a real discomfort with accepting that God has only revealed so much. You want more. I think that is the chief motive behind biblicism, that plus the failure to recognize that God has provided a lot of guidance (not of a conscience binding kind) in gen rev.
LikeLike
Zrim, we’re all quite aware that improvements to a fallen world do not eradicate all problems in a fallen world. I quite agree. Now, what is the “therefore” in your argument? What conclusion do you draw? Given the context, the inference I’m taking from your remarks is that you oppose efforts at improvements. Is this true? If I’ve drawn the wrong inference, what is your argument. Please clarify?
You state that my comments about Western law being derived from Christian values reminds you of “transformationalism.” I think this is telling. Like Pavlov’s dog, you have an automoatic reflex response to anything that reminds you of anything you don’t approve of. I’m as far from a transforamtionalist as one can be. But the heart of our versions of 2K is that you conceive of 2K as world-withdrawing, and I conceive of it as compatible with world engagement. As Prof. Horton has written, individual Christian citizens have been in the forefront of championing civil rights and human rights for the betterment of the civil realm. This from a 2K advocate. But this kind of rhetoric reminds you of neo-Cals, so you break out in hives. Chill out.
LikeLike
DGH, I’m not certain what argument you are making. No one doubts that there can be unintended consequenses of a good thing. I don’t doubt that injustices and problems in society will always be with us. I’m painfully aware that problems remain, and will always be with us. I’m aware that with technological improvements come other problems. So what conclusion do you draw?
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, way too complicated.
OK, I’m open to simplifying — as long as we don’t simplify inaccurately.
“The Bible is silent on plumbing” is simply false, unless meant in a woodenly literal sense. The Bible speaks in some ways to all activities in life; plumbing is an activity; therefore, the Bible speaks to plumbing. (IIRC, Horton said this also).
So what language would you suggest that passes the twin tests of simplicity and accuracy?
DGH: As an elder I do not have the biblical revelation to evaluate the work of a plumber. I am not even sure if I have enough to judge whether he is doing it honestly.
That’s a not a good way to determine whether the Scripture speaks to issue X. The Bible has a lot to say about the family, but elders do not have enough information, often, to judge whether husbands are loving their wives as Christ loved the church.
DGH: But your extensive response suggests to me a real discomfort with accepting that God has only revealed so much. You want more.
Stop and reflect again on my responses above. My supposedly complicated response was carefully crafted to allow the Scripture to speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent.
My discomfort isn’t with the Scripture — it’s with an oversimplified portrayal of Scripture.
LikeLike
One of the major reasons, BTW, that I feel very certain that it is wrong to say “The Bible is silent on plumbing” is the existence of WLC 123ff.
If Scripture were truly silent on common grace areas, as you suggest, then there would be liberty in those common grace areas.
But the Westminster divines sure didn’t feel shy about telling superiors that they must not command inferiors tasks they can’t perform; or telling people to stay away from lascivious songs, books, and pictures; or telling people — yes, even plumbers — that they must be just and faithful in their contracts.
They couldn’t say all of that if Scripture were truly silent, could they?
LikeLike
CVD, I make points the second use and you infer a denial of the third use, I make points about total depravity and you read utter depravity. Now I suggest a more sober interpretation of developments in the wider world and you hear think I “oppose efforts at improvements.” Talk about salivating dogs. But I suppose like the third use point had to be spelled out, no, I do not oppose efforts at improvement. And you seem to think that putting a sober perspective on developments in the wider world means something about being world-flight. I’m not sure how you get this, but I think it may something to do with assuming in the first place that the best way to see anything worthwhile happen is through legal avenues, so to suggest the inherent flaws of litigiousness is to be world-flighty. Odd.
And hives and chilling? Really? After all the shrilly and reckless descriptions here and elsewhere about those of us who see things differently from you? Maybe you think 2k is a good old boys club, but I don’t see why when card-carrying 2kers speak like transformers it mayn’t be pointed out. What you said was, “I prefer the version of justice that the Western nations have inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition to other versions that evolved in nations that did not know the gospel.” Using a popular phrase that was invented in the mid-20th century, that sounds like the gospel has a direct and obvious bearing on political arrangements. But the west descends from a Greco-Roman tradition, not the gospel. The church descends from the gospel.
LikeLike
Zrim, what I’m searching for is why you felt compelled to “suggest a more sober interpretation of developments int he wider world ….” You can’t have imagined that I (or any adult) is unaware of the intractable problems in the world. Your premises appear to be in search of a conclusion or argument. The clear inference is that the efforts are not worth it, and that inactivity is more pious. The clear inference is that you are critical of those who are active in trying to improve the civil sphere, and that your opposition rests on your 2K premises. This is consistent with your “quietism” and reflexive criticism of each and every example of active engagement we have ever discussed. I know of not one public cultural engagement activity you are not critical of. The conclulsion is inexorable that your version of 2K has an extraordinarily high component of world-flight, non-resistance, and disengagement from the civil sphere. That component may not be 100%, but it seems to come close.
LikeLike
Zrim, that you think I speak like a “transformer” evidences the problem. Anything that reminds you of “transformationalism” you run from in a quite unreasoning way that suggest more blind prejudice than thoughtful reflection.
I could say that, with your nonresistance and nonengagement rhetoric, you sound like a Mennonite. And you do. Read a Mennonite web site, and their 2K arguments, you will feel quite at home. I dont’ say that, however, because I recognize that there are material distinctions between your Reformed theology and their theology, if one drills down beneath your rhetoric. What you can’t grasp is that Christians can pursue world improvement without tring to transform the state into the church. There are quite sound and biblical reasons to do good that are based on love for neighbor and not transforming the civil realm into the spiritual realm.
LikeLike
CVD,
I don’t know. I don’t think it’s representative at all to say that Zrim or Hart think or propound that christians can’t seek the betterment of the civil realm. In fact I’ve seen where they’ve both written on the liberty a christian has to do just that. I think the distinction lies in that a person’s pursuing a betterment of the civil realm isn’t a christian distinctive or article of the faith. Particularly as it exhibits itself in political activism, in which other christians may illicitly attempt to bind the consciences of fellow believers in support of this or that political hot potato. I further think that in light of a “burnt over” america when it comes to marrying religion and politics, they might in fact argue that a more compelling way of engaging that same culture is to NOT play upon or manipulate their “patriotic” affections and in doing so possibly unencumber a gospel in america which is often straining under the weight of carrying so many different political ambitions.
LikeLike
CVD, let me try this. Let’s say that some 2kers think the world would be better with more Walmarts, and some others think it would be better with less.
It’s a simple matter of how each, when contemplating the civil sphere, thinks the best way to go about the civil arrangement is and what constitutes a wiser approach. I’m skeptical of the sort of legislative-political activism you esteem because I think it actually does more harm than help. It’s not that betterment of the civil realm or engaging it is the point of contention here between us, it’s how we do it and why. Maybe you also want more Walmarts, fine, but I think that’s a terrible way to build communities.
Re sounding like a Mennonite, it’s a fair enough point. At the same time, though, I’d point out that when you suggest that the gospel has some positive and direct bearing on nation building (“I prefer the version of justice that the Western nations have inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition to other versions that evolved in nations that did not know the gospel”) that Anabaptists think so as well. They think it means the magistrate should be non-coercive or that believers should turn the other cheek even when civilly wronged, you seem to think it implies something about civil rights or child labor laws. With Luther, I’d rather live under a wise Turk who knew nothing of the gospel than a Christian who thought the gospel had anything whatever to do with governance.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Somehow I am always busy when you guys are having the Christian plumbing, but for now time permits and I will jump gleefully into the fray, plumbers crack and all.
Your argument for Christian plumbing is as follows: the Bible says we should glorify God in everything we do, therefore the Bible speaks to all that humans do (generally), therefore by inference Scripture speaks to plumbing generally.
For plumbing to ever be rightly undertaken with this premise two preconditions must be in place:
1. You must have a skillful plumber.
2. You must have a redeemed plumber who is concerned about glorifying God in his plumbing. (As opposed to glorifying God by winning converts, scouring the job site for poor souls to pray for, and a whole range of other holy activities that keep him from having to glorify God by actually doing his job – but I digress.)
Now, it would be great if the world was full of God honoring plumbers, but let’s suppose some other conditions were at play:
1. You have a godless, hard-living, salty old plumber who has two passions in life, a) cheap whiskey, and b) plumbing.
2. This crusty old plumber has mastered both passions.
Of these skilled plumbers all other conditions being equal (and the worldly one is sober enough to work), whose plumbing is better? The correct answer is neither most of the time, at least in my experience in the wonderful Plumbing industry. This is probably true of nearly any lawful vocation.
So while the Bible may speak to plumbing in a very general and indirect way, it really doesn’t have any bearing on plumbing’s final purpose, which is a functioning system. The reason is that plumbing is neutral, even if the spirit it is done with isn’t. Plumbing can be used for tremendously good purposes like providing clean water and oxygen among other systems to hospitals. It can also be used to deliver Zyclon-B to prisoners in concentration camps. So by saying that the Bible speaks generally to plumbing actually says nothing about plumbing, and is generally unhelpful to anyone who wishes to learn about plumbing.
For the Christian who wants to be a good plumber, he should focus on the discipline of plumbing and not on what the Bible says about plumbing. So long as he conducts his vocational pursuit with Christian character diligently, and demonstrates some skill in the trade he can rest well knowing God is honored in his labor. WCF 1.6 confirms this – Scripture speaks to how he conducts himself as a plumber, but not specifically to his plumbing – for that he could reference trade manuals and product specs just like pagan plumbers do.
LikeLike
CVD, my conclusion is that I would be more circumspect than you are about evaluating what is good or bad in the world, or what is an improvement or a set back.
I also would not interpret revivals the way you do: “when the Evengelical Revivals led to mass conversion of person in Great Britain, laws began to express principles of Christian mercy and justice. Child labor laws were enacted, the slave trade was ended, reforms in education occured, and on and on.”
That perspective represents a real “root, root, root” for the home team. (Why, btw, are evangelicals your home team?)
LikeLike
DGH: “As an elder I do not have the biblical revelation to evaluate the work of a plumber. I am not even sure if I have enough to judge whether he is doing it honestly.”
Jeff: “That’s a not a good way to determine whether the Scripture speaks to issue X.”
But Jeff, this has been an important way of determining whether Scripture speaks to an issue. The Reformation used it to reform worship and the liturgical calendar (does not the Bible speak to time?), and Old Schoolers used it to identify the nature of church power. In fact, it is the criteria by which Paul defends Christian liberty throughout his epistles.
I know Frame doesn’t think this a good method. But Frame doesn’t ever seem to learn from the Christian past.
And if you think the Bible speaks to all of life, and I as an elder minister God’s word, then I have power over all of life.
I don’t understand why you don’t get this. I also don’t understand why you don’t recognize that your version of sola Scriptura makes the Bible either weak or relativistic. The Bible speaks to all of life, including plumbing, but we’re not going to preach or teach about plumbing in the church. Go figure it out on your own. Or, the Bible speaks to all of life and Christians on both sides of a certain practice are appealing to the Bible so the Bible must speak with forked tongue.
I know it’s inspiring to think you’re being biblical all the time. But does it work?
LikeLike
DGH: I also don’t understand why you don’t recognize that your version of sola Scriptura makes the Bible either weak or relativistic.
Well, it’s hard to recognize propositions that are false. *badda-bump*
But seriously, “relativism” is a serious charge.
My version of sola scriptura appears to me to be identical to the Confession’s, so I don’t see where you’re coming from: Where Scripture speaks, to the extent it speaks, we must follow it; where silent, we have liberty; our liberty entails freedom from commands beside Scripture in matters of faith and worship, and freedom from commands contrary to Scripture in all other matters.
DGH: As an elder I do not have the biblical revelation to evaluate the work of a plumber. I am not even sure if I have enough to judge whether he is doing it honestly.
JRC: That’s a not a good way to determine whether the Scripture speaks to issue X.
DGH: But Jeff, this has been an important way of determining whether Scripture speaks to an issue. The Reformation used it to reform worship and the liturgical calendar (does not the Bible speak to time?), and Old Schoolers used it to identify the nature of church power. In fact, it is the criteria by which Paul defends Christian liberty throughout his epistles.
A couple things strike me about this analysis. First, you failed to distinguish between “faith and worship” v. “other.” In the case of the liturgical calendar, since Scripture did not explicitly enjoin observances, the commands to observe feast days were “beside” the Scripture. Plumbing isn’t in either of those categories.
Second, you failed to observe (still?!) that the Catechism explicitly regulates plumbing, along with all other businesses, when it charges the Christian with using honest weights and measures.
Put it this way: if someone charged a plumber in your congregation with dishonest business dealings, would you refuse to hear the case on the grounds that dishonesty is one thing, but dishonesty in plumbing is something else? Send it to secular court on principle?
Third, you failed to reckon with historical precedent (!). The Puritans had no hesitation about regulating secular life in England.
Granted that you and I are living in the 1789 revision era of the Confession; still and all, it’s impossible to maintain that the original intent of WLC 123ff was not to regulate secular life — and since those sections of the WLC have not been revised, it follows that the meaning has not changed; whence, you’re on quite shaky ground claiming that “the Bible does not speak to plumbing.”
So why is the question, “Could I as an elder make the determination?” not a good criterion for “Does the Bible speak to X?”
Two reasons:
(1) The Bible speaks to the motives of the heart, quite frequently. An elder, even a skilled one, may not have enough information to determine what the motives of the heart are … and therefore may not have enough information to determine the facts on the ground.
(2) Likewise, an elder without expertise in plumbing may not have enough information to distinguish between skillfully dishonest plumbing and shoddy honest plumbing. RIGHT, you say, THAT’S MY WHOLE POINT! But here’s the thing — that same elder can still say to the plumber, “The Scripture commands you to be honest in your work. So to the extent that you are able, you must be honest in your plumbing.”
The elder may not be able to drill down to the specifics, but he still has something he ought to say.
—
So the problem with your analysis, once again, is that you confuse “Having something to say” with “Having everything to say.”
Those two aren’t the same, but you lump them together; arguing against the latter counts, in your calculus, as arguing against the former. This is incorrect procedure.
LikeLike
Jed: Now, it would be great if the world was full of God honoring plumbers, but let’s suppose some other conditions were at play:
1. You have a godless, hard-living, salty old plumber who has two passions in life, a) cheap whiskey, and b) plumbing.
2. This crusty old plumber has mastered both passions.
Of these skilled plumbers all other conditions being equal (and the worldly one is sober enough to work), whose plumbing is better?
Let’s consider the kinds of things enjoined in the Catechism of Christians in their secular callings: That they deal honestly in their contracts; that they take effort to preserve the property of others; etc.
Suppose you have a plumber who is not honest in his contracts. Or, he is careless of the client’s property while plumbing.
Is he a good plumber?
No.
Ah, you say, but a non-Christian can do those things.
And he can. We remember that even the pagans can instinctively do the things required by the law. So to this extent, we agree that there’s a natural law in play. But the non-Christian won’t think of himself as obligated to do those things by God. He’ll think of it as “just good business” or “the right thing to do.”
But now to the Christian: May the Christian plumber do those things because it’s “just good business”? Not really. I mean, yes, there is an extent to which the universe is made with a moral fiber in it — Proverbs, anyone? — but the Christian ought to do those things because the Lord commands them.
Jed: The reason is that plumbing is neutral, even if the spirit it is done with isn’t.
May I suggest Clark on this: Common is not Neutral
Jed: For the Christian who wants to be a good plumber, he should focus on the discipline of plumbing and not on what the Bible says about plumbing. So long as he conducts his vocational pursuit with Christian character diligently, and demonstrates some skill in the trade he can rest well knowing God is honored in his labor.
Competence is the first kindness. He should focus on both, together.
LikeLike
Jeff, the problem with this is that you do not recognize the times in which we live. Plenty of schools out there have the mission of providing a Christian education on every subject because Christ is Lord of all and because the Bible speaks to all of life. So here’s the thing, would you favor a Christian school of plumbing or not? You seem to equivocate though in a fairly stubborn way. It seems that the Christian school of plumbing would not really teach plumbing but honesty. So how is that about plumbing? That’s why I consider this dishonest.
And the reason I consider Frame’s position relativistic is because the Bible is supposed to be a norm, but through F’s version of the RPC, the Bible as a norm now has to govern those areas in which Christians have liberty. So one Christian is using copper pipes because the Bible speaks to plumbing, another is using PVC because the Bible speaks to plumbing. So which is it? Does the Bible say to use copper PVC?
The same problem attends Shakespeare or the Republican party. By appealing to the Bible for such areas of life, Christians end up trying to make biblical norms work for matters of liberty, and so the Bible becomes toothless.
LikeLike
DGH: So here’s the thing, would you favor a Christian school of plumbing or not? You seem to equivocate though in a fairly stubborn way. It seems that the Christian school of plumbing would not really teach plumbing but honesty.
Supposing it were a reasonable allocation of resources? I guess I would. Seems rather specialized, but perhaps not in Calvin’s Geneva.
The Christian school of plumbing would, of course, teach honesty as a part of plumbing to the glory of God. Mostly, it would teach plumbing as the way to glorify God through … plumbing.
I dunno why you think that a Christian school of plumbing wouldn’t teach plumbing!?!
LikeLike
The Christian school of plumbing would, of course, teach honesty as a part of plumbing to the glory of God. Mostly, it would teach plumbing as the way to glorify God through … plumbing.
Jeff, don’t look now but that’s how (unabashed transformationist) Kuyper College talks about its educational project.
But, again, if it’s true that we glorify God the exact way he justifies us, by faith alone, then we don’t need more schools pushing works plus faith but churches preaching faith alone but not a faith that is alone. One advantage of that model is that we don’t actually have “The Christian School of Plumbing.” What the what?
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, don’t look now but that’s how (unabashed transformationist) Kuyper College talks about its educational project.
I know, it’s a shame how the wrong team sometimes picks up the right ideas. *rimshot*
But seriously, you realize the perils of “argument from abuse”, right?
Zrim: But, again, if it’s true that we glorify God the exact way he justifies us, by faith alone …
OK…
Zrim: …then we don’t need more schools pushing works plus faith but churches preaching faith alone but not a faith that is alone.
What about schools that teach about faith that leads to works?
LikeLike
Jeff, you mean Reformed day schools? Sure, build all you want, just don’t tell me it’s the church’s mandate by confusing curriculum with catechesis (easier said than done, I know). But I still don’t see anymore need of Reformed day schools than Christian hospitals if we have Reformed churches being obedient to their Commission.
LikeLike
Zrim: Just don’t tell me it’s the church’s mandate
Deal.
LikeLike
DGH: You seem to equivocate though in a fairly stubborn way.
Hm. It’s odd that we both see each other as equivocating.
Bear with my stupidity. Show me the equivocation, slowly and clearly.
Here are my cards:
(1) The Bible gives some specific norms for “all things that we do” — to be done to the glory of God, to be done by faith, to be done in love.
(2) Plumbing is a thing that we do.
(3) Therefore, the Bible provides the above norms for plumbing.
To me, this appears to be an air-tight good and necessary consequence.
Nor does it require copper nor PVC nor lead; the norms are not that specific.
So where is the equivocation?
Meanwhile, I see equivocation in your position:
(DGH as filtered by JRC):
(1) The Bible requires us to be honest in all that we do.
(2) Therefore, the Bible requires us to be honest when we plumb, but
(3) The Bible is silent on plumbing.
It seems to me that you are using a decidedly non-standard version of the term silent, one which would never hold up in a court of law:
Judge: “Plaintiff alleges breach of contract for the plumbing job you contracted out. The facts seem to support this. Doesn’t the law require you to fulfill your contracts?”
JRC-Plumber: “Yeah. But the law doesn’t say anything about plumbing contracts.”
Judge: “Isn’t a plumbing contract a kind of contract?”
JRC-Plumber: “Yeah, but the law doesn’t say plumbing, so it’s silent on plumbing.”
Judge: “Your motion for dismissal is denied. I find for the plaintiff for full damages.”
DGH: And the reason I consider Frame’s position relativistic is because the Bible is supposed to be a norm, but through F’s version of the RPC, the Bible as a norm now has to govern those areas in which Christians have liberty. So one Christian is using copper pipes because the Bible speaks to plumbing, another is using PVC because the Bible speaks to plumbing. So which is it? Does the Bible say to use copper PVC?
The liberty is found in the implementation of the norms. The Bible says neither Cu nor Pb nor PVC, so there’s liberty to use any of the above (subject to the magistrate’s instructions). The Bible does say to be honest, so there’s not liberty there.
IF, for some reason, using Cu or Pb or PVC becomes a matter of conscience — perhaps a Christian is allowed by code to use Pb, but he recognizes that it will be a significant health hazard for the users — then he is now bound by the norm of love to not use Pb.
This isn’t equivocal; and it’s certainly not relativistic. Sometimes it’s hard, but we didn’t expect easy. Why not relativistic? Because the norms are universal; it is their implementations which are flexible. (Note that under natural law schemes, the same kind of flexibility applies; yet you would not call natural law relativistic, right?)
The Real Rule: Outside of faith and worship, the norms reach as far, and only as far, as they reach. Where they cease to reach, there’s liberty.
Out of curiosity, is your concern a theoretical one, or is it borne out of real issues? Do you find Frame trying to regulate areas where Christians have liberty?
LikeLike
Jeff, Here’s where the equivocation comes in. You claim the Bible speaks to all of life and we are to do everything to the glory of God. But then in the first statement of your syllogism you talk about the Bible speaking to SOME of the things we do to the glory of God. So you are acknowledging that the Bible doesn’t speak to everything and yet you continue to argue for a “speak-for-everything†position. I don’t get it. It sure seems like a moving target to me.
As for what irks me about Frame, sorry if I step on toes but the idea that we might start a Christian school of plumbing seems intuitively absurd. The church has a history of apologists who say that believers share things in common with unbelievers. But the neo-Cal’s have been resisting this for as long as they have insisted on worldviews.
I not only believe this position to be unbiblical since the New Testament gets rid of the old cultural regulations that were part of the Jewish cult. It also says that Christians will find themselves in all cultures. I also find this view to be completely unrealistic and do not know of anyone, except the old Dutch Reformed who lived in ethnic ghettos, who lives as if this were true.
LikeLike
JRC: (1) The Bible gives some specific norms for “all things that we do†— to be done to the glory of God, to be done by faith, to be done in love.
DGH: But then in the first statement of your syllogism you talk about the Bible speaking to SOME of the things we do to the glory of God.
I said all, not some. I don’t get it. Are you thinking that “glorifying God, faithing, and loving” are the some things? But then how would we glorify God to the glory of God?
Sorry, it’s like we’re not reading the same words.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Yes, I see this now. But the language of some and all does seem to allow you to avoid specificity.
So why are you so intent on the Bible speaking to everything. What happens if it doesn’t? And why aren’t you troubled by the trivialization that inevitably follows?
LikeLike
DGH, I haven’t been able to give your last question the thorough response it deserves. Suffice it to say that I’m taking it seriously, and will give more detail later.
For now:
(a) Do we agree, then, that I’m not equivocating?
(b) What of my question to you:
(DGH as filtered by JRC):
(1) The Bible requires us to be honest in all that we do.
(2) Therefore, the Bible requires us to be honest when we plumb, but
(3) The Bible is silent on plumbing.
Is this not a strained or equivocal meaning of the word “silent”?
(c) Short answer: I see the potential for trivialization, but I don’t see the inevitability.
LikeLike
Jeff, no, because we know the difference between verbs and adverbs. The Bible speaks to adverbs — “honestly.” The Bible does not speak to verbs — I “fix” the leak. So the Bible is silent on “baking,” “playing,” “counting,” “cleaning.” But the Bible does speak about “praying,” “singing,” “preaching,” “communing.”
LikeLike
The Dutch Calvinist theologian and later politician Abraham Kuyper put the Reformed worldview aptly when he wrote, “Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’â€
Kuyper’s statement suggests an approach to the world that is diametrically opposed to the sort of cultural asceticism to which American Protestantism has been prone. Instead of teaching children confronted by the world to “Just say ‘no,†the Reformed outlook counters with “Just say yes.’â€
(Darryl Hart, “Keep Your Balance” July 2000, Tabletalk)
LikeLike
77.102.246.38, you forgot to include what comes after the quotation you paste:
“Unfortunately, during the past fifty years or so, the Reformed perspective on creation has become a ready way to justify the pleasures that Christians experience in their enjoyment of this world. In fact, anything that may curtail a believer’s enjoyment of the world, the assumption goes, masks a retreat to the cultural straightjacket of fundamentalism. Not all Calvinists are guilty of such an extreme view. Still, the prevailing understanding of the Reformed faith is one in which restraining pleasure or selective cultural engagement is the fallback position of weaker Christians.
“The irony here is that John Calvin himself was not averse to making restraint and moderation necessary fruits of sanctification. Often lost in discussions about a Reformed world and life view is an awareness of Calvin’s own understanding of the Christian life, one that recognizes the basic difference between life in this world and life in the world to come. The portion of Calvin’s Institutes that has been republished as The Golden Booklet of the Christian Life, for instance, gives support for the sentiment that Calvin so often expressed in his prayers, that believers should not become too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things.
“But the limits that inform a Christian’s enjoyment of this world’s pleasures are evident even in other parts of his theology. In his discussion of Christ’s kingly office, Calvin writes that the Christian life is a “harsh and wretched†warfare, fought “under the cross.†“For this reason,†he adds, “we ought to know that the happiness promised us in Christ does not consist in outward advantages, such as leading a joyous and peaceful life, having rich possessions, being safe from all harm, and abounding with delights such as the flesh commonly longs after. No, our happiness belongs to the heavenly life!â€
“Restraint, then, is not a dirty word. Think, for instance, of what Paul writes to Titus about the virtues “proper for sound doctrine.†They are “that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate,†and that older women “likewise. . . be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine.†And these older women should instruct younger women to be “discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.†Paul adds that young men need to be “sober- minded†(Titus 2:1-6).
“Obviously, these are not traits that we associate with the forms of celebration that typically accompany New Year’s Eve parties or the home team’s victory in the World Series. But even if our culture has replaced a more restrained understanding of celebration with one that is unbridled, the point of Paul’s teaching cannot be missed. The believer’s walk should be characterized by restraint, discipline, sobriety, and self-control. These traits adorn the Gospel.
“The problem is that American Protestants have cultivated extremes rather than nuance. At one end is a commitment to temperance that quickly dissolves into abstinence because of a failure to recognize that worldly pleasures are in fact legitimate.
“In reaction comes an unbounded resolve to enjoy to the full the fruits of creation as gifts from God. What both sides miss is a different biblical consideration. Irrespective of whether a particular form of pleasure is lawful or not, the Bible teaches that restraint and sobriety mark the Christian path of obedience. In other words, the believer’s life should be so characterized by moderation that both abstinence and revelry are implausible because both exhibit an immoderate way of living in this world.”
Darryl Hart, “Keep Your Balance” July 2000, Tabletalk (http://www.the-highway.com/balance.html)
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, no, because we know the difference between verbs and adverbs. The Bible speaks to adverbs — “honestly.†The Bible does not speak to verbs — I “fix†the leak. So the Bible is silent on “baking,†“playing,†“counting,†“cleaning.†But the Bible does speak about “praying,†“singing,†“preaching,†“communing.â€
Dr. Hart! What is an adverb if not a condition?! Adverbs, say the grammarians, tell us HOW things are done. So if we wrap an adverb (“honestly”) around the verb (“fix the leak”), then we’ve just spoken to HOW leaks are fixed: honestly.
Honestly!
(couldn’t resist the pun)
LikeLike
Jeff, are you serious? Someone who is honest may also be someone who cannot fix a leak. Someone who can fix a leak is someone who may not be honest. Do you really not see the difference? Has Frame so colored your thinking?
LikeLike
DGH, are *you* serious? Did I ever say that someone who is honest can also fix a leak?
OR
Did I say what I said: that if the Scripture is telling us to fix leaks honestly, then it is speaking to leak-fixing.
I don’t know why this is so hard. After several rounds, I do believe your sincerity in seeing some kind of problem — but every time you try to represent the problem, you end up turning my words into something that they simply don’t say. And don’t mean, either.
How about this: True or False:
For you, “How to fix a leak” is a series of steps. And since “being honest” is not one of those steps, you reason (understandably) that “being honest” is not a part of “fixing a leak.”
Am I close? If so, then I might have some insight as to our difference.
JRC
LikeLike
The best book about the brothers Niebuhrs is still No Offense by Cuddihy. One way of being anti-liberal is to be an universalist. One big patriotic national empire. One big church. The two party system is about the most anti-sectarian institution around.
I say that as a sectarian who thinks the reason Tim Keller hangs with Arminians is that he is an Arminian. Works come in second place is not exactly Christ alone grace alone.
LikeLike
dgh
Posted October 26, 2010 at 6:32 am | Permalink
Jeff, are you serious? Someone who is honest may also be someone who cannot fix a leak. Someone who can fix a leak is someone who may not be honest. Do you really not see the difference? Has Frame so colored your thinking?
Excellent question. Some people aren’t honest and they can’t fix a leak either so you’re better off with one or the other.
Which are you, me brother, O Warrior Child, or do you claim to be both?
LikeLike