There I may be appreciated finally (since it is all about me, after all).
First it was Bryan Chapell video”>saying something very 2kish about the United States as a Christian nation. His answer was essentially, no. And that answer goes well with the 2k idea that the only Christian nation that ever existed was the state of Israel before the coming of Christ. Since that political order is no longer part of God’s redemptive plan, and since the institution God is now using to establish his kingdom — as in the WCF’s assertion that the visible church is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ (25.2) — Chapell seems to give 2kers room to maneuver within the Gospel Coalition without fear of being fear mongered.
Now comes an interview with Tim Keller where he encounters “This is Your Life” in a long interview. Part of his reflections on his theological formation includes the influence of Meredith Kline’s covenant theology for a redemptive historical understanding of justification by faith alone. Of course, Keller’s testimony is not solidly 2k since he also affirms Richard Lovelace’s scientific historical explanations of how revivals happen and Jack Miller’s pastoral practices in the New Life Presbyterian movement. But he does not flinch from affirming an Old Testament scholar who will in some conservative Reformed circles merit a thirteen-part series on how some Reformed authors are abandoning the faith once delivered to Kuyper.
So in conservative Reformed circles denying America’s Christian origins and affirming Meredith Kline’s teaching can get you sentenced to neo-Calvinist jail, but over at the Gospel Coalition the allies seem to think such ideas are neat.
Have I found a home, or what?
Old Life 
But you haven’t written a small book of popular theology that is basically the watering down of some Puritan! Write that and put on a nifty (nay, may we say “edgy”) cover picture, and you will be set for a front-runner in the Restless and Reformed movement.
LikeLike
You’ve got the restless part down. Now for the skinny jeans.
LikeLike
DGH
I just finished reading your book, Deconstructing Evangelicalism. I think you know what is going on. A coalition = A big tent. Essentially what they are saying is that there is room for folks like us as long as we don’t take over and become the life of the party.
By its very name “Gospel Coalition” we have an illustration of what you argued in your book – a minimal core of doctrine around which people will unite allowing for differences in other areas. And, as you demonstrated in your book, just as the evangelical enterprise was fueled by celebrity types who can gain a following, so is the Gospel Coalition.
You may have found a home but I tend to think that if one would push a little too hard on things that aren’t core doctrines to the GC they would be shown the door.
LikeLike
Darryl Hart in the GC makes me think of Jean Luc Picard in The Borg. Don’t do it, DGH, you will be assimilated!
LikeLike
I don’t know if the Gospel Coalition is a good home for DGH, but this post more or less affirms what I have been arguing about Tim Keller all along: thorough-going Old School/R2K he is not, but he and Dr. Hart still have much in common when it comes to 2K/R2K thinking…
LikeLike
Bart, do I have to shave my head too?
LikeLike
Zeke, perhaps, but Keller doesn’t seem to recognize that Kline and Miller are not necessarily Reformed bosom buddies. As Mike Horton says, sometimes you need to take a page out of the notebook when you put another one in.
LikeLike
“Zeke, perhaps, but Keller doesn’t seem to recognize that Kline and Miller are not necessarily Reformed bosom buddies. As Mike Horton says, sometimes you need to take a page out of the notebook when you put another one ”
As someone who is slowly making the transition from the New School to the Old School this is probably one of the most discouraging remarks I have read. Sure, I get it – Kline and Miller’s Reformed credentials don’t align but did you listen what Keller had to say in the interview about Miller and repentance? Is there any room in your view for God to use people with whom we disagree or do we all need to wear the same TR badge? I never knew Jack Miller (and I understand the controversy he generated) but I know several who did and he was a Godly and humble man.
LikeLike
Shaved head = Redeemerite vow?
LikeLike
Kate, did I say the disagreement was over repentance? No. The disagreement would have a lot to do with transformationalism. Kline is firm in distinguishing between cult and culture and his minority report for the OPC on medical missions is a classic of 2k thought. Keller’s transformationalism does not exactly comport with those distinctions, and actually the application of grace or repentance to cities or culture can cause a lot of gospel confusion.
LikeLike
Ok, my reading of your response to Zeke was that the likes of Miller would have nothing to offer one who has been exposed to Kline’s teaching. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
LikeLike
While we’re more or less on the topic, I do have a pet peeve on how our culture deals with death. Whereas there was once a time when loved ones typically died in the home, now they die in nursing homes or hospitals or anywhere but the home. Then, when our beloved die, we make them look like they are still alive. When it comes to death, our approach is not to approach it, which is to say we deny it as much as possible. With facelifts, hair dyes, and other cosmetic measures we deny aging itself.
The result is that we refuse to look mortality in the eye. We avert our gaze and thereby avoid weighty issues of mortality and the destinies of our souls as long as possible. And for that, I think we are more shallow and less religious.
LikeLike
oops, wrong blog entry. I’ll re-post where it belongs.
LikeLike
I do have something related to this entry. The other day I found the following quote:
“…the official name of the Protestant Church in a large part of Germany is “The Evangelical Church.” When this name was first acquired by that church it had a perfectly defined meaning, and described the church as that kind of a church. But having been once identified with that church, it has drifted with it into the bog. The habit of calling “Evangelical” everything which was from time to time characteristic of that church or which any strong party in that church wished to make characteristic of it – has ended in robbing the term of all meaning. Along a somewhat different pathway we have arrived at the same state of affairs in America. Does anybody in the world know what “Evangelical” means, in our current religious speech?”
Who said it? When? Whoever has written a book on the subject, please don’t answer.
LikeLike
Kate, no problema.
LikeLike
@dgh (or mebbe Kate) – As someone trying to get a handle on the “Inside Baseball” aspect to the Jack Miller/Meredith Kline divergence(s) alluded to above, what interview with Keller talking about Miller is referred to above? Is there a link, and well, basically, what’s the controversy between the two?
I’ve run into fans of both Kline (whose teaching I have a fairly good grasp on, from lotsa lurking here on OLT and dealings with other folks who’ve studied under his some of his students at WSCAL), and Miller, inside and outside my own fellowship and circles. None of them have articulated, or more likely are able to articulate his influence in Reformed circles. They all seem to respect him, though.
Regards & thanks, & stuff
LikeLike
The founders were deists, in most cases. Back in July, you raised a similar issue with Bryan Chapell and saying this wasn’t a Christian nation. I provided a response that you never did answer in regards to a nation like Babylon being under the control of Christ without any special covenant.
There is no doubt whatsoever that much of deists’ moral thought comes from Scripture, or that the Constitution and other early documents take a Christian world-view seriously. However, that does not in fact mean that we were ever founded to be a Christian nation and the third article of the Bill of Rights (commonly referred to as the First Amendment) would seem to indicate that Christianity (or any denominational manifestation thereof) was never to have precedence over another.
If I’ve missed something, please point it out to me, because I’m doing my best to give what you’re saying a fair hearing.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why you are pointing out that these guys are wimpy on 2k, aren’t they the same way on a lot of the Reformation doctrines?
This is off-topic, but I am curious as to why Carl Trueman would recommend Frank Beckwith’s book, Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft, as one of the best books a young pastor could read on politics, political interpretation of Scripture, or political theology? See his answer to question #9 here: http://www.saet-online.org/category/blog/carl-trueman
Have you read it? As much as I appreciate Beckwith’s work on abortion, I’m confused as to why Trueman would recommend work by an ex-evangelical who has re-converted to Roman Catholicism… does Beckwith have a good grasp on 2k?
LikeLike
Lily, a good 2ker finds support from all sides since Christians don’t have a monopoly on the common realm. Don’t forget that Trueman also recommends VanDrunen.
LikeLike
Thanks, DGH. I didn’t miss the recommendations for Augustine and VanDrunen – it was Beckwith that threw me. I did not mean anything negative against Beckwith (he’s one of the best, if not the best, on abortion in my opinion). I just don’t associate 2k with the evangelicals and I tend to become confused by the Roman Catholic approaches to 2k (perhaps I have not read good work by them?). I also do not associate 2k with the common realm. I always think of 2k as a Christian doctrine. May I ask what I’m missing – why is 2k part of the common realm?
LikeLike
Well, anyway, BB Warfield said it in 1915.
LikeLike
David, what exactly is your question. I believe that the U.S. was not founded on Christian teaching as the churches then understood politics and the state. I also believe that Christian morality was part of the mix in the founding. But Roman Catholics also believe in Christian morality. And Jews believe in biblical morality.
No matter the origins of the U.S. it is under God’s sovereign control. Even my frisky kitten is.
LikeLike
Lily, it’s not that 2k is part of the common realm but that it affirms the common realm so that Christians may benefit from arguments in the common realm by a host of perspectives.
LikeLike
Michael, great quote. Can you give the full cite?
LikeLike
B.B. Warfield – he’s such a sharp cookie! I don’t think I’ll ever stop being impressed by how many “old” theologians were writing about the same kinds of problems we are facing today.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to be dense, DGH, but I’m not sure I understand your answer. If it means, Beckwith’s book is an RC version of 2k, then I should probably pass on reading it. I’m still reeling from the gruesome Kermit Gosnell abortion mill story and I might be sorely tempted to become RC. 🙂
LikeLike
DGH, I don’t remember proper citations but the quote can be found in The Person and Work of Christ, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1970., ed. Samuel G. Craig, p. 345. The online publication at http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_redeemer.html cites The Princeton Theological Review, vol. xiv, 1916, pp. 177-201. Opening Address, delivered in Miller Chapel, Princeton Theological Seminary, September 17, 1915.
LikeLike
Michael, thanks.
LikeLike
My question is…why do you object to Bryan Chapell saying that we are not a Christian nation when there is a vast difference between being a Christian nation and one under His Lordship? If I’ve miscategorized your statements or categories, I ask your forgiveness.
LikeLike
David, I don’t object to what Chapell says. I’m simply pointing out that GC does not take flack for Chapell’s view about America of Keller’s appeal to Kline the way that 2kers do.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You are right in your response to David. But one reason I think you get flak is because you give out flak, regularly. 🙂 Keller and Chapell don’t get flak for what they say there because most Reformed people, I think, are moderately 2k oriented and agree with them.
Most Reformed people that O know who are Gospel Coalition- inclined are not as transformationalist as you seem to think they are including, apparently, Keller. I would say that you are more consistently 2K, perhaps to many ferociously 2k, than most Reformed people, and you have sometimes painted Keller as equally consistently ‘theonomic’ and ‘transformationalist’ (using your terms). I am not sure he is, as his interview indicates.
I think most of us desire and hunger to see our cities and culture changed to be more aligned with the gospel, and are afraid to be too separationist in our expression of our ecclesiology and theology. I think most of us also see and long to express what you call a cult and culture distinction. And I think most of us are trying hard to figure out how to reconcile these two longings and beliefs, which have tensions. I think you are puzzled and sometimes irritated by the seemingly inconsistent eclecticism that arises from these desires and how we try to deal with them and express both of them.
And I would say that sometimes it looks like you are on a, to borrow a term from your friend Mr Clark, on a QIRC – Quest for Illegitimate Reformed Consistency. Many of us appreciate Kline deeply, but aren’t sure that Kuyper therefore has nothing to say about how the church expresses itself in relation to the world. I appreciate the way you have sharpened my thinking, but I don’t always appreciate what seems to be, on your part, a condescending disdain for those of us who are trying to work these things out in our lives and churches, and do not approach them in quite as rigorously consistently 2K way that you do.
LikeLike
Dan, I appreciate your comments. It would actually help, though, if we understood where we differ. You say “most of us” desire to see our cities and cultures reflect the gospel. Part of the point of the gospel, as I see it, is that it transcends cities and cultures. That means I would like to see cities and cultures in line with creation, not with the gospel.
Another important difference is that I want the church to be Reformed, especially Presbyterian ones. I don’t think that is too much to ask. And historically speaking, when Presbyterians start to talk about transformation or aligning the culture with the gospel they abandon most of what makes a Reformed church Reformed.
For that reason, I’m surprised that more Presbyterians don’t give Chapell and Keller flak (actually, I’m not but more Presbyterians should).
LikeLike
DGH wrote: “And historically speaking, when Presbyterians start to talk about transformation or aligning the culture with the gospel they abandon most of what makes a Reformed church Reformed.”
May I please challenge this sentence? I think the point of whether or not a Reformed (or Lutheran) church is being true to their distinctive traditions/theologies may cloud the issue. I think the core threat is what it does to Christ and the gospel, not our distinctives. If we lose Christ and the gospel, we have a different religion.
It seems to me that when the church removes “Christ crucified for us” and replaces it with “Christ for Culture,” ugly things start happening and we lose both Christ (he becomes humanized and man divinized?) and the gospel becomes muffled or muted by the law. When we try to save culture, we lose our credibility because we are not the sinless Saviour. It looks to the world as though we are denying that we have sin natures and the world easily recognizes that we are not sinless. We become engaged in power struggles with the world that we cannot win and the world asks, “Who are you to lord over us?” All they hear is law and Christianity is associated with moralism instead of the gospel.
When we humanize Christ to fit the social gospel, it seems that incertitude about Christ emerges: Does man save man or does God save man? When we divinize man in the social gospel, salvation seems to become a work not a gift.
As far as I can tell, teachers who focus on culture think they are doing God’s will when they are actually approaching salvation their own way instead of God’s way. Except by the grace of God, we seem to end up with too much of what is currently labeled: moralist, therapeutic, deism. Didn’t we used to call it creating hypocrites? I don’t think it’s the fault of the converts. It appears that they are told they must believe all kinds of specious adiaphora in order to be saved. These poor converts believe the hamster wheel of transforming culture is the plan of salvation. They have not heard the gospel in all it’s sweetness and their consciences do not seem to be bound to Christ. To put it even more bluntly, we seem to be exchanging the glory of the uncorruptible God for corruptible man.
I wish they would ask themselves these kinds of questions: Why lose the truth about Christ and the gospel over a foolish crusade that is doomed to failure and puts us in danger of becoming even more corrupted than we already are? Why chase the power, prestige, and dominion required to “save” culture? Are not these things alien to the gospel? Can we not recognize the Tempter’s bait to put us in rebellion instead of submission to God? Does not God elevate or dispose of leaders and nations as he see fit? Does God call us to dominion or repentance and faith in Christ? How I wish we would all embrace the truth that we are created beings and be content with the limits and boundaries God has given us.
Perhaps I am being too harsh, but that is the way a lot of it looks to me.
LikeLike
Lily, I think I agree with most of what you say. Please notice that I did respond that the gospel transcends cities or cultures. So I have a two-fold concern for what the gospel is irrespective of culture and then how the gospel is embodied in the visible church no matter what the cultural idiom.
LikeLike
DGH, I am always open to your correction. Thank you for explaining your two-fold concern. I did see what you said about transcendence and I certainly agree with you here: “Part of the point of the gospel, as I see it, is that it transcends cities and cultures. That means I would like to see cities and cultures in line with creation, not with the gospel.”
I apologize for quibbling (Sheesh! You aren’t writing a book!). I’m guessing that you are probably aware that anything that undermines Lutheran central doctrines sends up red flags so I don’t have to explain my tunnel vision about Christ and the gospel. I will try to behave in the future. 🙂
LikeLike
Lily, please don’t be so polite. I’m not used to it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Thanks for the irenic response. I am not sure how seeing cultures changed to reflect creation differs from seeing culture changed to reflect the gospel; could you please elaborate? I think this is something I may not be understanding completely about your position.
Regarding whether a church can remain Reformed while talking about transformation, I think I see your wariness historically. We talk about being a confessing church, (adhering to the confessions and confessing Christ to our city) but we hope that helps to change a city nonetheless.
Thanks
Dan
LikeLike
My guess is that the GC is broad on a variety of issues, hopefully not justification. Given that many of them are baptist (I am a baptist) and are in the SBC, I would expect many of them to lean towards a culture war approach (since that seems to be common enough in the SBC). In light of that, it is encouraging to here some of them speak of some form of a 2k theology.
LikeLike
Dan, you have to thank me for being irenic? My middle name is irenic.
What I mean by creational culture as opposed to redeemed culture is the difference between Rudy Guliani and his broken windows philosophy vs. some approach that regards indecency as coming only through the gospel. I do believe that NYC made great strides under Guliani — not that I know all the details. Why isn’t that a good thing? Would Christians do any better? And how could gospel norms be applicable to people outside the church?
Creation norms are good, not in an ultimate or saving way, but in a proximate, this age sort of way. It seems to me Christians should look to promote those norms wherever and whenever they see them, no matter whether the proponent or public servant is Christian or not. I also think that a Christian running NYC would also make the city a lot less interesting and diverse.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I think your ‘creational’ norms and most of my ‘transformational’ norms are a lot closer than I had realized. I am not sure that what you are saying is very different from what I have been hearing for awhile from various sources, with the exception that we would be encouraged not only to cheer Rudy on but to get involved with Giuliani to help make NY city better, in ‘common grace’ ways like volunteering to coach kids soccer, helping with soup kitchens, etc . I am still scratching my head to see how that makes us ‘theonomic.’ I don’t see anything in your comment to either disagree with or see distinction from what I would have heard in GC circles.
LikeLike
Dan, it may not make you theonomic but you are doing this as part of a church (if you’re arguing for the Redeemer model). The church doesn’t do creation. It does redemption.
Where you and I differ is that I try to engage in cultural activities not as a Christian but as a citizen. First, because that is what I am when I do these things, and second, if these things are Christian then Rudy G. becomes a Christian by doing them.
So why baptize a common cultural enterprise? Why make it part of the church?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Think I get it, finally. So would I be rightly understanding you if I said that when Tim Keller tells people to be ‘the best citizens of this city’ you aren’t bothered, but when his church sponsors an art event you would say they have just confused creation with redemption and baptized common culture?
LikeLike
Dan, for my part, when the Tim Kellers of Little Geneva tell me to “be the best citizen of the city” I still get bothered, because I’m clearly not and nothing is indicating I ever will be, whatever “the best citizen” means anyway. I’d rather be exhorted to Word and sacrament. That I can do, and I know what it looks like. Being exhorted to be the best just seems like more law instead of gospel.
LikeLike
Dan, kind of. Not to be overly demanding of Keller, but I’m not sure that his duty as a pastor is to tell people to be the best citizens since he, as a minister, does not have a biblical conception of citizenship in the Big Apple. He should tell his people to be faithful in their callings, and one of their callings is as a citizen of some town, city, or burgh in the metro NY area. But I do get concerned that Redeemer has so closely identified with THE CITY.
The art event is likely a confusion. If individual Christians want to start an arts organization, fine, though I don’t know why Christians need to cut themselves off from the broader art world by calling attention to their Christianity — this seems to repeat what fundamentalists did. But ideally the church as church would not do this.
LikeLike
Interesting. I didn’t walk away from the summer-post with that understanding…thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Thanks. Getting clearer.
I am not sure what you meant by ‘since he (Keller), as a minister, does not have a biblical conception of citizenship in the Big Apple…’ Do you mean that he personally does not have a conception of citizenship – and he should? Or do you mean that none of us have such, and he is not especially lacking it? I am not sure if your comment relates to him personally or to him as minister. If to him personally – why do you feel that way? If it relates to all of us ministers – why do we all fail to have a biblical conception of citizenship?
LikeLike
Dan, what I meant is that no minister has a duty to talk about citizenship because the Bible does not address civic membership. So if a minister is limiting what he does as minister to the word, he won’t have much to say about citizenship. Nor should he, as mininster. If he wants to moonlight as a citizen and speak or write simply from the perspective of citizenship, have at it.
LikeLike
Thanks
Dan
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
What exactly is “scientific historical explanations”? Do you cover this in your sectionr on Lovelace in the upcoming Edwards book?
LikeLike
Mark, I can’t remember what I meant exactly. I think I was indicating that Lovelace does try to account for revivals in both spiritual and historical (natural) ways.
LikeLike