I understand and have commented before on the scare word, neutral. The followers of Abraham Kuyper regard nothing as neutral; everything is either for or against Christ and so no secular or neutral realm exists. This has obvious appeal in Sunday school or at a political rally. But someone going to court, even to protest a parking ticket, is hoping that some realm of neutrality exists. If everything is partisan, then so much for impartial judgment by police, justices, reporters, or even plumbers (“Fox opines, you report”).
But lo and behold there is help for those parched and weary from the partisans of antithesis. Johannes G. Vos, son of Geerhardus Vos, and longtime professor at Geneva College, wrote an essay, “The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life,” in which he asserted that some parts of creation are indeed morally indifferent. Take the case of piano playing:
Playing on the piano. . . is in itself morally indifferent. Just because it is a thing indifferent, it can never be sinful in itself. But there may exist circumstances in which such an act is sinful. If a child has been forbidden by its parents to play on the piano at a particular time, but does so anyway, then under those circumstances playing on the piano is sinful. The sin committed, however, is not the sin of piano playing, but the sin of disobedience to legitimate parental authority. Again, if a person develops such a consuming passion for piano music that he devotes to this pursuit practically all of this time and strength, and makes it the supreme business and chief aim of his life, even above worshiping God and seeking his kingdom and righteousness, then in such a case and when carried to such an intemperate extreme, playing on the piano is sinful. The sin committed, however, is not the sin of piano playing but the sin of idolatry. Thus we see that while certain circumstances may render the use of adiaphora sinful by a particular person at a particular time or under certain circumstances, still this is very different from affirming that the things in question are sinful in themselves.
Let us assure ourselves, then, once for all, that Scripture does really teach that certain things or actions are not sinful in themselves, but morally indifferent. If this fact be denied or ignored, only confusion and error can result. If any of our readers are disposed to deny that Scripture teaches the existence of adiaphora, we can only entreat them to make a more careful study of the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. This doctrine is proved by Rom. 14:14 and I Cor. 10:23. “I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.†“All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.â€
Since neutral is a synonym of indifferent, I think I’ve found daylight for neutrality. And from a Dutchman, no less. Woot!
Old Life 
Vos also says, “…adiaphora…must not be misunderstood. It does not mean that a Christian, in performing any particular act, can be regarded as himself morally neutral or indifferent. It does not mean that the Christian can at any time take a moral holiday and concern himself wholly with things that are morally indifferent.”
I don’t think The Separated Life teaches anything that a Kuyperian would disagree with. It’s purpose is to point out that material things (like alcholic beverages) or certain actions (like piano playing), in and of themselves, are indifferent. Of course, as soon as a person begins using those things or engaging in certain actions, then there is no moral holiday, i.e., no neutrality.
I hope some Kuyperians will chime in with their reaction.
LikeLike
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/art-nakedness-and-redemption.php <—– Have you seen this article? I'm curious Dr. Hart what your opinion of it is.
LikeLike
Eliza, Kuyperians may not disagree, but I don’t hear them talking about the sufficiency of Scripture or Christian liberty the way that Vos does.
LikeLike
Peter, do you mind summarizing? I haven’t seen it.
LikeLike
DGH: Since neutral is a synonym of indifferent, I think I’ve found daylight for neutrality.
Yes, you have, as long as we’re talking about actions in the abstract.
Is driving through an intersection morally indifferent? Yes.
Is driving through an intersection while the light is red morally indifferent? Yes.
Is driving through an intersection while the light is red in Maryland, given that there is a law against doing such, morally indifferent? No.
A few actions, the ones prescribed or proscribed in Scripture, are morally charged in the abstract.
All actions are morally charged when located in a particular context.
Really? All actions?
Yes. Because our context includes first and foremost the covenant with Adam, that we owe God constant love with all heart, soul, and mind, it is the case that each action is either directed towards that end, or else directed away from that end.
It is on this basis that we are judged guilty as sinners and in need of a redeemer.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Agreed.
There’s the caveat “in and of themselves” that Vos uses.
Context is everything.
The thrust of Vos’ booklet is to point out the fundamentalist problem with “things” being sinful. I guess he has in mind alcohol more than anything else. And since he was in the RPCNA he may have been speaking to that audience which until recently required teetotalism from their pastors and elders, I think.
LikeLike
And since he was in the RPCNA he may have been speaking to that audience which until recently required teetotalism from their pastors and elders, I think.
Then someone needs to send a copy to the Protestant Reformed Church who recently required denominational schooling from their pastors and elders of their children on pain of discipline. (And, yes, that includes no home schooling, which was the sin by a pastor that precipitated the institutionalized educational legalism).
LikeLike
DGH: First off, a million Old School Attaboys to you for posting a photo of an English Setter, the pinnacle of the Canine Kingdom! Nice! Is that you at the piano?
Having given you props for the setter, I must admit, Vos’ essay, at least at this point, isn’t directly addressing spirituality of the church or a neo-calvinist oppposite position. Parallel, relevant, but not quite direct. Been a long time since I’ve read that essay. The tag line I learned years ago, back in Presby of Southern California, Vos’ essay on separated life/christian liberty had too much liberty of his own Church (RPCNA) and thus the OPC published it.
Cheers,
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Cris, it does address the spirituality of the church precisely because that doctrine is directly tied to what the Bible reveals, and hence what the church ministers, and hence to the church’s actual authority.
The photo includes Glenn Gould.
LikeLike
Jeff, and Vos is talking about created things in the abstract also, as in everything is good and not prohibited. Vos is also talking about the Lordship of Christ and how we know its restraints — through what the Word reveals. When it is silent we have liberty.
Plus, somethings are inherently sinful — a false god or the worship of him. Doesn’t matter what the context or motive.
LikeLike
JRC: A few actions, the ones prescribed or proscribed in Scripture, are morally charged in the abstract.
DGH: Plus, somethings are inherently sinful — a false god or the worship of him. Doesn’t matter what the context or motive.
It seems we agree.
And wow … a two-fer … we both like Glenn Gould.
LikeLike
DGH: in a multiperspectival (or is that symphonic?) manner I can see your point, perhaps not so head-on as you see it.
Glenn Gould, guess I’ll have to accord him some extra respect, seeing he was apparently an English Setter aficionado.
LikeLike
Reading Matthew Poole today I noticed that he doesn’t call things “indifferent in and of themselves” but rather “lawful” in and of themselves.
“Perimus licitis, most men perish by their sinful use (or abuse rather) of things in themselves lawful.”
commentary on Luke 14:24
LikeLike
Let the arguments on inordinate begin!
I do agree with the good dutchman that liberty of conscience is the key to the spirituality of the Church.
LikeLike
Do “scare words” take the liberty out of the “spirituality of the church”? So that the external result of one collectively informed conscience must of necessity exclude other more recent (or more ancient) external collective traditions and words? I am thinking of words like “Lent” and “Easter” and “voluntary association” and “denomination” ….
http://newgenevaopc.org/?page_id=283
LikeLike