Since relocating to Michigan I have not only had to think about whether Christians plumb differently from non-Christians. I have also had to think and act plumbingly.
First, I had to purchase a toilet auger to unblock a clogged septic line.
Then, I had to figure out how to displace a large puddle that had emerged in our “Michigan basement” after several heavy rains. A wet-dry shop vacuum allowed the removal of 14 gallons of water fairly easily.
And then I needed to consider the various features of dehumidifiers in order to prevent such puddles in the basement from repeating and growing. And this has led to further consideration about installing a sump with its related pump in order to allow the dehumidifier to keep working without having to empty its water receptacle.
In which case, a sump pump might allow putting the washer and dryer in the basement, as well as the installation of a sink for the sorts of cleaning and rinsing that are less than desirable in the kitchen or bathroom.
If I did not know better, I would be tempted to think that God is mocking my repeated (and perhaps overused) point about Christian plumbing (or the lack thereof). But at least this much can be said in defense of 2k: so far the creational wisdom of the local hardware store staff has yet to steer wrong this mortgage payer who is not doctrinaire about water and its movement within and outside the home.
Old Life 
Dr Hart, Well, how do you know it might have all turned out differently if an unbeliever was the owner of the home ? :))
LikeLike
Darryl, as someone who just Friday installed a new sump after a flooded Michigan basement, and got it right (for once) on the first try, with no additional trips to the hardware store and the purchase of no new tools, I can say with genuine gratitude that, “My old sump I offer to you, friend, promptly and sincerely.”
LikeLike
Welcome to Michigan. But if it’s any consolation, ground zero for all things transformational (where the 2k peso maintains a really bad exchange rate) still hasn’t figured out how to circumvent these things. Sounds like southeast Michigan basements and vendors look an awful lot like southwest Michigan basements and vendors. Imagine that.
LikeLike
But outside of a Christian worldview, you have no consistent reason that’s keeping you from lighting the vacuum on fire.
LikeLike
Scott, in the case of Michigan basements, I believe they are what they are irrespective of regeneration.
LikeLike
David, how about you swing by Hillsdale and install the old sump? Since you’re hanging out here, you must be a Christian and so will work for free, right? Word and deed please.
LikeLike
Deege, I hope you’re visits to the hardware store are all sufficiently missional in tone. It is possible to become somewhat impious about wastewater. I say this as one who has spent thousands on septic and drainage issues in the last two years.
LikeLike
In the series on Christ and Culture over on Reformed Forum, I remember a quote from Doug Wilson that was something along the lines of; the reasons we can’t conceive of ‘Christian Mechanics’ or ‘Christian Architecture’ was that Christian understanding of redemption hadn’t progressed far enough – and given enough time we’d be able to wrap our minds around these too.
Of course, what he was speaking about was not just some way of doing faith and life, but redemption of those activities in some way. It occured to me that Charismatics claim something similiar – an ongoing revelation with redemptive purpose.
LikeLike
My Honey-Do Highlight was when I extracted a mole from our lawn armed only with a hose, some pliers, a bucket, and a butcher knife. It was pure exhilaration to hold the bucket aloft while running circles around the yard. Yeah, it had become personal.
I relied upon Aesop Fables for inspiration, but it felt like a miracle.
LikeLike
Good grief, Michael, I had to extract a similar mole stuck in our fence with a spade. The mole wasn’t impressed with the fact that I’m Reformed and a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, for some reason. Come to think of it, my wife isn’t impressed with that stuff either.
LikeLike
Michael, when it becomes personal I think you’re supposed to use dynamite when the hose fails, per Carl Spackler.
LikeLike
Zrim, the next step was a camera on the tunnel with 24/7 surveillance. Make that 24/6, but I would have sinned by obsessing about the mole during sermons, consequently being in doubt of my salvation for not having properly calibrated emotions.
Richard, didn’t Mencken say something like “All wives think their husbands are idiots – and they are right”?
LikeLike
Welcom to Michigan, Darryl. This coming from a man whose last name is Flood.
Since sump pumps were mentioned, my kids were walking around the side of my house and noticed in the crawl space (which was open for some unmentioned reason) a large volume of water. I checked out my pedestal pump and sure enough it was past the motor. So I made a trip to Menard’s and got myself a submersible pump. It is a comfort now to hear that thing kick on especially in light of all these recent and continuing storms.
LikeLike
Durell, is this the way Michiganders spell Darryl?
Seriously, pumps that move unwanted water rock. Drains aren’t too shabby either. But defying gravity has a way of catching your attention.
LikeLike
Michael,
One of my money-making ideas is a Rent-a-Ferret service.
LikeLike
Just wanted to mention that in “my” Kuyperian view of things (apparently in contrast with Doug Wilson’s), “secular” architecture and mechanics and plumbing and chemistry … IS Christian architecture and Christian mechanics and Christian plumbing and Christian chemistry. Any of those things done according to Creational norms is “Christian”. Unbelievers are doing Christian plumbing! But only by the common grace of God are they allowed to experience God’s good gifts in spite of their unbelief and rebellion. Judgment will come for them unless they repent. This is another place where a properly articulated neo-Calvinism sounds like 2K theology. See my essay on “The Similarity of the Christian’s and the Non-Christian’s Science” at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Physical%20Science/Gray1999.html (Chapter 5).
LikeLike
So, Terry, maybe you agree with Douglas Groothuis who starts with the premise that there really is a redemptive way to do creational tasks and ends up concluding that baseball is way more Christian than football, which apparently is to say it’s intellectually, aesthetically and athletically superior?
http://epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=73&mode=detail
But how is any of this 2k when 2k distinguishes between creation and redemption in such a way that there isn’t so much a redemptive version of creational tasks (i.e. Christian you-name-it) as there are redeemed people who participate in creational tasks? At least, in my 2k mind, I know what a Christian playing baseball is, but I’ve no idea what Christian baseball (or architecture, mechanics, plumbing, etc.) could possibly be.
LikeLike
Terry, and to add to Zrim’s point, what about the history of liberal Protestantism. The way it happened was when Protestants began to identify creational endeavors — science, medicine, education, technology — as Christian ones. At some point, modernizing China became a sign of Christian conversion.
LikeLike
DGH, I’m still not convinced that liberalization happened in that order. It makes more sense to me to see a line from Wellhausen to Pearl Buck, not vice-versa. First, we abandon the Gospel. THEN, we start concerning ourselves with moralizing because … well, what’s left to do with ourselves?
LikeLike
But in any event, I go back to the fundamental question: What does the individual Christian do in his plumbing?
Do Christian norms affect his plumbing?
I would argue that, regardless of whatever creational norms might be in play, a Christian plumber is going to (read: ought to) have his actions in plumbing affected by Scriptural norms. Honest weights and measures may well be a creational norm. But for the Christian, it is a Scriptural norm — and that’s the controlling issue.
LikeLike
Jeff, think Charles Finney and the Kingdom of God. You make America a moral place and it will usher in the kingdom. You make China like America and you extend the kingdom.
The problem for most conservative Reformed folk is that they identify liberalism with Harnack and don’t look at people like a Charles Sheldon. And who had more influence, Harnack’s What is Christianity or Sheldon’s In His Steps? Liberalism doesn’t need a university degree to sprout and grow.
LikeLike
DGH, point taken. Clearly there is an interplay between moralism and apostasy — going back to the Galatian and Corinthian churches.
But see, we could push the boundaries of apostasy back further as well. Isn’t Finney fueled by Wesley, who pushes The Method as the antidote to unitarianism?
DGH: And who had more influence, Harnack’s What is Christianity or Sheldon’s In His Steps?
How do you measure influence? Not being dodgy, but I think influence has more components than mere “copies sold.” After all, How Would Jesus Measure Influence? (joke)
LikeLike
I hate to do this, but since so much that gets bantered about on this blog seems aesthetic, rather than theological (some would say there’s no difference, of course), here goes. This is a quote from a book written by John W. Gardner (former HEW Secretary, back when such a cabinet position existed) under Lyndon Johnson in 1961 entitled “Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too?”:
“…The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water….”
BTW, the referenced book should not be confused with one entitled simply “Excellence” published by a couple of “shoddy” consultants in the 1980’s who fawned heavily over a few U.S. corporations for being well run, several of which have since gone by the wayside for various reasons.
LikeLike
I would argue that, regardless of whatever creational norms might be in play, a Christian plumber is going to (read: ought to) have his actions in plumbing affected by Scriptural norms. Honest weights and measures may well be a creational norm. But for the Christian, it is a Scriptural norm — and that’s the controlling issue.
So, Jeff, does it mean that because we are affected by scriptural norms that the creational task becomes Christian? But my controlling issue is that the only thing that can be called Christian is that which was created in the image and likeness of God, which is to say a human being–there has to be a Protestant “sola” in there somwehere. I get the short hand of calling a common task that believers (and unbelievers) do “Christian you-name-it.” But my sense is that the neo’s don’t stop at short hand but actually mean to expand the possibility of what may be Christian beyond people. And if nobody likes the sound of “Christian nation” then…
LikeLike
“Just wanted to mention that in “my” Kuyperian view of things (apparently in contrast with Doug Wilson’s), “secular” architecture and mechanics and plumbing and chemistry … IS Christian architecture and Christian mechanics and Christian plumbing and Christian chemistry. Any of those things done according to Creational norms is “Christian”. ”
But how does this make things redemptive? Or do we assume that non-christians are acting redemptively as long as they do plumbing/mechanics/architecture well?
LikeLike
Zrim: So, Jeff, does it mean that because we are affected by scriptural norms that the creational task becomes Christian?
I don’t use that terminology, no. But then again, I tease my students that a “Christian T-shirt” is one that has made a profession of faith in Christ and been baptized in the triune name.
And they roll their eyes because *they* know what they mean …
LikeLike
Jeff, I do the same thing with “Christian schools,” the third rail amongst the culturally Reformed, and the eye rolls are more like thrown daggers.
LikeLike
Zrim. Did you read my post? I don’t agree with Groothuis and don’t know how you got that out of my post. Unbelievers perform common Creational tasks and are gifted to do that by a gracious God who in these “in between times” allows the sinner to experience His goodness without acknowledging it. “Christian” in my parlance means “Creational” (not necessarily just “redemptive”). It means “true”. It mean’s Yahweh’s way. Thus, all things, not just the church are under God’s rule and Christ’s rule. This doesn’t mean that the believing plumber is a better plumber than the unbelieving plumber. In fact, due to God’s giftedness to the unbeliever the opposite if frequently the case.
The essay I cited contains the following from Cornelius Van Til from A Survey of Christian Epistemology:
“The argument in favor of Christian theism must therefore seek to prove that if one is not a Christian theist he knows nothing at all as he ought to know anything. The difference is not that all men alike know certain things about the finite universe and that some claim some additional knowledge, while the others do not. On the contrary, the Christian theist must claim that he alone has true knowledge about cows and chickens as well as about God. He does this in no spirit of conceit, because it is a gift of God’s grace. Nor does he deny that there is knowledge after a fashion that enables the non-theist to get along after a fashion in the world. This is the gift of God’s common grace, and therefore does not change the absoluteness of the distinction made about the knowledge and ignorance of the theist and the non-theist respectively.”
Van Til would probably object to my calling the unbelievers’ knowledge “Christian” not because of some limitation of the word “Christian” to redemption, but because it grants too much. It gives them more than “knowledge after a fashion”.
I’m curious about DG’s view of Van Til and his importance to the OPC. It seems to me that R2K is a throw-back to pre-Van Til thinking.
Darryl, who said anything about equating Creational activity with Christianity. Creational activity by unbelievers is by God’s common grace. Special revelation, the church, the preaching of the gospel, etc. are still the heart of Christianity. Christianity is not Christianity with out those things. Thus, whatever happened in the history of liberalism–I’d suggest that the core of the faith was gutted before the confusion that you’re talking about–it is not a necessary piece and thus a straw-man in this discussion.
Chris E., who said anything about acting redemptively? That’s Wilson’s language not mine. Unbelievers are acting Creationally. (And, by the way, I think that social justice is a Creational norm and the work of the civil magistrate, and not redemptive.)
Speaking of “redemptively”–what do folks around here (R2K types) think of the Vosian adage that eschatology precedes soteriology. The flow is Creation –> Eschaton –> Redemption. Let’s not get bogged down by questions of the decree or God’s purpose or any of that, but in Vos eschatology was the ultimate goal of creation had Adam kept the Covenant of Works. Redemption provides another way to eschaton, but if you read eschaton in light of the originally revealed plan, there is no redemption piece to it. To me this suggests a much greater connection between Creation and Eschaton that is crucial to the neo-Calvinist way of thinking but nearly missing completely in the R2K way of thinking.
LikeLike
Yeah, I can see both sides there.
The thing is, our joint snarkiness breaks down when we apply it ham-handedly to all of
“Christian theology”
“Christian sermons”
“Christian books”
“Christian music”
“Christian concerts”
“Christian concert T-shirts”
“Christian T-shirt company”
You can see what I’m doing … moving slowly from theological expressions to cultural expressions. The term at the top, “Christian theology”, makes a lot of sense; each term then successively makes less sense going down.
At some point, there’s less sense than nonsense, and our snark works well. But farther up the scale, not so much.
WRT “Christian schools”, it makes sense to apply that term to a school that is self-consciously teaching Christian theology. But then … what if the school has a non-Christian teacher or two? Etc.
LikeLike
Terry, isn’t “Christian” a redemptive term, or at least a term that puts the accent on the redemptive aspect of a created being that eternally distinguishes between two kinds of human beings, one created but condemned and the other created but redeemed? If so, then affixing it to any creature (non/imago Dei) that isn’t redeemed seems like an over-realization, one where redemption swallows up creation.
Re the Vosian adage, I don’t know what you mean that it is absent 2k thinking. It is explicitly picked up and affirmed in something like “Dual Citizens.” From where I sit, whatever else is involved it is an outworking of a high view of creation, one where creation doesn’t need redemption to affirm it, which means “Christian you-name-it” doesn’t make much sense.
LikeLike
Zrim: Terry, isn’t “Christian” a redemptive term…
As a linguistic point, “Christian” is an ambiguous term. It’s like the adjective Spanish. Is “Spanish food” food from Spain, food with Spanish citizenship, food created by Spaniards, food eaten by Spaniards … ?
We could become silly if we always insisted on the same definition for every use of the word “Spanish.”
LikeLike
Jeff, the spectrum I prefer is a temporal one which runs from the trivial (tee shirts, television and sports) to enduring (marriage, statecraft and education), all of which is contrasted with the eternal. So instead of theological v. cultural I think temporal v. eternal. To ascribe to anything temporal an eternal status is what is nonsensical. But my impression is that the closer something gets to the enduring-but-temporal end of the spectrum the more folks are inclined to think it is eternal. So “Christian sports” are silly but “Christian education” makes sense. But, again, to my mind what makes more sense is Christians playing sports and Christians doing educstion.
LikeLike
Jeff, I have no problem pushing it back further. I think evangelicalism is liberal and I mean that seriously. If by liberalism we mean, departure from orthodoxy, and if for me orthodoxy is Reformed, then evangelicals look pretty liberal, no?
As far as influence goes, the point may have less to do with the effects of a book than the impulse an author taps. In other words, you don’t need to read German theologians to be liberal. You may already be one and greet Sheldon as the best thing since the apostle Paul.
LikeLike
Terry, I believe it was you who equated creational activity with Christianity when you said that non-Christian plumbers plumbed Christianly.
And as for your drawing links between creation and the eschaton, it sure would seem to leave Christ out since he is all over redemption, and that would explain why many versions of neo-Calvinism, both in the US and NL, have left redemption out of worldview thinking.
LikeLike
Jeff, I get your linguistic point. But like I said, if we don’t like calling everything from cars to states “Christian” then it’s more than a linguistic issue, it’s theological. And again I understand short hand, but my sense is that neo’s really do mean by “Christian education” something much more than “Christians getting together and doing education.”
LikeLike
Darryl, I equated a particular Creational activity with a particular Christian activity. Nothing more, nothing less. In no way am I suggesting that Christian plumbing is Christianity. That’s the kind of ridiculous rhetorical move that you were talking about in Oldlife.org 101. Perhaps you had lit up something other than a cigarette (another gift from God?) before writing that.
Your comment about Christ and the eschaton is an interesting one. And, of course, even though I asked us not to consider the decree and God’s purposes, it it clear to me at least that the answer to this conundrum is understanding that flow: Creation –> Eschaton –> Redemption –>Back to Eschaton in light of the whole revealed purpose and Christocentrically. In other words Christ’s work was in view from the beginning, even before the foundations of the earth. But what this does is to then made Creation Christocentric. Of course, we have specific scripture that tells us of Christ’s role in Creation. I think this is fully consistent with neo-Calvinism, but I’m not sure how it works with R2K.
Zrim, clearly “Christian” isn’t a redemptive term the way I was using it. As I said, “Christian” means simply conforming to God’s ways and Christ’s ways. Following Creational norms is part of that. I hope that we understand that my main point is really something that R2K folks agree on, namely, that believers and unbelievers alike do plumbing and when they do right/well they are conforming to God’s Creational ways. There’s nothing particularly different about the technical aspects of plumbing. I think that Van Til would call those technical aspects “knowledge after a fashion”. But if we have a more than technical understanding of plumbing, i.e. self-consciously knowing that God made it and that we are to thank Him for His good gifts, then we begin to see what Van Til and the paleo-neo-Cals 😉 are talking about.
LikeLike
Zrim: …and Christians doing educstion
Oh, don’t dangle that in front of me!
LikeLike
Terry, the problem for me is that you seem to want to use a redemptive term (“Christian”)to mean or describe something creational (“mechanics”). I don’t get it why it is necessary to subsume all of creation under the rubric of redemption. When someone, believing or not, does something right or well in accordance with creational norms that is how it should be described. But if we want to say there is such a thing as “behaving christianly” shouldn’t it be something only Christians can do, like become a member of the church as opposed to turning a screw, which everyone can do?
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, I get your linguistic point. But like I said, if we don’t like calling everything from cars to states “Christian” then it’s more than a linguistic issue, it’s theological.
You’re right, there is a theological issue involved. But there’s a sociological issue involved, too. Can you imagine a medievalist speaking about “Christian hymns” at a lecture and receiving a rebuke from you or me with anything other than the Nimoy eyebrow?
I don’t think we can stop people from using the adjective “Christian” in its sociological or etymological senses.
The way I make my own peace with this is to treat the adjective “Christian” with scrutiny. So you have a Christian band? Great. Does your session have oversight over the theological content of your music? (Some actually do this …)
LikeLike
Jeff, of course my point isn’t to stop anyone from anything. But the point about adjectives and nouns is that I do think that if there is such a thing as a difference between cultural and institutional Christianity then one place we might start thinking about it is in the language we use. And I think when we link up the facets of culture with the language of cult it suggests the sort of creation-redemption mixing and matching that perks 2k ears. Well, mine at least.
LikeLike
Amen re: thinking about language use.
Now I picture you with really big ears …
LikeLike
Language both reflects thoughts, reinforces thoughts, and then produces new thoughts. Yes, that’s pretty abstract and generic, so some examples might help.
In “Christian” basketball, there are halftime sermonettes. In one of those sermonettes, fouls were equated with sins, and I don’t mean by analogy for illustrative purposes. Then a boy blocked a girl’s shot, which caused the girl to cry. Well, the boy had to apologize to the girl. Why? It was a clean block, and that’s what you do in basketball, but, you know, it was “Christian” basketball so he apologized.
In “Christian” softball, a head coach (me) was chastised for allowing a woman to coach third base. Why? Well, it was “Christian” softball – women can’t be elders, and women can’t be coaches.
Or, respectfully, Jeff, a Session is asked to oversee the lyrics of a musical group because it’s “Christian” music. But if church rulers are not to “wait on tables,” much less should their duties be expanded to rule over lyrics. Neither is it really in a Session’s competence when you start considering metaphors, analogies, irony, and whatever forms of language might be in the music.
It’s all kingdom confusion. If we let the common kingdom do its thing and use “Christian” more selectively, we can avoid some of this confusion.
LikeLike
Michael, the persons in the kingdoms overlap. This makes the boundaries necessarily fuzzy. IF, therefore, a person is going to represent his music as a “Christian ministry”, then I’m going to assume he’s referring to a teaching ministry, and assume that his teaching is under the appropriate oversight for teaching: the elders.
Now, IF you want to tell everyone that they can’t have Christian music ministries, then … well, good luck with that.
More sensible, I think, to convey the seriousness of what it means to call something a “ministry” and then get it under the proper oversight.
—
Fouls in sports are confusing to me. You aren’t supposed to do X. But then, if you do, there’s a penalty for it. Then it’s OK to do X as long as you’re willing to take the penalty. Then it becomes a part of game strategy: in this situation, do X and take the penalty. Seems to encourage deliberate lawlessness to me.
But hey — I ran track, so what do I know?
LikeLike
Well, that was poorly phrased! Michael, the persons in the kingdoms overlap.
Should have been: “Christians are in two kingdoms at once.”
LikeLike
Well, I had a couple things I would change in my posting, too, but I’m going with the “it’s only a blog” defense.
Jeff, what is a Christian music ministry? Certainly elders oversee what is sung on Sunday mornings. Is Christian music ministry something different? Are we talking about a musical performance in some kind of auditorium, i.e., an essentially parachurch activity where folks get together to have a religious experience? Here I see another problem when we apply the concept of “Christian” to music; the adjective tends to create a forced cultural expression, “ministers” whose only qualification is musical ability, and revivalistic swooning. Why can’t Christians just do “music”? That music might be about faith but it might also be about suffering, one’s beloved, or just peppy stuff that makes people smile. You know, “music.” It might be better.
LikeLike
Jeff, Kuyper & Dooyeweerd probably should have come up with the modal sphere of “sports.” Then they would have sphere sovereignty, they would only partially overlap with “ethics” and we could all see more clearly that fouls are just rules in a game. (insert smiley face here)
LikeLike
(return smiley) No, I understand that it’s just a game. Funny thing, though — I see some of my students carry that same mentality over into the other aspects of their lives. Something about “sports teaching life lessons”?
—
That music might be about faith but it might also be about suffering, one’s beloved, or just peppy stuff that makes people smile. You know, “music.” It might be better.
Sure, I like Over the Rhine, too.
But when the music is about faith, somehow people take it as serious spiritual advice. See above for “sports teaching life lessons.” We just aren’t a society that keeps things in tidy boxes.
Given that reality, what’s the prudent course of action?
—
What was David doing when he sang to Saul?
LikeLike
Zrim, will you agree then that when an unbeliever does something Creationally that he/she is following God’s ways, working in the confines of a God-ordered world, experiencing the goodness of God even without knowing it or giving thanks, etc.? I don’t want to get bogged down by the word Christian or redemptive.
LikeLike
Are you all suggesting that if something has a “Christian” element to it (music, literature, film, science, etc.) that church elders have the competance to oversee that activity?
Michael, I think sports probably falls under aesthetics.
TG
LikeLike
Terry, not when I do them (sports).
LikeLike
Terry, you might find them boggy, but the categories of creation and redemption are indispensable to 2k. But you started the exchange by making a point with regard to adjectival-noun arrangements (“…Christian mechanics and Christian plumbing and Christian chemistry. Any of those things done according to Creational norms is ‘Christian.’ Unbelievers are doing Christian plumbing!”), so why is it boggy now?
But I believe that Jesus rules over everyone and the square inches they inhabit but in two different ways, as Creator and as Redeemer. So, yes, I can live with the way you formulate it. What I don’t get is how this translates into unbelievers doing Christian plumbing. If you “don’t want to get bogged down by the word Christian” then delete the adverb and we’re good. But like I said, you started this exchange with the point that the adverb is key. Now it’s boggy.
LikeLike
Terry, I’m suggesting two things:
(1) If a Christian makes an attempt to represent Christian theology in some way in his music, lit, film, science, etc., then he really ought to run the theological aspects past his elders. They don’t need to be competent in re: the music, lit, film, or science.
(2) Some activities — notably music — are undertaken as “ministries” (notice the scare-quotes). In most cases, “music ministries” are thought of as evangelistic efforts, or else as discipleship efforts.
My point is that we have two options. We *could* say that these “ministries” are not actually ministries and are outside the purview of the church. That’s Michael’s view, and it makes a fair amount of sense, in theory.
In practice, there are plenty of parachurch organizations or yea even businesses (Word, New Song, Sparrow, etc.) who are willing to pick these guys up and call what they do a “ministry.” And then what do we have? “Music ministry” that performs a complete end-run around the church. Telling Christians to go do their own thing means, in practice, that they will likely try to navigate the CCM scene.
The other option is to tell our “music ministers”, Look, here’s how ministry is done. Get commissioned as an evangelist and then use your musical talents as a part of the evangelism ministry of the church. Then we can take away the scare quotes.
LikeLike
Jeff, so an elder who is coaching 3rd base at a softball game is operating in both kingdoms? Or is he operating in the common sphere when coaching third base? Meaning, that he leaves his ecclesiastical office behind (certainly its power) when he enters that box. It seems to me that you unnecessarily point to the bothness. In this case, I am not at all sure what it proves.
And the same goes for an elder who is a father. I believe that a man who is rearing his kids is acting more fatherly than ecclesiastically, no matter his office. Why do you resist this?
LikeLike
Terry, I did not think you said that Christian plumbing was Christianity. What I took you to say was that good plumbing, even by unbelievers, is Christian because it follows God’s norms. The question is which one? Creational or redemptive norms? Once you interject that question then no reason seems to exist for calling good plumbing by an unbeliever Christian (or by a believer for that matter).
Also, as far as the flow, it is never creation to eschaton to redemption to eschaton. The first eschaton never happened. Instead the fall happened. And in some way God had that also in view from the foundations of the world. So to try to use Vos to justify continuity between creation and eschaton is to miss the import of redemption as the only reality that makes the eschaton possible.
LikeLike
Darryl, you have mentioned Wendell Berry in the past and I had always meant to look him up. Well, for those of us with Kindle’s (or the free Kindle readers which you can download on your computer), a book called “The Art of the Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry” is a free download today. I downloaded it and am looking forward to checking it out. You can find it here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002JCSCO8/
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, so an elder who is coaching 3rd base at a softball game is operating in both kingdoms?
Yes.
DGH: And the same goes for an elder who is a father. I believe that a man who is rearing his kids is acting more fatherly than ecclesiastically, no matter his office.
More? Yes, probably. Only? No. For one thing, his fatherly actions are used as one gauge of his fitness to be an elder!
DGH: Why do you resist this?
You’ve got several “this”s in play.
* You speak of “more fatherly than ecclesatically” (matter of degree).
* You’ve got an elder virtually divesting himself of office while coaching 3rd base (a kind of absolute 2k-ism).
* And you’ve introduced offices into the mix when I was speaking of Christians at large.
So which are we talking about here?
LikeLike
“Zrim, will you agree then that when an unbeliever does something Creationally that he/she is following God’s ways, working in the confines of a God-ordered world, experiencing the goodness of God even without knowing it or giving thanks, etc.?”
I’m sorry Terry, but I’m unsure what we gain by describing common grace this way. “To do something well is to act Creationally” is a bit of a truism, isn’t it ?
LikeLike
Jeff, and do you see how your affirmative answers play directly into the hands of theonomists and neo-Calvinists who do not make these distinctions but expect American citizens to be have as if they were subject to the elders who are their neighbors?
As for introducing officers, all Christians hold the general office of believer. But that office doesn’t give them any authority over non-believers or any proficiency (in their office) as plumbers.
So why can’t a third base coach be simply a third base coach? And how does an elder coaching third base in any way execute his office as an overseer in the church?
LikeLike
DGH, I’m not responsible for theonomists and neo-Calvinists. They were born before I was — well, most of them were — and couldn’t care less what I say.
Scripture, now: that matters. And Scripture seems to teach that we continue to be Christians while involved in worldly endeavors.
Whereas, remarkably, you seem to be suggesting that we cease to be Christians while coaching third base. I would have thought that being an umpire was the unpardonable sin.
LikeLike
As I was driving along the other day I saw a van with the name of the business on it’s side which read: The Green Plumber (it seems everybody is rushing to put green in their name). It got me thinking that perhaps instead of the Christian being the better plumber the Pagan would be the better plumber.
Since the pagan worships the earth he would make the better plumber because of his love of the physics of plumbing and wanting to glorify his god, the earth, he would know the mechanics of plumbing at a far greater level of knowledge than the Christian plumber who is constantly thinking of otherworldly things and day dreaming about these things while doing plumbing.
So it seems it’s turn around. If you want a really good plumber hire the pagan and not the christian.
LikeLike
So, Jeff, a player has to follow your directions to slide not only because you are a base coach but also out of honor to your church office? If a judge is a witness in a murder trial, does he also get to rule on objections? This one is really pretty easy – our status is contextual. Your being a Christian may make you ponder the eternal decree by which you happen to be standing by third base but then your pondering might make you forget to tell a kid to slide. Seriously, big-picture thinking and specifically Christian norms might have some small impact, but an outsider will probably never be able to spot the Christian third base coach from the atheist, and will judge both by the common rules of base coaching. So, “Christian base coaching”? Nah.
LikeLike
GAS, I don’t know if your post is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but you may be on to something. That is, anything that obscures the concrete, common kingdom standards of a task is a hindrance. Trying too hard to “Christianize” a common kingdom task may indeed be a detriment because the focus has turned away from the concrete requirements of the task at hand.
LikeLike
Jeff, how are you getting that? I think the point was that when engaged in common activity the general office of believer is maintained but the special office of elder doesn’t apply.
It does seem to me that the soft neo’s want the general office to have direct bearing on all of life, as do the hard neo’s but on top of that for special office to apply. But I think to the paleo mind all of this is just a way to make faith relevant to the world on the world’s terms. After all, what use is otherworldly faith if it doesn’t bear on this-worldly cares? But the paleo understands faith to be in service of an otherworldly project, which usually earns the accusation of some form or another of gnosticism, etc. But if scripture, as you say, matters, and I agree, then it’s pretty hard to read any of it (espcially the NT) and come away with any notion that faith is at least as much this-worldly as it is otherworldly. The whole point of Christian faith is to signal another reality beyond this one, which seems to be what trips up neo’s of all stripes.
LikeLike
Actually Mann, It’s not the christianizing of the task that makes the christian plumber a lesser plumber but rather his other worldly attention that takes away from the concrete task.
LikeLike
GAS, assuming more tongue than cheek in your comment, I get your point but I think it proves too much and ends up falling into the other ditch. If you want a good plumber then hire one; both un/believers have an equal shot at doing earth well (and sometimes the erroneous assumption that heaven implies earth happens to translate into good earthing, but at the same time no better than from those who don’t make such an assumption). I have an excellent mechanic, but it’s not because he’s a neocalvinist, and I have an excellent barber, but it’s not because he’s pagan. They just do earth well. I’ve also had bad Christian HVACers and lame pagan teachers.
LikeLike
Jeff, the claims of Christ on me as third base coach are different from those as elder or Christian. This goes back to the silence of Scripture. It says nothing about baseball or when to send the runner. General revelation does, so Christ does in a way. But that’s not redemptive. In which case, third-base coaching is not redemptive and in that sense it is not Christian and my doing it involves me in non-Christian activity. So when I coach third base I am less a Christian than when I worship on Sunday or attend session.
LikeLike
Right, GAS, I referred to “trying to hard to Christianize.” Kingdom confusion is a detriment to competence because, as it tries to pound a square peg in a round hole, it distracts from the task at hand.
I think it also tends toward superficiality. After all, how does one become a distinctly Christian third base coach? By wearing a respectable polo shirt, a respectable haircut, a winning smile and a WWJD bracelet?
Zrim, agreed, with the caveat that anyone with an agenda that distracts from the task at hand tends to perform at a lower level. Christians doing plumbing? Fine. Christians trying to do Christian plumbing? Possibly not sufficiently focused on the dynamics of their common kingdom activity.
LikeLike
Michael, Zrim: It was DGH that brought up elder issues, not I. As far as I’m concerned, the jurisdiction of elder does not extend to baseball, though it might extend to some players of baseball.
LikeLike
DGH: So when I coach third base I am less a Christian than when I worship on Sunday or attend session.
Interesting, provocative — but I don’t agree. I think you’re confusing who you are with what you are doing.
LikeLike
So Michael, if a Christian breaks God’s law while playing baseball, is it not a sin? Rhetorical question, of course.
But now consider the implication: Should a Christian disregard God’s law so that he can focus on the game?
LikeLike
As far as I’m concerned, the jurisdiction of elder does not extend to baseball, though it might extend to some players of baseball.
That sounds pretty close to my points about spheres and people. But careful, Jeff, with your use of prepositions, don’t want to become (what was it?) silly. Hey, wasn’t the Reformation all about prepositions and conjunctions and one-word qualifiers?
LikeLike
Jeff, I will always sin, whether in worship or coaching third base. (Because there’s always “I” in s-i-n?) But that doesn’t level worship and base coaching. In fact, I could be an excellent third base coach while dwelling on unexcellent (sinful) things all the while.
Always a Christian = always subject to God’s law. But, with few exceptions, competence in any particular common kingdom field is not inherently in compliance with or contrary to God’s law, including the common kingdom baseball field.
I guess you’ve been down this path before. I’m checking out for several hours at least.
LikeLike
Jeff, to do is to be.
LikeLike
Michael: Jeff, I will always sin, whether in worship or coaching third base. (Because there’s always “I” in s-i-n?) But that doesn’t level worship and base coaching.
Correct. And the distinction between worship and base coaching is real, but that doesn’t create a 50-foot wall between creational actions and “Christian” actions.
One indication that this is so — in fact, the indication that this is so — is the fact that you concede, rightly, that sin is sin at all times; therefore, we must be mindful of God’s law at all times. Our actions in the common realm can be sinful, and where there is no law there is no transgression; ergo, the possibility of transgression implies the normativity of God’s law over common actions. (NOT exhaustive normativity).
Further, that would seem to undermine your point that focusing on heavenly things causes us to be less competent at earthly things. Unless you think Christians *are* inherently less competent?
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, to do is to be.
Hope that’s not your principle of soteriology.
LikeLike
Jeff, nope, but how about my orientation to good works.
LikeLike
Jeff, generally Common Kingdom competence is accomplished by a combination of knowledge base and technique. The Christian has to learn a field and practice it just like the non-Christian. If you can show me how participation in the redemptive kingdom adds to either the knowledge base or the technique development of base coaching, plumbing, high jumping, chess playing, lawyering, guitar playing, automotive repair, etc., please do so. My eyes have seen a lot of goofy stuff and subpar competence that seems to be related to a desire to use “Christian” as an adjective in front of common kingdom activities. I don’t think Christians are less competent, which makes it all the more a shame when kingdom confusion, i.e., a zeal to baptize common kingdom tasks, results in inferior output.
LikeLike
MM: If you can show me how participation in the redemptive kingdom adds to either the knowledge base or the technique development of base coaching, plumbing, high jumping, chess playing, lawyering, guitar playing, automotive repair, etc., please do so.
I don’t feel the need to do so, because I don’t believe so. I think you might be arguing against something I’m not arguing.
LikeLike
OK, Jeff, and I figure on leaving this for now (a prediction, not a promise). For future reference, though, can you clarify what you think is at stake here? I see you object to “a 50-foot wall between creational actions and ‘Christian’ actions.” What do you see as the danger in omitting the adjective “Christian?”
LikeLike
Michael, I don’t mind saying that a Christian 3rd-base coach is simply coaching 3rd base. And if he told me that he was seeking to coach 3rd-base Christianly, then I wouldn’t think, “Ah. He will have better insight than others as to when to wave a runner to home.”
My perspective is not that of an outside party, trying to evaluate or regulate 3rd base coaches.
Rather, my perspective is that of the individual who happens to be a Christian and a 3rd base coach. And I ask, “What norms shape my view and execution of my job?” To me, the answer is clear: As a 3rd base coach, I am normed by the rules of baseball; as a Christian, I am additionally normed by God’s law. I will have an eye on both as I do my job.
One thing I think is at stake is the Christian doctrine of vocation. When DGH says things like “I am less of a Christian while coaching 3rd base”, I hear him saying that some occupations are more spiritual or God-honoring than others.
LikeLike
Personally I would hope that a true Christian plumber would do his common work out of a love for God and neighbor and my pipes and my wallet would profit from that motivation. Maybe by quality work, not necessarily lower price. Good work and others first treatment at a fair price, Christians should be better at.
I know that I have often been disappointed by others but hope my work and my relationships, show that even if coaching 3rd base I am doing it out of a God’s love motivated heart, which if watched closely over time should be apparent and transformational in the lives of others. Even a child is known by his doings.
I still probably would make the wrong decision and send some kid home only to be tagged out, so hire someone else if you want to win the game 😉
LikeLike
Here is Horton, Chandler, and Keller on culture. I heard Dr. Keller toss out the plumbing example.
Chandler, Horton, and Keller on the Church in Culture from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.
LikeLike
Oh…looked at it again…it was Horton who referred to plumbers not Keller.
LikeLike