Our favorite PCA blogger (why? He’s more my age than Stellman) has adapted an older article from the Nicotine Theological Journal for his blog, calling it “Bye, Bye Kuyper.” Here is an excerpt:
Christians have come to believe that they worship God as much in their weekday jobs as they do on the Lord’s Day gathered with the congregation to pray, sing, read, and preach. In fact, Monday can be more important than Sunday. Sunday’s gathering is justified not by offering God acceptable worship and dispensing the means of grace, but only if it has some good effect on one’s work and leisure Monday through Saturday.
Ministers who lead in worship, preach the Word, and administer the sacraments are doing nothing more important than the politician or housewife (or husband) or professor of physics or laborer. In fact he may be doing something less important as he provides only the spiritual inspiration for those who really advance the kingdom. The Christian school is as important as the Church, perhaps more important if we want to prepare our young people to conquer the world for Christ.
The whole thing has led to a denigration of the traditional mission of the church. Churches are embarrassed to say that they have no more to offer than the ordinary means of grace. Ministers feel they must apologize if they do no more than preach the Word, administer the sacraments, show lost sheep the way to the fold, and help make sure the gathered sheep have the provision and protection they need as they make their way to the heavenly sheepfold. The world, it is contended, will rightly condemn the church if it does not see the “practical effects” of its existence (hence the church must distribute voters’ guides to promote Christian political agendas, create faith-based ministries to provide cradle to grave welfare, put on get seminars so everybody can communicate and have good sex, and offer concert seasons and art shows to provide the congregants and community with cultural experiences).
I know that not all Kuyperians approve of the way Kuyperianism has been domesticated. But what I am still waiting for is an account of neo-Calvinism that avoids the unhinging of the church that The Christian Curmudgeon describes. It is one thing to say that voters’ guides are a problem. It is another, though, to say that voting is kingdom work. It seems to me that Kuyperians are so reluctant to give in to the spirituality of the church that they end up making the world safe for both Jim Skillen and Jim Wallis.
Old Life 
This guy is brilliant!
LikeLike
Standing ovation!
LikeLike
Good stuff! Sending to my Kuyperian friends. Wait for the fireworks.
LikeLike
But the church is supposed to redeem all of culture, you can’t do that if you don’t get your people elected into office. And how will you get the voting booths filled unless you get the pulpits filled. I think you’re missing the beauty of this logic…
LikeLike
“Perhaps it’s time to do the Reformed thing – go back to the Bible and ask for directions.”
Biblicism. Here, here! R. S. Clark wants us to go back to the confession. This guy wants us to go back to the Bible. Gnarly. Problem is, when exegetical arguments are raised against neo-confessionalists like Hart & friends, they claim that the confession is all the exegesis they need for any theological claim (yes, unfortunately some, like Darryl Hart, think the confession does exegesis. When the Kuyperians claim such and such biblical warrant for this or that practice, the response is: “but that’s not confessed, and one may only read the bible through the lens of the confession” (which puts a damper on all that “the confession is fallible and the Bible is the standard for the confession” business).
“show lost sheep the way to the fold, and help make sure the gathered sheep have the provision and protection they need as they make their way to the heavenly sheepfold”
Unfortunately, coming from neo-confessionalists, this doesn’t mean much. As neo-confessionalist Darryl Hart once told me: “Paul, why bother with apologetics, that denies perseverance of the saints. All the sheep need to do (besides hearing the word and partaking of the sacraments) is memorize the confession. And Paul, there is no such thing as Christian philosophy. The Bible says zip, zilch, nada, ø, about subjects like epistemology such that there could be any thing called “biblical epistemology.” This is the pull-out method of “protection” rather than the condom method. Both don’t guarantee against undesirable consequences, but the latter is far more superior.
LikeLike
Paul, if someone tells me that the Bible commands Christian day schools, I will raise the question of what our confessions teach. The confessions are the corporate witness of a church. They are what bind us together. The same does not apply to an individual’s exegesis (unless he happens to be behind a pulpit.)
Somewhere along the line you’ll need to include notions of ecclesiology and forms in your view of the cosmos.
LikeLike
Wow! The relative merits of Onanism vs. condoms. Now that’s world and life view stuff!
LikeLike
Neo-Kuyperians like to talk about the fallacy of dualism, but they seem to more guilty of it than 2K and more than they are willing to admit. By trying to sweep every of life up under their particular worldviewism, what they generally end up doing is creating an Amish-like subculture, but one that is compelled to be militant, political and actively engaged in trying to bring everyone else under their umbrella. Very strange stuff.
LikeLike
The ironic truth is that the church has been most effective in transforming the secular order when it was most focused on the sacred.
LikeLike
I’ve never understood the osmosis theory, Bill. Doesn’t transforming things, like creating things, take deliberation? If I want to transform my grades from bad to good then shouldn’t I actually study my books instead of place them under my pillow (dreaming being the parallel to being focused on the sacred)?
LikeLike
That is the point. The church is not (should not) be focused on transformation.
LikeLike
Bill,
Here’s my three cents. The Reformation changed the West but not because the Reformers wanted to change Europe. The churches were so intertwined with the social order (since Constantine) that introducing new communions (outside fellowship with Rome) would inevitably pull the threads of Christendom’s quilt. So yes, the Reformers were focused on reforming the church and only secondarily gave attention to setting up a holy society. But they also could not foresee where their spiritual reforms would lead in the secular sphere, and ultimately those reforms had to encompass room for people who dissented from the established church — meaning disestablishment and secularization.
LikeLike
But, Bill, the osmosis theory seems to suggest that the point is in fact social transformation, only with a different strategy for getting there. When one says that “the church has been most effective in transforming the secular order” it seems to suggest that the church has done so and that the most effective way of doing it is to not try to do it.
The osmosis theory tends to be focused on the genesis of western civ., as in we wouldn’t have the theories of political arrangements, medicine, education, ethics, art, law, etc. if weren’t for the fact that it was all filtered through Christianity. But 1) it seems that the pagans were actually responsible for all that and 2) even if it all owed to the church, how the heck do you accomplish such things by not trying and focusing on the next age? If that’s really true then can I tell my wife the pots and pans will go from dirty to clean if I just sit and read my book in the living room instead of actually cleaning them?
LikeLike
Thank you.
One of my memories was of my years as a youth leader 1988-91 and I wouldn’t let the kids play games in the sanctuary nor would we leave for a Sunday activity until after the first worship service. The kids and some parents thought I was a bit nuts to put that much emphasis on being in worship on Sunday am. I was raised in a congregation that saw worship as the primary activity of the church. People have come and gone so I’m not sure that church still believes that but it was the way I was raised.
I do not consider myself a very good worshiper but I do know it is very important and that sacred things happen when the word is preached and that is where I will be on Sunday. What God does on Sunday is often a surprise. I’ve lost count of how many Ah-ha moments I have had during a sermon where God ordered some of the puzzle pieces scattered around in my brain and there was order out of chaos.
LikeLike
Paul,
A few problems here, and I’d be interested in your take. The confessions do derive their basis from scripture, and we both believe this. The problem isn’t that Kuyperians, or anyone else for that matter, engage in exegesis that may amend, or expand the biblical scope of the confession. Warrant for such actions are covered in WCF Chs. 1 and 31, and it is clear from our confessional history that the standards can and have been modified. We should be engaging in solid biblical exegesis, and evaluating our standards on that basis from time to time.
The problem is as I see it, is that some Neo-Cals (not all), and other groups and individuals as well, engage in private interpretation, or even a sort of corporate exegesis where new interpretations are developed and posited as “Reformed” and these new tenets then become authoritative, after all it has been derived from scripture. What is markedly absent is the eclesiastical role of interpretation. As confessing Christians, with standards we maintain are derived from Scripture, we uphold the truth of our confessional standards. At an ecclesiastical level, any authoritative interpretation must square with our standards and officers take vows to uphold these. If an extra-confessional interpretation is deemed biblical, and warrant can be demonstrated, we have processes by which these can be evaluated.
I not against revisiting the issues being debated today and evaluating what may or may not be included in a revised confession. But that is an ecclesiastical project. The quotation in DGH’s post speaks of ministers executing their offices in a way that is very much consistent with our confessional standards. You seem to me to be placing yourself in a position here where a minister deriving authority from Scripture and a minister evaluating his Scriptural positions through our confessional standards are at odds. I don’t think that this view in the long run will help maintain unity in our churches, or aid in modifying and updating our confession.
LikeLike
Jed, I hadn’t been here since I did a drive-by with my unsubstantive comment in order to test Darryl’s theory that blogs are a place for un-thought-out snark that one doesn’t need to take account for. I got your email, so here I am (yes, the previous was more snark 🙂
You’re a 2Ker who has his head on straight, you know I think that. My comments here should almost always be read as assuming a prior background, and that background is the many half-hearted remarks and arguments Darryl has made over the years. You first paragraph is certainly right-on, one just wishes guys like Hart & Friends would say as much. And, if they agree with your first paragraph, one wishes they’d at least not say things that ostensibly appear to contradict it.
As to your second paragraph, here’s what I ask: what’s the exegetical argument, let me judge the merits of the case. The source or motivation of the argument isn’t my concern, as that would commit the genetic fallacy. I also agree with exegesis and interpretation and epistemology operating within a community. I think the social epistemologists have something right. But I draw that communal circle perhaps larger than many Confessionalists. I think Eph. 4 properly exegeted doesn’t mean the “OPC” will lead me into correct doctrinal unity. But the bottom line is that I just want to see the argument for the position. One (of many) standards I’ll use to judge the argument is how my more narrow community sees things. Moreover, I would say that almost all of the things debated here at Old Life, or mentioned in the blog linked to in the body, are not confessional standards. When there’s liberty to debate *within* a confessional atmosphere, since the confession doesn’t speak on or about it (at least not in the detail required), then this removes the legs from the “we have to interpret matters within our ecclesiastical community” counter argument. As I see it, virtually all of the debates between neo-Cals and Old Schoolers etc., are over matters the confession hasn’t weighed in on. Oh, and even when they are, often there’s no agreed upon interpretation *of the confession*!
As to the last paragraph, I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. I don’t want “Go back to the Bible” to be rigged. Second, I don’t believe that much of what the author spoke on has either a slam dunk exegetical or confessional argument. Third, my point was to say that the “protect the sheep” sounds out when lauded by a neo-Confessionalist like Hart. When someone says “why bother” about apologetics, and then says with a straight face that to teach church members apologetic answers to challenegs is to deny perseverance of the saints, the whole “protect the sheep” but rings hallow. I’m sure you’d agree with me.
LikeLike
Paul, in case you missed it, the issue is what the Bible reveals and whether the church can speak apart from Scripture. The matters that 2kers debate are of course not in Scripture and that it the reason for debate — to try to get the church to limit her proclamation to what the church says.
My point about why bother with apologetics was directed at your version of apologetics, which appears to be simply a game to prove you are the smartest guy in the room.
LikeLike
Paul,
But I draw that communal circle perhaps larger than many Confessionalists
I think I get where you are coming from here. Some of my dearest Christian friends are baptists. There is a very real sense in which our fellowship is rich, but I would still classify this fellowship as *informal*, in the sense that there is no real ecclesiastical authority or ties. I enjoy *formal* fellowship primarily in my own church and within our confessional communion and to the rest of the NAPARC communions and c(so far as our ecumenical relations extend to these communions). While the informal fellowship ‘feels’ deeper at times, since many of these friends are people I have grown up with, there is more spiritual weight with my formal fellowships. I think the OPC and the PCA do an admirable job of recognizing the catholicity of the church in extending communion to all who are formally attached to a church and have a credible profession of faith. Catholic union does extend beyond even formal ecclesiastical ties, and to that degree, I think we can have a good measure of fellowship with those who aren’t Reformed.
here’s what I ask: what’s the exegetical argument, let me judge the merits of the case. The source or motivation of the argument isn’t my concern, as that would commit the genetic fallacy…
No problem with this on a personal level, or even a public level in the case of a church officer. The only problem is what do we do when the exegete claims biblical warrant for something that a) is not clarified in the confessional standards; or b) contradicts the standards and then teaches this interpretation as something that ought to be believed or is binding on Christian behavior. Any doctrinal development that is being taught authoritatively needs to be confessed corporately. So, for example, if we were to say that there is warrant to believe that there is a *biblical epistemology* (or union, or any other matter discussed today) in such a way that it should affect the doctrine and teaching of the church this should be brought up for discussion and incorporation in our confessional standards per WCF 31. It shouldn’t be taught as authoritative until then, unless we were convinced that it would be heretical to do otherwise. My problem, and I think it is something all of 2k adherents share this, is that there is so much being passed as authoritative that is either not Scripturally clear, or not within the purview of our Confessions.
I think Eph. 4 properly exegeted doesn’t mean the “OPC” will lead me into correct doctrinal unity.
One of the best things that DGH has consistently argued is that doctrinal unity is best attained when confessional bodies stick to their confessional standards instead of seeking a lowest common denominator. Part of the gravity of being believing Protestants is that we look to Scripture as the final arbiter of all doctrine, and this means a parting of formal fellowship over certain disagreements. This preserves doctrinal purity in the long run, and keeps churches doctrinally unified. This is why we can have informal fellowship with those outside our communions.
LikeLike