This video has been making the rounds and it reminded me of how inexact the current evangelical understanding of culture is. Many assume that culture is everything that the church or religion is not and so Christianity and culture need to be brought into a coherent relationship. The problem is that this understanding of culture is about as precise as the adolescent quip “whatever.”
For instance, here is an on-line dictionary definition of culture:
1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
In other words, culture used to refer generally to the arts, education of a liberal variety, morals, manners, and languages. This definition arose chiefly in the eighteenth and nineteenth century when European nations were caught up with their superiority over barbarian continents and peoples. That’s not meant to be a swipe against the notions of higher, lower, and middle-brow cultures. It is to suggest that we are using the word today when talking about “the transformation of culture” in a different way than it was originally employed. Since language is essential to culture, the idea of transforming English or Dutch or Swahili according to — what, Christian rules of language? — makes about as much sense as transforming culture.
What is not used nearly as much — in fact, seldom — by evangelicals is the phrase “civil society” and this is much closer to what people mean when they talk about transforming culture. Civil society refers to all of those spheres of life outside control by or regulation from the state. It is comprised of clubs, community organizations, schools, and voluntary associations of all kinds including churches, for starters. And what characterizes civil society, as opposed to culture, is pluriformity and diversity. A healthy civil society is one in which people form distinct associations to address separate parts of human existence. A Kuyperian might be tempted to speak of sphere sovereignty when thinking about civil society but in a healthy society voluntary associations far outnumber the spheres.
But what is particularly frustrating about contemporary appeals to culture and its need for transformation is that the Bible fails to yield a definition of culture or describe a Christian one for that matter. The notion of culture is much later than Hebrew or Christian times and the concept is simply absent in Scripture. That sure is an oddity if Christians are more then ever agitated to Christianize the culture.
Of course, the remedy, as usual, is to read the likes of a Russell Kirk, T. S. Eliot, or Joseph Epstein on culture and what makes for a wholesome one, and let the Bible speak for itself about matters of faith and practice. Authors who do not go to the Bible for the details of a healthy culture do go to another divinely revealed book whether they know it or not — general revelation. If evangelicals spent more time reading secular authors on culture, and less time trying to find cultural patterns or norms in holy writ, they might deflate the scope of culture and find less reason to transform it. And that in turn might elevate the importance of word, sacraments, and prayer.
Old Life 
Is there any grounds for thinking that our call as the Church (in its worship and preaching of the gospel) and as Christians (in the rest of our lives) is one in the same – to transform others, rather than the culture or civil society we find ourselves in? It seems that the Bible speaks to our life in the world largely in terms of our relationships with others – in and out of the body of Christ. If we believe the “world” (i.e. culture/civil society) to be under Satan’s power, our attempts to arrest control back are futile. In other words, if we endeavor to change culture because we think it will help change people in a roundabout way (by means of osmosis), do we forget our primary responsibility is to the lost, not to that which is passing away?
Thanks for your post, Darryl. Am I on the right track with these thoughts?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart:
Thank you for another thought-provoking post. You are correct that believers who speak of “transforming culture” or “Christianizing culture” often seem to be unclear with respect to how they define “culture.” I just have two quibbles with your otherwise-excellent comments:
(1) You included the church under the category of voluntary associations. Of course, I am sure that you had in mind the fact that the visible church is entered into by individuals and families on a voluntary basis, and not through civil coercion. However, as you would no doubt agree, the church is not merely a “voluntary society.” It is the visible manifestation of Christ’s redemptive kingdom in this present inter-advent age of redemptive history. Through the proclamation of the gospel all men are commanded to bow the knee to King Jesus in faith and repentance, and to manifest that faith and repentance by becoming loyal baptized, communing subjects of Christ’s kingdom through responsible church membership. Church membership is a Divine requirement for all to whom the gospel comes. In this sense of spiritual responsibility before God the church is NOT a voluntary society (though, again, it is “voluntary” in the civil sense that membership therein is not enforced by civil penalties).
(2) In your last paragraph you seem to assert that God’s general revelation (the “book of nature”) reveals Divinely-inspired guidance for building a healthy culture. I believe that this “two book” position is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of general revelation. General Revelation is “general” both with respect to audience (all mankind in general) and content (God’s eternal power and Godhead, and man’s moral accountability to God, period — as per Rom. 1:20, 32; 2:14-15). It does not deal with matters of science and culture, but with man’s awareness of God and moral accountability to God (contrary to the erroneous “two books” view of revelation, which is a compromise of our confessional position of “Sola Scriptura”). See my blog article “The “Two Books” View versus Sola Scriptura” here: http://ropcnj.org/blog-mainmenu-9/73-the-qtwo-booksq-view-versus-sola-scriptura.html
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Geoffrey Willour
LikeLike
GW, it seems like your criticism of the “two books view” assumes that what some Reformed mean by it is that general revelation is co-equal with special revelation in eternal matters. I don’t know of any Reformed who really think that since it’s Roman. For example, in your article you write, “General/Natural revelation provides just enough information about God to damn a man, but not enough to show sinful man the way of salvation. Thus, it is a revelation unto damnation, not a revelation unto salvation.”
But I don’t think this is what Reformed two-bookers mean. What we mean is that general revelation is sufficient for provisional matters. You correctly make the point that general revelation, in matters eternal, is only good for law and thus only good to condemn (while special revelation alone reveals the way of salvation). But when it comes to ordering society or making culture the Bible is actually insufficient, to borrow a term from T. David Gordon. Provisional endeavor is structured by law, which is why general revelation is actually better than special because special is structured by gospel, which is what makes special better to norm ecclesiastical life. So the point seems to turn on the purpose of each book and the working categories are creation and redemption. For my own part, I like to think that if general revelation is good enough to eternally condemn (but not save) then it must be good enough to provisionally guide.
LikeLike
Erik, I think you are right. (Say hey to Jane and MJ.)
LikeLike
GW, I agree on the nature of the church as both a voluntary association (the state is not paying you to minister the word; you are not an agent of the civil government), and a holy nation. It’s both.
I am not sure, though, about general revelation. The Confession appeals repeated to the light of nature to resolve even matters of worship and polity about which Scripture does not speak. And that is the point — Scripture is clear about what it reveals, but that revelation is limited in scope. The light of nature gives us such goodies as Robert’s Rules, English grammar rules, and penicillin.
LikeLike
In support of DG’s notion that the Bible does not teach a coherent, comprehensive culture such as people typically use the term, this from Werner Jaeger (20th c. classicist) in “Paedeia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, Vol. I”
“Of course every highly organized nation has an educational system; but the law and the prophets of the Israelites, the Confucian systems of the Chinese, the Dharma of the Indians are in their whole intellectual structure fundamentally and essentially different from the Greek ideal of culture. And ultimately the habit of speaking of a number of pre-Hellenic ‘cultures’ was created by the positivist passion for reducing everything to the same terms: an outlook which applies hereditary European descriptions even to non-European things, and neglects the fact that historical method is falsified by any attempt to apply our conceptions to a world foreign to them.” (xvii-xviii)
Some Christians who are anti-Greek would take this as a condemnation of how Hellenic thinking so permeates all facets of culture. Some of CVT’s comments would strongly give this impression. I am thankful for this light-of-nature influence and find a sweet providence in the fact that the Gospel arose in a Hellenic context.
LikeLike
One of the most aggravating things about the notion that we should be seeking to take the civil realm for Jesus is that the focus is NOT on trying to turn the civil realm into a BELIEVING realm, but simply an outwardly OBEYING realm.
In other words, people aren’t trying to reform what people believe so much as what they’re doing. But this is foolish, because as Paul says, whatever doesn’t proceed from faith is sin. What good for the kingdom of God has been accomplished if unbelievers are more outwardly moral and upstanding citizens? If anything, this will only make it harder for them to see their need for Christ!
When people talk about taking “this town for Jesus”, they ironically become an obstacle to the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ and they don’t even know it.
LikeLike
I am curious as to what many of said “Cultural Transformers” would have done in ancient Greece. Would they concede that the early church failed in part of their mission? Or would they look at the ‘conversion’ of Constantine as the pinnacle of “Cultural Transformation”? That sure did a lot of good.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You point out the confusion of the concepts of culture and civil society. Is there not also a confusion of common grace and redemptive grace? Sending firefighters to Guatemala to teach other firefighters is an example of a common grace activity, putting out fires. Seeing that work as bringing glory to God is a result of Gospel transformation in the lives of the firemen. Seeing how every can help us build friendships and teach the Gospel is wise and true to the Great Commission.
But if my house is on fire I want the best firefighters (skilled in understanding general revelation about fires), whether Muslim, Jew or Catholic or Reformed Protestant. And I hope they put it out before they start preaching.
LikeLike
I think there are two distinct groups that we tend to lump together. One group follows the blueprint popularized by Schaeffer, trying to reclaim music, literature, and discriminating taste in wines (I think I just made up that last one). These tend to be Presbyterian or Dutch reformed, the latter of which looks back to Kuyper and Dooyweerd rather than Schaeffer.
The second group – evangelicals – follow/s the Falwell blueprint. They don’t want to redeem poetry – they want to win elections. And, really, there is little conflict about whether to save or regulate unbelievers, because the “save” part barely has a pulse. For the good of family and the good of America, political victories must be won, using pretty much the same tactics as any other faction except they say prayers during their rallies and clean up their trash afterwards.
LikeLike
The video stopped short of addressing the substance of the debate, though I’m glad it clarified that 2kers believe in Christians being such during the other six days of the week. I see that as happening via Christians bound by the broad, moral obligations of Christianity, striving to work well at their jobs as determined by those in the field (insofar as sin is not commanded, bizarre plumbing conundrums notwithstanding). Whether that’s enough or we need to hold everyone accountable to what we imagine the Christian statesman/magistrate/plumber/artist to be can cause threads spanning half the Internet.
LikeLike
Amen!
LikeLike
OP, in light of Dave Noe’s comment, I’m not sure what the transformers of ancient Greece would have done, but what some do today is steal back the educational capital from the pagans called the trivium and start Pleasant Valley Classical Christian Academy. Why they don’t steal back the Confucian systems of the Chinese or the Dharma of the Indians is a bit of a mystery though. Maybe because by “all of life” they really just mean western civilization. Or maybe because Pleasant Valley Taixue (Supreme Learning) Christian School sounds too ethnic and compromise-y.
LikeLike
Darryl G. Hart wrote:
“I am not sure, though, about general revelation. The Confession appeals repeated to the light of nature to resolve even matters of worship and polity about which Scripture does not speak. And that is the point — Scripture is clear about what it reveals, but that revelation is limited in scope. The light of nature gives us such goodies as Robert’s Rules, English grammar rules, and penicillin.”
Leave it to an OPCer to set forth Robert’s Rules as a product of Divine Revelation. 😉
Seriously, though, while I concede that our Confession uses the same “light of nature” terminology in WCF I.6 in connection with ordering circumstances of worship and church government as it does in I.1 in reference to general revelation, I am not sure that this undermines the main point I was making – namely, that general revelation is revelation about GOD and our moral accountability to God as HIs image bearers, not revelation giving us objective Divine guidance in the development of human culture and its products (like penicilin and Robert’s Rules).
First of all, the context of WCF I.6 asserts the absolute sufficiency of Holy Scripture “concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life” (the “life” part of that statement, by the way, being much broader and more comprehensive than simply man’s devotional, spiritual, and ecclessiastical life; as I know you would agree that the Christian life is lived 7 days a week and even in the context of the secular realm, not just in the context of holy activities on the Lord’s Day). It is only in connection with “circumstances” of worship and church government that are “common to human actions and societies” that the “light of nature” terminology is used. It is not used in connection with matters of doctrine/faith, Christian ethics, elements of worship, etc., for the Scriptures and the Scriptures “alone” (Sola Scripura) are absolutely sufficient for Christian faith, worship, ethics and living. So I’m not sure the “light of nature” terminology of our Confession can be used to support the “two book” position you seem to advocate; especially in view of the repeated confessional emphasis on Holy Scripure being the “only” infallible rule for Christian faith, practice and obedience. (I commend J.G. Vos’ explanation of the “light of nature in man” terminology in LC # 2 in his commentary on the Larger Catechism, pp. 5 & 6. His interpretation of this terminology is more in line with my position than with the “two book” view.)
While the development of things like penicilin and Robert’s Rules do indeed indirectly “reveal” God in the sense that they evidence the fact that man was created in God’s image (man’s being as Divine image-bearer revealing the reality and Divinity of the God whose image he bears), I think it would be more accurate to put these cultural developments under the theological category of God’s ordinary Providence rather than under the category of Divine Revelation (in “two book”, “book of nature” fashion).
Finally (and most important of all) I believe a careful exegesis of relevant Scripture passages which speak to the doctrine of general revelation (for example, Psa. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:18-21; 2:12-16) supports my position (that general revelation is general both as to audience and content, and is revelation of GOD and our moral accountability to Him), in line with a consistent protestant view of Sola Scriptura, and in contrast to the “two books” view that seems to have become “cool” in some Reformed circles today.
LikeLike
Malcolm said:
“But if my house is on fire I want the best firefighters (skilled in understanding general revelation about fires), whether Muslim, Jew or Catholic or Reformed Protestant. And I hope they put it out before they start preaching.”
Malcolm: I agree with the thrust of your statement. If, for example, my house is on fire and my son is trapped in his room on the second floor, I don’t care if the fireman who goes in to rescue him is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or even an atheist. The only thing I would care about in such circumstances is that he is a skilled and competent firefighter who is well-trained and capable of rescuing my son. But I would point out to you that a firefighter who is skilled in fighting fires is not thus skilled because he has studied “general revelation.” Rather, he is a skilled firefigher because he has studied and trained and gained experience in fighting fires. Period. Again, general revelation is revelation about GOD and our ethical accountability to Him. General revelation does not include objective Divine guidance about how to fight fires.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Thanks.
So what do you make of the heavens declaring the glory of God? Doesn’t nature reveal something about God’s character (even while it also demonstrates great mystery — think of the March of the Penguins). That God created the universe, planet earth, and human beings a certain way and not another, would seem to reveal something about him. At the same time, paying attention to the order of this creation is important for learning to live as one of his creatures according to purpose.
LikeLike
I did some reading on the “two books” terminology earlier this year, having been prompted by some debate on Greenbaggins. I found Bavinck in his Prolegomena to be very helpful on this (though I don’t have the page numbers offhand). My conclusion was that in Reformed theology, the “two books” distinction is not identical to the general revelation/special revelation distinction.
The two books distinction is between contrasting sources of knowledge. Sometimes it is used to speak of the distinction between (1) nature and common grace (which provide the knowledge necessary for science, art, etc.) and (2) Scripture and the illumination of the Holy Spirit (which of course provide the knowledge of God necessary for salvation). This is how Bavinck seems to have used the two books distinction.
But at other times, the two books distinction is used to speak of contrasting sources of *the knowledge of God* specifically, that is, nature (general revelation) versus Scripture (special revelation). For example, Belgic article 2 employs this usage.
But, properly speaking, the distinction between GR and SR is always between sources of the knowledge of God specifically, and never between knowledge-in-general and theological knowledge.
FWIW.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Thanks for the correction of my confusing the terms of nature and general revelation.
I think it is a close relationship though, to learn something truly about fire is common grace activity, and in that knowledge people know God, even though they suppress that knowledge.
LikeLike
So, David R., are you suggesting that it is imprecise to categorize the reservoir of knowledge and ability for fighting fires under “general revelation” and perhaps more precise to categorize it under “providence”? But while I think you make a helpful point, I also I tend to think that terms can be malleable, interchangeable and synonymous such that general revelation can mean revealed knowledge necessary for science, art, etc. as well as revelation about God and our ethical accountability to him (as GW points out).
LikeLike
Hey Zrim, in answer to your question, yes, though I think other labels, such as “non-theological knowledge,” “the light of nature” and “reason” are fine too. The problem with the term “revelation” is that in discussions of theology, it always has to do with the knowledge of God. But I have no problem granting your point about the malleability of terms, as long as it’s understood that that’s what we’re doing.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting quote from Bavinck’s Prolegomena on the issue of God as the source of non-theological knowledge:
“Not only in theology … but in every science we may discern three fundamental principles. Here, too, God is the first principle of being; present in His mind are the ideas of all things; all things are based on thoughts and are created by the word. It is His good pleasure, however, to reproduce in human beings made in His image an ectypal knowledge that reflects this archetypal knowledge in His own divine mind. He does this … by displaying them to the human mind in the works of His hands. The world is an embodiment of the thoughts of God; it is ‘a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God.’ It is not a book of blank pages in which, as the idealists would have it, we human beings have to write down the words but a ‘reader’ in which God makes known to us what He has recorded there for us. Accordingly, the created world is the external foundation of knowledge for all science.”
Bavinck also notes that all three Persons of the Trinity are at work, not only in our acquisition of theological knowledge, but also in our acquisition of non-theological knowledge. In both cases, God, who possesses archetypal knowledge, reproduces in humans a creaturely ectypal copy of that knowledge. He does so through the Son as Logos–in the case of theology, by the Scriptures; in the case of non-theological knowledge, by the display in nature of the works of His hands. And we perceive these objects of knowledge (both theological and non-theological) by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, in the one case, via His special operations; in the other, via His common operations.
LikeLike
David, would Bavinck then be more comfortable with a stricter sense of the term ‘revelation’ because it refers to God revealing His mind?
LikeLike
Thomas, No, I think the key thing is that the term always refers to God’s revealing of Himself (whether in nature or Scripture) and not to His imparting to us knowledge of science, art and other cultural activities. But Bavinck stressed that both theological and non-theological knowledge originate in God’s mind archetypally and are reproduced in His creatures ectypally.
LikeLike
Thanks, David. Your desired use of ‘revelation’ seems to rest on the distinction between God revealing Himself vs. the contents of his mind. General revelation refers to the former, and ‘“non-theological knowledge,” “the light of nature” and “reason”’ refer to the latter. Sorry if this is more obvious to everyone else.
LikeLike
Darryl G. Hart wrote:
“So what do you make of the heavens declaring the glory of God? Doesn’t nature reveal something about God’s character (even while it also demonstrates great mystery — think of the March of the Penguins). That God created the universe, planet earth, and human beings a certain way and not another, would seem to reveal something about him. At the same time, paying attention to the order of this creation is important for learning to live as one of his creatures according to purpose.”
GW: I would agree with your comments. The heavens do indeed reveal the glory of God. In fact (as I think Van Til emphasized), all things are revelatory of God. And certainly I believe you are correct that paying attention to God’s created order can help us as His creatures to live in line with His creational purposes. My concern has been to emphasize that general revelation fundamentally points us to the reality of God and of our accountability to HIm as His creatures; it does not fundamentally exist to give us objective Divine guidance in parliamentary procedure, medicine, fire-fighting, etc. (though, as you point out, studying the created order can help us learn how to live in line with that created order; the creation ordinances of marriage and labor being an example of this).
I agree that science, art, music, sports, culture, etc., manifest the reality of God in that they are the products of God’s image-bearers. But I also believe it is imprecise to say that those who have made advances in these common-grace, cultural endeavors did so by studying “the book of nature” (general revelation). Yes, unregenerate men study the created order and gain common-grace wisdom and insight from doing so, and they often produce cultural products that bring temporal benefits to all. But they do not study the created order as an order that manifests God and their ethical accountability to Him. Scripture indicates that unregenerate, totally depraved man does not study general revelation; rather he suppresses it in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-21). Anyone who truly studied general revelation would become a worshipper and servant of God (something only possible through regeneration).
LikeLike
Malcolm wrote:
“Thanks for the correction of my confusing the terms of nature and general revelation.
I think it is a close relationship though, to learn something truly about fire is common grace activity, and in that knowledge people know God, even though they suppress that knowledge.”
GW: You’re welcome. And your comments above are well stated, IMO.
LikeLike
David R. wrote:
“But, properly speaking, the distinction between GR and SR is always between sources of the knowledge of God specifically, and never between knowledge-in-general and theological knowledge.”
Thanks for your helpful comments on this and for bringing Bavinck’s insights to our attention.
LikeLike
Zrim: when you say terms can be malleable, interchangeable and synonymous, would you include the term “Reformed”?:p
LikeLike
GW, your clarification is helpful but I’m not sure about your conclusions about the unregenerate (or by implication the regenerate). Two of the wisest writers I read are Leon Kass and Wendell Berry, neither of whom we would classify as regenerate. But both men are clearly theists and their reflections on the natural order begin with its givenness as the creation by God. That recognition of a creator is important, I believe, to their wisdom.
Which leads me to wonder if, akin to the parable of the sower, the light of nature planted in different people has different results.
LikeLike
Alexander, I think of “Christian” and “Reformed” as interchangeable and synonymous.
LikeLike
From PCA Pastor William H. Smith’s blog…………
“Machen’s opponents at Princeton were not liberals, but moderate evangelicals, who were more influenced by revivalism and pietism.” Which further led to Princeton Seminary and Mainline Protestant churches eventually becoming out & out liberal.
“theology determines mission……….”
All this to say I am frankly not buying it (though I appreciate the kindness & civility) when Keller in the video says……….”We are really saying the same thing.” I don’t think so! Further more it frames the entire ehtos and discussion in a way where if one is not a moderate (as they define it) then one is a radical, a TR, dead orthodox, or mean.
This “can’t we all get along”, moderate, Oprahized version of the Reformed faith is really stripping it of all its true meaning and selling much of it down the river. Is it really Reformed? Not if one defines “Reformed” by our historic confessional theology, piety and practice rather than by experience. But then again this is why Keller could very well get on Oprah’s book of the month club along with other moderates and why folks like Dr. Darryl Hart never will. Keller is not a good ambassador for Reformed theology. Instead he has really just confused people into thinking they are “Reformed” when truth be told they are not. Here is further thought on this point.
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points
LikeLike