One of the striking aspects of Carl Trueman’s book, Republocrat, is how many times he tells conservative Protestants that they need to be smarter about the way they understand politics and society. Here’s one example:
My point is not that Christian should abandon one biased news channel for another; rather,it is that Christians above all people should take seriously their responsibilities as citizens and make every effort to find out as much as they can about issues that matter. Watch Beck, listen to Limbaugh, or watch Olbermann if you must; but do not mistake these men for serious and thoughtful commentators on the world; rather,they are satirical comedy turns — a bit of fun and nonsense. Watch serious news programs, too, from a variety of channels to make as sure as humanly possible that you are seeing the issues in all their complexity. Better still, buy a decent, thoughtful magazine or newspaper that has the potential of dealing with issues in more than thirty-second sound bites and video clips. Society needs Christians who are better informed and more articulate than the likes of Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, or Bill O’Reilly. Let us be Greek apologists once more, and show the civil powers that we can be the best and most informed and thoughtful citizens there are, not those whose stock-in-trade are cliches, slander, and lunatic conspiracy theories.
And here’s a hunch on why many conservative Protestants need this counsel, actually two hunches. The first is what biblicism does to knowledge that we may acquire from sources other than the Bible. If we believe that the Bible is the sole source of truth about the whole world, ironically, we may be even more susceptible to receive as gospel the views of Sean and Fox. Why? Because we haven’t developed habits of evaluating knowledge derived from non-biblical sources.
The second hunch is that w—- v—-s point conservative Protestants in the direction of theory and abstraction and such philosophical reflection is ill equipped to make sense of the messiness that afflicts everyday life. In other words, a philosophical outlook may allow you to dissect the ideals behind a policy proposal. But it prevents you from seeing the mechanics of give-and-take that are necessary to balance competing interests, political stability, social order, and personal freedom. W—- v— also has a long history of nurturing conspiracy theories, such as that all wrong endeavors are the work of Satan and his forces. In a sense that is true. In another sense, it makes no sense of the everyday and momentous decisions people must make in the earthly city.
Old Life 
Dr. Hart,
Re: “W—- v— also has a long history of nurturing conspiracy theories, such as that all wrong endeavors are the work of Satan and his forces. In a sense that is true. In another sense, it makes no sense of the everyday and momentous decisions people must make in the earthly city.”
I really appreciate this post, but thinking you could do better on this last part. Is it not balanced to recognize that we wrestle not with flesh and blood so we can be better neighbors with whose beliefs we disagree? And, is it not good to recognize there are some fields that are more prone to error (eg: partisan journalism)? Would not being aware of both of these things be sensible in our everyday lives and decisions?
P.S. Are you still mad at me for calling philosophy the devil’s playground? 😉
LikeLike
I’m not advocating “nurturing conspiracy theories, such as that all wrong endeavors are the work of Satan and his forces,” but you’re the same guy who told us that ideas don’t change the world: God does. I was broadsided by that (and I shouldn’t have been).
Yet aren’t ideas part of the “messiness that afflicts everyday life”? Aren’t ideas part of the “everyday and momentous decisions people must make in the earthly city”?
I don’t necessarily want to defend w– v–s (ha!), but I am trying to reconcile the two things you’ve said. How important are ideas?
LikeLike
Sorry Doc – I don’t think I was very clear (nuttin’ new there).
What struck me was the phrase: “all wrong endeavors are the work of Satan and his forces” and it not seeming to be considered useful for everyday awareness in your last paragraph. I hope that helps bring a little more clarity to my first comment.
I would also see partisan politics/journalism as being a playground for the devil – every notice how the truth is routinely twisted in order to gain advantage or destroy a perceived enemy, or stir other men to passion or action, or to generate viewers or donations? Needless to say – it’s quite manipulative. It doesn’t appear to be only man’s sinfulness at work when the larger picture is looked at – things seems to snowball over time. I’m thinking being aware that we have an adversary is a good thing for everyday life – there are oodles of snares the enemy sets for men. Isn’t that part of being a thoughtful Christian, too?
LikeLike
White virtue?
LikeLike
Lily, just as no news is good news, so is silence approval.
LikeLike
Chris, please say more. I’m not sure what you mean by ideas are part of the messiness. I’d hardly disagree that ideas exist. But how do you think they function? And don’t you see a difference between an idea and an idea about an idea.
LikeLike
Lily, I’m still not sure what you’re saying about journalism. Having watched The Wire, or Broadcast News, or Shattered Glass, I’m fairly cynical about news reporting but I don’t know that we need to attribute the problems to Satan’s conspiracy, at least as the proximate cause and how we view all reporting.
LikeLike
Doc,
I’m sorry about being unclear. I haven’t watched the TV shows you have so I don’t have a frame of reference for them. I’m not quite sure how to explain my view of journalism except to remind you how many times journalism has been used by a government or group to propagandize the citizenry. I don’t know if you have experienced this, but there are times when I am reading history that I get a strong sense of the invisible cosmic side of the battle. It’s almost as if you can see Satan unleash his venom on mankind to wreck mayhem (eg: radio/news propaganda being used as a tool to facilitate the genocide in Rwanda). And the goodness and mercy of God towards us (eg: the Roman Catholic work in Rwanda that is bringing tearful repentance and forgiveness between a number of the perpetrators and victims in the aftermath).
Perhaps the best way to explain my remark about journalism being the Devil’s playground is my concern for how it can be and often is used to mislead, manipulate, and harm with devastating consequences. Perhaps, I haven’t been paying attention in the past, but it seems as though news articles/broadcasts/documentaries where they try to present both sides of the story for the reader/viewer has become rare and almost a lost art in our nation. Not only does it seem that there is not much but opinion/partisan news anymore, it also seems like we are being inundated with revisionist history and that really disturbs me – especially for our youth. This may be goofy, but I see some fields of work as more vulnerable than others and having a greater capacity for harm if they become the Devil’s playground. I hope this makes sense?
LikeLike
Lily, it may be hard to a Calvinist to see the devil at work in these things due to his understanding of abiding human sin to explain the goings on in the world. We don’t tend to discern invisible cosmic things, Mark Driscoll being the exception. But that’s an old school v. new school thing.
LikeLike
DGH,
Certainly there is a difference between an idea and an idea about an idea (I’m not trying to make this about worldviews – I’m trying to reconcile a previous post about ideas not changing the world. Maybe I’m just confused. Please tell me if I am).
Let’s just take as an example, Kant’s idea about the noumenal and the phenomenal. It seems to me that that idea has shaped the world even to this day (not apart from God’s providence, of course). It also seems like Joe Citizen could make an “everyday and momentous decision” that is shaped (consciously or not) by Kant’s idea. Having a thoughtful discussion with Joe about a momentous decision might mean challenging the idea that the noumenal is unknowable.
And to try to tie this in with your quote from Trueman, wouldn’t men like Marshal McLuhan, Neil Postman and Ken Myers say that ideas about cultural forms, the nature of technology and what constitutes news, all be ideas that shape how 21st century American Christians receive the issues of the day? I, too, am cynical about news reporting. I don’t like receiving news from any channel. And does it make me a lunatic conspiracy theorist if I question the veracity of some “news” stories?
I don’t know if this clarifies what I was saying before, or if it is just an exercise in my own confusion. Hopefully it is the former.
LikeLike
I’m with Chris when he says, “I, too, am cynical about news reporting. I don’t like receiving news from any channel.”
It’s hard to take Trueman’s appeal seriously when he implies that there are things worthwhile on TV or that the newspapers are any better. Every story of importance seems to be government driven, if not Pravda-esque. It’s hard to believe that people can miss that.
LikeLike
Lily, that does make sense and I generally agree, in which case it is all the more important to take one’s news from a variety of sources.
LikeLike
Chris, thanks for the explanation and I’m not sure I disagree (or see the inconsistency in what I have posted here). You would be clearer if you could give an example of how a momentous decision in life were based on someone’s reading of Kant. I can possibly imagine this happening, though my sense is that most of us rarely live that theoretically (not even the w—- v—ers; do you cross a street if the street’s designer had a pagan w—- v—-?).
LikeLike
I wonder if Carl’s comments about American news sources was clarified, like mine was, as an Englishman living in the USA. Hearing the high speed talk and raised tone of evangelical radio jocks and watching Fox News made me worry if the USA evangelical and conservative scene was marching with a fixed gaze to the drum beat of how the government is the big threat; how guns are an issue of personal liberty to die for; how vital oil is at any cost and down with ‘greenie weenies’; and the military is untouchable. Now, I know I am a Brit and so my knowledge of the USA news scene is scant and skewed, but common themes kept popping up like those I have out lined when I talked with my American friends in PA. So I can appreciate how alien or foreign it may be to Carl and others to see folks not having an in depth and nuanced outlook on politics and issues, and he is right.
But less anyone should think having a philosophical and varied source of news and politics is a way to solve matters, check the scene in Europe where the European Union spawned technocrats, policy wonks, and many thousands of politicians in recent decades to build a better Europe. Now we have the whole shebang of the EU in monetary and even political terms looking looking distinctly wobbly – so much for a smarter way of politics European style.
I often wish Reformed Christians and even evangelicals could pour their interest, care, passion, and money into a more philosophical, nuanced, well read, and world informed focus on building the body politic of the church, the visible body of God’s people. By encouraging and giving their time, finances, and prayers for the training of Presbyterian ministers who would minister Word and sacrament, Reformed protestants may not inculcate a sometimes fear and hate driven world view as they don’t look fervently at the horizonatal world before them, but rather instead keep a steady focus on the vertical heavenly calling of the Kingdom.
Are Reformed Presbyterians as articulate and applying the Bible and the Westminster Confession as they may be informed about politics distilled from the news realm? I admit the USA political scene if far more colourful, dynamic and interesting than the dull, anodyne waffle we get here in the UK (see Ed Milliband and Harriet Harman for prime UK examples) and can take up one’s time and thinking. But it is far, far better to discuss, consider, and exchange about more fundamental truths such as the presence of Christ in the sacramental elements; the practical support and nature of being saved in a covenant by God through His Son; how the church is the mediator of the Gospel, and much more beside about the church.
As the USA slowly but steadily gears up for an election, I trust our American friends will have the priority of the church before politics, and how to maintain the standards which are being slowly and almost imperceptibly eroded by modern ways which in practise contradict much of the Presbyterian government of the church. I am sure Carl would agree with this.
LikeLike
Darryl said this: “Lily, I’m still not sure what you’re saying about journalism. Having watched The Wire, or Broadcast News, or Shattered Glass, I’m fairly cynical about news reporting but I don’t know that we need to attribute the problems to Satan’s conspiracy, at least as the proximate cause and how we view all reporting.
Zrim said this: “Lily, it may be hard to a Calvinist to see the devil at work in these things due to his understanding of abiding human sin to explain the goings on in the world. We don’t tend to discern invisible cosmic things, Mark Driscoll being the exception. But that’s an old school v. new school thing.
And Lily said this: I don’t know if you have experienced this, but there are times when I am reading history that I get a strong sense of the invisible cosmic side of the battle. It’s almost as if you can see Satan unleash his venom on mankind to wreck mayhem (eg: radio/news propaganda being used as a tool to facilitate the genocide in Rwanda).
What I have concluded about all this is that Luther developed this idea of Anfechtugen which the Reformed Calvinists never really bought into. Plus, you don’t see Calvin throwing ink blotters at the devil and his minions or using flatulance as a means of spiritual warfare. I find this stuff kind of comical and I think it might also have something to do with the type of mental makeup that Luther had. He was deeply steeped in the medieval mentality and seemed to have an extremely vivid imagination. Calvin had a much different mindset and a different type of backround in the training he received as a lawyer.
Who was more accurate in their assessment of spiritual warfare is open to debate I suppose. The scriptures do address cosmological battles in the heavenlies but how we make sense of this is a matter which becomes somewhat difficult to come to terms with.
LikeLike
DGH,
I think most people (a) have never read Kant and yet (b) think like Kant (because of the impact of ideas). I think the cliche “no-one-knows-for-sure (because really ‘it’ is unknowable)” – whether applied to ethics or metaphysics (e.g., the existence of the soul, personal eschatology, etc.) or even the existence of God himself – expresses a very non-theoretical way that many people approach life with. Should Joe’s girlfriend have an abortion? Should Joe join the military to go fight in the war(s)? There are other momentous decisions, but I’m just not being very creative at the moment…
LikeLike
To add to this concept of cosmological battles in the heavenlies, the most vivid scriptural picture of this ongoing battle is revealed to us in Revelation chapter 12 where the great dragon was thrown down out of heaven, after Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension; where he used to accuse the seed of the woman (the brethren) day and night before the throne of God. Since being banished. the dragon became furious with the Woman (the church) and makes war with her offspring.
The only thing we really need to know about spiritual warfare is that we overcome this warfare by the blood of the lamb and the word of testimony (which is the Word of God) or, as some have interpreted it, the Gospel as recorded in the New Testament. We don’t have to go around binding the spiritual strongmen that have their grips on the major metropolitan areas or various nations like the charismatics try to do.
There also seems to be something to tearing down the strongholds in peoples minds which the preaching of the Law and Gospel seems to be able to accomplish. So, all we really need for this spiritual warfare is found in the simple ordinary means- Word and Sacrament.
LikeLike
Chris,
Not to speak for DGH… But I think he’s suggesting that most people make decisions based on moral intuitivism, and not by engaging in an abstract analysis of the various worldviews that may be at play in making such decisions.
When someone says, “No one knows for sure,” I’d suggest that he is simply making an intuitive assessment of the unavailability of unambiguous evidence to prove or disprove something. Contrary to your suggestion, he is not necessarily channeling Kant.
Worldviewism posits that, because the world is fallen, moral intuitivism is impossible. Therefore, worldviewism holds that the text of the Bible is the exclusive source of all truth about all things…from plumbing to hitting a baseball. In other words, worldviewism believes that one must have right ideas (i.e., a Biblical worldview) to be able to do plumbing effectively. The problem is this: None of us lives in this way! For the most part, we exercise moral intuition and probably fire not a single neuron wondering about our worldview commitments. Despite what the Kuyperians tell us, we actually live as though it is possible to exercise moral intuition. In other words, we don’t live as though the Bible is the exclusive source of all knowledge about all things.
So why should we suppose that politics is any different from plumbing? The Kuyperian biblicists would have us believe that people are pro-choice because they have been brainwashed by “cultural Marxists” and therefore have a Marxist worldview that leads them to accept abortion as a necessary part of achieving a classless society. In reality, most people are pro-choice because (1) they have doubts as to the moral status of the early-term fetus, (2) they are reluctant to impose judgment on abused and/or poor women, (3) they fear the alternative, that is, hundreds of thousands of unwanted kids born into socially unstable family situations, and (4) they fear the emergence of alternative means of terminating a pregnancy (e.g., drinking, drugs, back-alley abortions, etc.). In general, the Kuyperian biblicists who dominate the pro-life movement have done little to address the practical concerns that often lead people to be pro choice. Instead, they have simply vilified these everyday folks as evil people who have been brainwashed by so-called “cultural Marxists”.
I offered the above example because it illustrates how worldviewism–with its implicit assumption that all moral decisions rest on abstract philosophical commitments–has led the pro-life movement to seem like a tone-deaf cult whose members are mostly nut-jobs. Because worldviewism denies the possibility or moral intuitivism, its adherents are ill prepared to address the intuition-based concerns that everyday folks have about criminalizing abortion.
I’d suggest that politics and plumbing are not too different. And if evangelicals can begrudgingly accept a measure of moral intuitivism in the realm of plumbing, then they can do the same in politics. In fact, I’d suggest that they’d experience far greater success and create far fewer enemies if they did so.
LikeLike
Bob,
Without disagreeing with you, I’d also add that worldviewists are used to being on the receiving end of the justification stick.
LikeLike
Chris, I’m not sure. If people are skeptical about truths, it often has to do when it is to their advantage. The same goes for when they think certain truths are certain, such as when another driver is an a— for cutting them off. When it comes to smoking, it’s amazing how much moral certainty exists.
I’m not saying ideas are insignificant. How could I as a faculty member? But even educated people don’t justify their actions by ideas.
LikeLike
Agreed, it is always wrong to call the guy who cuts me off an a–. But what’s a little grey to me is whether I can call him a stinking Weltanschauung-er?
Please advise.
LikeLike
Aron, it is fine and you may want to use a stronger adjective.
LikeLike
“The first is what biblicism does to knowledge that we may acquire from sources other than the Bible. If we believe that the Bible is the sole source of truth about the whole world, ironically, we may be even more susceptible to receive as gospel the views of Sean and Fox.”
There’s an interesting parallel here. As various commentators have pointed out, someone like David Barton has gained popularity amongst evangelicals because his reading of history is similar to the way many evangelicals read the bible; straight from the page and without any additional context:
“He took the Times reporter on a tour of his library, showing off his volumes and their yellowed pages. And he uses these documents to brush aside complaints that he lacks any formal academic training in history. “I don’t have a doctorate in that, no,” he told Stewart. “I’ve got a lot of documents … and what I got taught and what I’ve seen in the actual documents aren’t the same thing.”
Perhaps most crucially, Barton insists that the meanings of these texts should require no additional context.”
LikeLike
Sorry – missed the associated link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/american-scripture-how-david-barton-won-the-christian-right/238603/
LikeLike
Bingo, Bob, but do Kuyperian worldviewists ever listen to Kuyper:
Does it follow, therefore, that the sooner we stop our observation of life the better, so that we can seek the rules of state polity outside life in Holy Scripture? This is how some mistakenly think that we reason…However, the opposite is true. Calvinism has never supported this untenable position but has always opposed it with might and main. A state polity that dismisses and scorns the observation of life and simply wishes to duplicate the situation of Israel, taking Holy Scripture as a complete code of Christian law for the state, would, according to the spiritual fathers of Calvinism, be the epitome of absurdity. Accordingly, in their opposition to Anabaptism as well as the Quakers, they expressed unreservedly their repugnance for this extremely dangerous and impractical theory.
If we considered the political life of the nations as something unholy, unclean and wrong in itself, it would lie outside of human nature. Then the state would have to be seen as a purely external means of compulsion, and every attempt to discover even a trace of God’s ordinances in our own nature would be absurd. Only special revelation would then be capable of imparting to us the standards for that external means of discipline. Wherever, thus, this special revelation is absent, as in the heathen worlds, nothing but sin and distortion would prevail, which would therefore not even be worth the trouble of our observation…However, if we open the works of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza and Marnix van St. Aldegonde, it becomes obvious that Calvinism consciously chooses sides against this viewpoint. The experience of the states of antiquity, the practical wisdom of their laws, and the deep insight of their statesmen and philosophers is held in esteem by these men, and these are cited in support of their own affirmations and consciously related to the ordinances of God. The earnest intent of the political life of many nations can be explained in terms of the principles of justice and morality that spoke in their consciences. They cannot be explained simply as blindness brought on by the Evil One; on the contrary, in the excellence of their political efforts we encounter a divine ray of light…
…with proper rights we contradict the argument that Holy Scripture should be seen as the source from which a knowledge of the best civil laws flow. The supporters of this potion talk as though after the Fall nature, human life, and history have ceased being a revelation of God and As though, with the closing of this book, another book, called Holy Scriptures, as opened for us. Calvinism has never defended this untenable position and will never acknowledge it as its own…We have refuted the notion that we entertain the foolish effort to patch together civil laws from Bible texts, and we have declared unconditionally that psychology, ethnology, history and statistics are also for us given which, by the light of God’s Word, must determine the standards for the state polity.
The Ordinances of God
LikeLike
Just dialing in after a brief hiatus and, although I can’t offer much one way or another regarding this particular thread, I do like the new look of this blog site!
LikeLike
Aloysius, I think it’s World Viewists.
LikeLike
Just wondering, is the post advocating “irrationalism”, i.e., merely dealing with the particulars of “everyday life” without coming to grips with the universals that give those particulars meaning?
LikeLike
What do you guys make of the ff:
“There is a philosophy of fact in the Bible that we use for the interpretation of every fact of our lives. A Christian can never go on an expedition with archaeologists who are sincerely looking for the body of Jesus. A Christian cannot go on an expedition with evolutionists expecting that he may possibly find the ‘missing link’ between man and animal. Yet it is true that in the study of matters of the laboratories and the field, the Bible is only indirectly concerned” (Cornelius Van Til, ‘An Introduction to Systematic Theology’ [2007], 37).
LikeLike
Underdog, I don’t think so. I think the post is arguing for a modest use of reason.
LikeLike
Underdog, I’m not sure how the first and last sentences of this quotation fit and they appear to give aid and comfort to different groups of believers.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I wonder how Dr. M. Horton and Dr. R.S. Clark reconcile their Van Tillianism with 2K.
Just trying to wrap my mind around it.
Any help would be definitely appreciated.
LikeLike
Underdog, I’m not sure why Van Til has to be at odds with 2k. Obviously, there is a lot more going on in Van Til than the point that you can’t save people by persuading them that God exists. Knowledge of God only comes through the work of the Spirit. But why that is either at odds with 2k or why it follows that you must have a w— v— I am not sure.
LikeLike