I have for some time wanted to offer a little response to Matthew Tuininga’s first (and good) piece on two-kingdom theology for the confessing evangelical allies. The essay is not all about me — shucks — but he does interact with several of my arguments. The reason for responding now is that Matt observed a tendency in my writing that has also recently spawned criticism of Dave VanDrunen (by none other than Cornel Venema in the book that has anti-2kers breathless in anticipation of its imminent release). The criticism that Venema and Tuininga (note all of the Dutch Reformed genes at play here) register is 2k theology’s fault of bifurcating the religious and political realms. Here’s how Matt describes a tendency in my work:
Part of the reason that Hart’s version of the two kingdoms doctrine is somewhat controversial is that at times Hart has pressed the distinction between the two kingdoms to the point of separation. Indeed, if the classic two kingdoms doctrine denoted the difference between two ages and two governments, Hart has often written about it as if it amounted to a distinction between two airtight spheres, one the sphere of faith and religion, and the other the sphere of everyday life. While it is clear that Hart views these two spheres as expressions of the two ages, by speaking of them in terms of separate spheres he ends up downplaying the overlap between the two ages. This tendency becomes all the more marked in Hart’s more polemical moments.
Venema detects a similar weakness (or is it error?) in VanDrunen (via the international Calvinists):
For Calvin, the spiritual and the civil government of God do not stand independently alongside each other. The civil government or jurisdiction, although it is not to usurp the distinct spiritual government that Christ exercises through his Spirit and Word, has the task within God’s design to secure the kind of public order and tranquility that is indispensable to the prosecution of the church’s calling. In this way, the civil jurisdiction serves the redemptive purposes of God by protecting the church and ensuring its freedom to pursue its unique calling under Christ. Furthermore, as servants of God, civil magistrates have the task of ensuring that both tables of the law – the first table dealing with the service and worship of God, the second table addressing the mutual service of all human beings to each other – are honored and obeyed. Although the civil magistrate is not authorized to usurp the distinctive prerogatives of the spiritual kingdom, namely, the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word in renewing human life in free obedience to God’s law, it does serve to advance the redemptive purpose of the spiritual kingdom by requiring an outward conformity to the requirements of God’s moral law.
In case I am missing something, both objections apparently stem from the neo-Calvinist aversion to dualism. As one recent graduate of a neo-Calvinist college summarized the problem of dualism:
“Dualism” is an incredibly dirty word. Why? For two reasons: A) Dooyeweerd’s non-dualist and non-monistic, non-reductionistic philosophy of modal spheres, B) Kuyper’s insistence that all things be reclaimed under the Lordship of Christ, which means there is no such thing as a dualism between “sacred” and “secular.” All spheres of life should be reclaimed under the dominion of Jesus Christ.
I for one continue to be stupefied by the reflexive dismissal of dualism since distinctions between the physical and spiritual, secular and sacred, temporal and eternal appear everywhere in the Christian religion, not to mention the history of the West. Jesus himself seemed to justify some kind of differentiation between sacred and secular matters when he spoke about what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar. He did not immediately qualify himself by saying “of course, everything belongs to God,” but let his assertion dangle. Neo-Calvinists, of course, won’t, suggesting an apparent discomfort with the very words of Christ.
Then there is the apostle Paul and that two-age construction which distinguishes between the eternal and the temporal (secular) so much so that he could say “to die is gain.” Paul also wrote: “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (2 Cor 4:17-18 ESV) If Paul affirms dualism, it’s okay but if 2kers do then it’s bad? Or maybe neo-Calvinists don’t read Paul outside those cosmic “all things” passages.
And then there is the classic distinction between the earthly and the spiritual in the Belgic Confession:
Now those who are born again have two lives in them. The one is physical and temporal– they have it from the moment of their first birth, and it is common to all. The other is spiritual and heavenly, and is given them in their second birth; it comes through the Word of the gospel in the communion of the body of Christ; and this life is common to God’s elect only.
Thus, to support the physical and earthly life God has prescribed for us an appropriate earthly and material bread, which is as common to all as life itself also is. But to maintain the spiritual and heavenly life that belongs to believers he has sent a living bread that came down from heaven: namely Jesus Christ, who nourishes and maintains the spiritual life of believers when eaten– that is, when appropriated and received spiritually by faith.
To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood. He did this to testify to us that just as truly as we take and hold the sacraments in our hands and eat and drink it in our mouths, by which our life is then sustained, so truly we receive into our souls, for our spiritual life, the true body and true blood of Christ, our only Savior. We receive these by faith, which is the hand and mouth of our souls. (Art. 35)
The distinction between things secular and sacred is everywhere in the history of the West, even if its usage does not always match. Augustine had his two cities, Gelasius his two swords, and Christendom its pope and emperor. Some kind of dualism is writ large in the Christian tradition. Neo-Calvinists may not like it but that’s too bad.
But what makes this suspicion of 2k all the more annoying is that the language employed to describe the neo-Calvinist idea of sphere sovereignty places church and state and family in separate realms with their own — get this — sovereignty. The two kingdoms can’t be distinct but need to bleed into each other lest dualism surface. But the spheres can be as distinct as Holland, Michigan and Pella, Iowa.
In the introduction to Kingdoms Apart, the book that will be the kinder, gentler version of John Frame’s Kuyper warrior-children manifesto, describes sphere sovereignty this way: “God has created distinct social, economic, cultural, and political spheres that have their own unique functions. . . (xxvi)” Then follows a quote that describes sphere sovereignty as “each sphere possess[ing] its own authority within itself.” Shazam! That’s a lot of distinct authority. The introduction goes on, “state, church, business, family, and academic institutions . . . ‘have the liberty to function on their own according to the divine ordinances God has established for each one.” (xxvi-xxvii) Because neo-Calvinists say that these sovereign, liberated, and autonomous spheres receive authority from God, I guess the distinctions are somehow permissible. But when have 2kers ever said that the temporal kingdom is independent from God? Straw man comes to mind. But divine sovereignty notwithstanding (never thought I’d write that) it is remarkable that sphere sovereigntists can divide the world up into such tidy spheres but won’t give 2kers the same freedom. And, by the way, the 2kers claims go much deeper than late nineteenth-century Netherlands.
What makes 2k superior to sphere sovereignty is that 2kers are really willing to live with distinctions. For sphere sovereigntists the distinctions are only skin deep. The spheres exists, but they are all under God, so religion needs to inform all the spheres thus raising important questions about which members of which spheres are introducing religion into a sphere since religion won’t do it by itself. Do I bring religion to bear on politics as an elder, husband, historian or citizen? In other words, does my functional identity change when I go from one sphere into another? It may, especially Scripture’s claims on me as citizen are thin compared to its teaching about overseeing the flock. But I don’t hear neo-Calvinists talking about these bugs in their system. Maybe it’s because they are too busy looking at the bugs in the paleo-Calvinist’s eye.
To illustrate how complicated religion’s relationship is to the various spheres, I appeal to a review I wrote for Ordained Servant:
Life in modern society is tough. In any given week, an average American may have to decide which is the best and prettiest paint for the exterior of his house, what are the best and most affordable tires to put on his car, whether to replace a deep filling with another filling or with a crown, whether to diversify the investments in his retirement portfolio, and which candidate from the Republican Party is the best to run against a Democratic incumbent in the upcoming presidential election. No single American has sufficient knowledge to make all of these decisions simply on the basis of his own learning and reading. In addition to confronting these dilemmas, this person likely has a full-time job that occupies much of his time, and a wife and children that take up most of his spare time—not to mention incredibly difficult choices about bad influences on his son at school, whether his daughter should play field hockey, and consulting with his wife about his mother-in-law’s declining health and the best arrangements for her well being. If he is a Christian with responsibilities at church, he may need to wade through files of applications for a pulpit search committee, or consult with architects and engineers about plans to expand the church’s parking lot.
Complicating further this average American’s decisions are the accompanying choices to be made over which advice to follow. For in addition to life’s complicated questions are a bevy of advisors, available on the radio and television, folks such as Oprah, Rush Limbaugh, and Dave Ramsey—people who seem to have a lot of insight into life’s difficulties. But which of these advisors to heed raises an additional layer of decisions.
Throw the Lordship of Christ and biblical interpretation into these various decisions and related evaluations and you have the potential for nervous breakdown (maybe that’s what happened to Abraham Kuyper). For negotiating the regular world — the temporal kingdom, that is — I’ll take 2k any day. Neo-Calvinism leaves me with sphere schizophrenia.
Old Life 
“Jesus himself seemed to justify some kind of differentiation between sacred and secular matters when he spoke about what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar. He did not immediately qualify himself by saying “of course, everything belongs to God,” but let his assertion dangle.”
I laughed out loud at that line.
LikeLike
What you are up against here is the Sioux County, Iowa mindset in which 90% of the County votes Republican and Steve King (Iowa’s conservative Congressman) can come to town and tell the Dutch Reformed citizens with a straight face that they should have no concerns about Mitt Romney’s religion…and everyone in the audience wants really, really badly to believe it.
LikeLike
” Kuyper warrior-children manifesto” – Laughed out loud again.
LikeLike
What is Venema’s point in quoting Calvin? Does he want to change the Belgic and Westminster back to how they were originally written regarding the civil magistrate’s duties?
Another question to Neo-Calvinists: If they believe everything they say, what exactly are they doing about it? How does living in a Dutch ghetto really have any impact on these other spheres? Those of us outside of the Dutch ghettos struggle to even form a viable Reformed church. We get around 60 on Sunday mornings. I’m grateful for that and am not thinking a lot about transforming the culture. I think a lot of these folks mostly talk to themselves. They need to get out of Grand Rapids, the Southern Chicago Suburbs, Lynden, Pella, Moscow (o.k. – I admit that’s a stretch) and spend some time in non-Reformed places. Even Keller in NYC needs to figure out he’s in NYC — not exactly the place most of us live.
LikeLike
Dutch Ghettos remind me of how the Puritans thought the best way to reform the Church of England was to come to America and set a really good example. The Church of England would notice from afar and seek to emulate the Puritans. Actually, the Church of England kind of went on without them. Calling for culture to be transformed by the gospel from afar is a lot different than actually spreading out and seeing how that works in practice. If people want to live in a Dutch Ghetto it’s a free country, just don’t look down on us 2K folks living as aliens & strangers out here.
LikeLike
Doesn’t the 4th commandment assume a dualism? From the WLC:
Q. 57. Which is the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment is, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Q. 58. What is required in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word; expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy sabbath to himself.
Q. 59. Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly sabbath?
A. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath; and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath.
Q. 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.
Q. 61. What is forbidden in the fourth commandment?
A. The fourth commandment forbiddeth the omission or careless performance of the duties required, and the profaning the day by idleness, or doing that which is in itself sinful, or by unnecessary thoughts, words or works, about our worldly employments or recreations.
Q. 62. What are the reasons annexed to the fourth commandment?
A. The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment are, God’s allowing us six days of the week for our own employments, his challenging a special propriety in the seventh, his own example, and his blessing the sabbath day.
LikeLike
This is interesting MLM, we have an “issue” in our church concerning certains members who believe they need to carry their guns into church in exercise of their 2nd Amendment rights. Before you wrote this, I hadn’t thought of the dualism in the 4th Commandment, and how this applies to those who don’t see a distinction between their common kingdom activities and that of the redemptive kingdom.
LikeLike
Interesting problem, Richard. I’m certain we have had guns in our church as well but the carriers don’t talk about it so I’m fine with “don’t ask don’t tell.”
LikeLike
DGH,
I am very interested to hear Tuininga’s reply here, to see how different your respective versions of 2k actually are. I find myself a little more sympathetic to some of his understanding of how NL might inform Christian activity in the socio-political realm, but I am not sure where his understanding of the interrelationship between the “ages” jives with the biblical record.
Even with my willingness to allow for more expressions of civil disobedience, much to the chagrin of my friend Zrim, on the basis of my reading on NL and its ethical implications, I am not inclined to grant a great deal of co-relatedness between this age and the age to come. Even where the church occupies spiritual “space” in the coming age, all the while existing currently in the current age, it seems to me the concerns of the church are fixated on a lasting city, and the current age on a passing one. There may or may not be political arrangments that are more advantageous to the church, but we are upheld by the promise that Christ will “build [His] church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Meaning that while our confessional tradition may appeal to the state in cases extraordinary (WCF 31.4), we may not peer into the mysterious Providence whereby Christ sustains his church in the current age.
Maybe, in spite of my willingness to engage the political process as a dual citizen, belonging also to this current age, my pessimistic slip is showing a bit too much here, because I think that the best we can hope for in the current age is the semblance of order in the midst of what could be considered a damn mess (in the full sense of the term – owing to human depravity and the activity of the devil in the present age). Because I see such discontinuity between the age to come and the present age, I might strive for a better world here and now, but I fix my hope on a heavenly city that will not leave my striving futile. So, as it pertains to the here and now: work for the best, but do not be surprised when the worst comes about.
LikeLike
I always thought the strength of 2k was it’s dualism. That is the very nature of two kingdoms or dare I say dual kingdoms. Collapsing the first kingdom into the second kingdom, as some 2k proponents suggest, renders the dualism obsolete and therefore no more 2 kingdoms (or dual kingdoms).
LikeLike
Not to step on my brother’s toes to early by responding so shortly after him, but how are we to view the book of Proverbs? To me, Proverbs is an excellent example of the meeting point of the two Kingdoms. Although this isn’t something developed in my mind, what is interesting is that much of the contents of Proverbs is “borrowed” from other sources/cultures/wise men. That is to say, the secular has recognized/produced it.
At least on a surface level, a subject like friendship, considered under the framework of wisdom, is not something part of the the Natural Order and then Judiazed (Christianized) by Solomon (contra Neo-Calvinishism) yet not fully left to their separate realms (sacred and secular / contra 2k). A subject like friendship or work is encapsulated in both sacred and secular. What really pushes the envelope here is that Solomon argues that one cannot truly understand friendship until one fears God. That is to say, until one fears God, one cannot be a friend in its truest sense. Maybe I’m off the richter here but the fact that a subject recognized by the secular is shown in Scripture to be informed truly by the sacred seems to be a monkey wrench for a sharp dualism between the two kingdoms).
LikeLike
Everytime a neo-calvinist tells me the “spheres” concept is the way to go, I just remind them that the Dutch now euthanize people, so obviously Kuyper’s philosophy was unworkable.
LikeLike
Darryl, I think you’re spot on. As I’ve tried to argue before, Kuyperian sphere sovereignty in a pluralistic society looks a lot like two kingdom thinking.
What does seem to be a problem is your double-speak when you say “But when have 2kers ever said that the temporal kingdom is independent from God?” but then complain when someone wants to live all of life under the Lordship of Christ. And whoever said that all of life lived under the Lordship of Christ depends on the Bible the way eldering depends on the Bible? You’ve missed it, brother. Kuyperians believe in Creational revelation and get most of their information about how the world works from Creation, albeit informed by a Christian, theistic, Biblical perspective–there is a God, humans are in his image, humans are fallen, there is meaning and purpose to life, God is Lord of all creation, salvation has come in Jesus Christ and is announced and lived out in the church, Christ will come again and fully establish his eternal reign, etc. Some of these things have implications about how you think about the world. But most of what we know and do (as you have pointed out) isn’t talked about in the Bible and so we study the Creation, learn from experience and from experiment, and use our best judgment (also informed by Biblical wisdom).
The idea of Dutch ghettos has been mentioned in the comments. This also reflects a misperception of Kuyperians (and some of the new breed of so-called Kuyperians share this misconception). Kuyper called for the pillarisation (verzuiling) of society. Each worldview was to work out its version of society so it could build society consistent with the worldview. This was particularly important in education (hence Christian schools), but was also in journalism, political parties, unions, etc. Of course, there are some places where people from different pillars have to interact, for example, in the state (local and national). Kuyper recognized a pluralistic society and held that the state was to promote freedom of religion (and worldview) in the sense that it allowed the various spheres and intermediate societal structures and the pillars to operate freely. So when the Kuyperians settled in various communities, it wasn’t some simplistic immigrant isolationism that was at work, but it was pillarisation. They were establishing the various societal structures and working out the implications of their Reformed worldview. You can’t do this in public schools. You can’t do this in secular labor unions. You can’t do this in the Republican or Democratic party. I’m not sure present day Christian Reformed people understand this. I’m even less convinced that your typical evangelical Christian school understands this. Kuyperians can’t do their “all of life” mandate where their worldview isn’t shared.
Now I fully understand that Christians are not always in a position to attempt this. They may be a minority, even a persecuted minority. Secularism may be so pervasive that it grips the minds of even thinking Christians 😉 The Christian community itself may be so divided that there is little unity among Christians to establish a pillar.
Darryl’s and perhaps DVD’s version of 2K seems to reduce the spheres to just two (church and state) and forces us into one pillar, the secular, when it comes to working out the implications of our faith in our various vocations. Outside of the church Christians are expected to build a society not based on Christian, theistic, and Biblical principles, but on whatever common ground they can find with people who have a different worldview (more likely a plurality of worldviews).
LikeLike
Jed,
Your description of the struggle to “strive for a better world here and now” but fixing your hope on the heavenly city reminds me of what DVD talked about in “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” when he referenced Israel living in Babylon They were to be good and productive citizens in exile and be ready to give it all up when they were called out of exile as a parallel to the Christian on this earth. It seems this understanding would lead to a very clear cut distinction of the two ages, yes?
LikeLike
Terry, in case you missed it, Venema and Kloostermen both fault 2k for ascribing the kind of legitimacy to general revelation that you invoke. They believe that gen. rev. needs to be interpreted through the lens of spec. rev. If that’s so, only those with the H.S. understand what’s going on in the common world.
So my complaint about Kuyperians may not hit you, but it does hit voices that speak more for neo-Calvinism than you do. Plus, they’re Dutch.
As for pillars, the U.S. doesn’t do them. We do ghettos, which means that neo-Cals need to do some fancy foot work to apply Kuyper to North America.
LikeLike
Hello all. Darryl, thanks for your interaction.
Obviously I don’t disagree with much of what you say in this post, Darryl, though I do find it hard to see why you disagree with my point that we cannot press the two kingdoms to the point of separation, or describe them as airtight spheres (when I made this critique I was commenting on what I perceived to be your rhetoric, not on what you actually think). Even VanDrunen admits very clearly in NLTK that every single area of life has a spiritual dimension (see my recent blog post on how Venema gets VanDrunen wrong). In LGTK he outlines various points of biblical instruction for the common kingdom and argues that subjectively Christians are to do everything they do in the common kingdom as unto Jesus Christ (and according to the standard of natural law and Scripture). His recent and forthcoming work is a “biblical theology of natural law”. Ephesians 5-6 is chock full of ethical instruction for life in the secular kingdom, and yet every single precept is informed and qualified by the command to do everything “in Christ” or in conformity to Christ.
What all of this suggests is that we absolutely do need to make a distinction between what is eternal and spiritual, never collapsing the two, but we should never pretend that this amounts to a complete separation, such that our redemption does not still inform everything that we do. We don’t redeem culture and politics and turn it into the kingdom; all of that is passing away. Nevertheless, even in the mundane, secular, cultural things that we do, in conformity with natural law, we serve Christ.
LikeLike
Matthew says – “Nevertheless, even in the mundane, secular, cultural things that we do, in conformity with natural law, we serve Christ.”
My question is, who is denying this? I have never heard a 2K guy here say we can live as pagans in the “secular” world while we live as Christians on Sunday at church.
Van Drunen’s making distinctions between God’s covenant with Noah and God’s covenant with Abraham have been helpful to me. They are both covenants made by God, but they have different implications.
I think some of 2K’s critics are attacking a straw man. I kind of feel like Bryan Cross now.
LikeLike
If you view the Christian faith as a faith that prepares us to die it becomes a lot easier to appreciate 2K. The gospel is primarily for the world to come, not for this world that is passing away. Think about Christ and the apostles. All of them were near death (or at least could reasonably expect to be near death based on the persecution they were inviting). It makes sense that their teaching would be primarily about preparing for death, not living as new Adams who are attempting a do-over of Adam’s screw-up.
LikeLike
Matt, my objection comes from the point about which of my selves is using special revelation. When I vote do I do so as a citizen or as elder? And this point points in the direction of an important separation — one of jurisdiction. All of the Reformed churches teach that the church has no jurisdiction over civil affairs or civil punishments. That sounds like a wall, that I think critics of 2k (or proponents like yourself) need to consider. But when people say that everything has a spiritual dimension — a point with which I don’t necessarily disagree — they often go from their to assert the hegemony of Christians or the church or religion over secular affairs. This happened repeatedly in the debates between popes and emperors. Because the spiritual was higher and more pervasive, popes could claim authority over emperors.
So at the very least I am asking for greater clarification. But I am also asking that all Protestants would admit the spirituality of the church, which leaves church officers like me
withwithout powers over the city council of Hillsdale, the legislators of Michigan, the U.S. Senate, or the General Assembly of the United Nations.But if you can find some power for me there, I’d be glad to have it.
LikeLike
Terry, that’s sort of the thing. While not to be of it, aren’t we supposed to be in the world? How to be obedient to Paul’s command to be in the world God created when we’re distracting with Kuyper’s theory and building a sub-world of our own hands to inhabit?
LikeLike
Matt, as I suggested at your place, I wonder if it would help our neo-Calvinist (and neo leaning) friends to reiterate the distinction between people and institutions. The point here isn’t that people are bi-furcated. People are always and at once political and spiritual. But institutions aren’t. They are either secular or sacred and must thus follow the respective rules which apply to provisional or eternal institutions. People engage these institutions accordingly, which is why they pay taxes to city hall and offer tithes to church.
My hunch is that some worry that others are bi-furcating people. But the point is that people who are indeed dual citizens have to engage a world that contains institutions that correspond to either provisional or eternal life.
LikeLike
Zrim, okay, I’ll push the envelope. I may not bifurcate people but I would hyphenate them. We do it all the time — Dutch-Americans, for instance. But we are especially hyphenated (even bifurcated) when it comes to the multi-vocations that Christians have. When I am deliberating about my wife with elders on a church matter, I am trying to put aside my identity as my wife’s husband. I may need to recuse myself. But I also think it’s possible to separate what I would do with my wife as husband and what I would do with her as elder. (Let’s not read that line too perversely, please.)
LikeLike
Erik, remember that I’m a 2k proponent, not a critic.
Darryl, I agree (as I think you know) with you on all of these points regarding differing jurisdictions and distinct vocations. I also think that many Christians have an exaggerated view regarding the clear implications of Scripture for politics or for public policy. We are on the same page here, I think. But what people sometimes hear you saying is that Scripture is not concerned about, or says nothing about, our cultural and political activity, not even at the level of moral orientation or natural law principle. As I pointed out in my Reformation21 piece, I don’t think you hold this view; indeed, I think your understanding of the secular presupposes Christian theology. But I wonder if it would help with some people if you clarified that you thought it was our duty AS CHRISTIANS to treat the secular realm as secular. In other words, what the radical neo-Calvinists get wrong is not that they think we should be Christians in everything that we do, or that we are under the authority of Scripture in everything that we do, but that they don’t realize that these obligations point us to the natural law, to humility, to service, to vocation, etc… that they too often collapse redemption into creation, and that they sometimes have an exaggerated view about what exactly Scripture tells us.
Zrim, I agree with your point.
LikeLike
Matthew,
Aren’t we human beings before we are even cultically considered? And doesn’t that human orientation carry with it self-evident and ‘natural’ considerations before I ever self-consciously address any cultic directive? I mean I get that we are to do all things unto the glory of God, but does my failure to be self-conscious of such a command, let’s us say while I’m sleeping, which takes up an enormous amount of my human life therefore render me disobedient at that point? Am I no longer giving glory to God because I’m not self-conscious at that moment? BTW, to show you how pedantic this gets, we’ve had this discussion of sanctifying our dreams on this blog. I kid you not.
LikeLike
I also benefited from VanDrunen’s distinctions between God’s covenant with Noah and his covenant with Abraham. It shows the distinction, as well as our roles within both kingdoms.
What I don’t get is why the 2K position always seems to be misrepresented by its critics. Are they not bothering to study the doctrine, or are they purposefully setting up the straw man? The picture on the cover of LGTK alone disproves many of the false claims about VanDrunen’s argument. Meanwhile, he speaks in a humble tone, building bridges where he can.
That raises another question, should we first have a secular conversation about the rules of logic in debate, or a Christian conversation about brotherly love before we can even discuss the doctrine? I guess we haven’t successfully redeemed the art of proper argument yet.
LikeLike
Darryl, I agree that when dealing with people we wear different hats in different situations. But even when you’re dealing with your wife as either a husband or an elder you’re still doing so as a Christian, same as when dealing with city hall as an American-Christian. So the Christian hat is never off. What’s more, even when wearing your husband cap your elder cap is somewhere close by (and vice versa).
LikeLike
D.G. says – “which leaves church officers like me with powers over the city council of Hillsdale, the legislators of Michigan, the U.S. Senate, or the General Assembly of the United Nations.”
I think you mean WITHOUT powers.
Echoing Zrim’s point above – It’s kind of ironic that a 2K proponent, by being involved in secular pursuits alongside non-Christians, may have a greater impact upon those secular institutions than the Neo-Calvinist who retreats and forms his own parallel “Christian” institution.
Moscow and Wilson/Leithart may not be Neo-Calvinist, per se, but they are similar to Neo-Calvinism in their postmillennialism. What is the first thing someone does when they get turned on to these guys? Try to figure out a way to move to Moscow. Now you may be able to take over a segment of Idaho with this approach, but I don’t see a lot of overall cultural transformation taking place by everyone moving there.
Another point which may be controversial is that a certain amount of interaction with the world is necessary to get a clue. Some of the recent shenaningans in Pella with Patrick Edouard may have not taken place if more of the saints there had spent a little more time amongst wolves. I grew up in Ames, Iowa in public school with a lot of kids of secular professors. My wife grew up in Des Moines, Iowa in the public schools and a lot of the lower-middle class and lower class behavior that went on there. We are in our 40’s now and as mature Christians it is pretty hard to pull the wool over our eyes.
LikeLike
Aimee – I think the answer is that a lot of these guys have been steeped in Neo-Calvinism their entire lives and they have a knee-jerk reaction to any challenge to it — especially a challenge from within the Reformed world. I can kind of see going after D.G. in a polemical way, because of his style, but Van Drunen comes across about as strident as Mr. Rogers.
LikeLike
Zrim,
To the extent this whole enterprise is about self-conscious reflection of my cultic identity(subjective consideration-all that you do , you do to the glory of God) then the Christian hat is off while you sleep. And that’s quite a bit of this whole temporal existence. Seems to me just the conditionalities of being human trump all other considerations, cultic or otherwise.
LikeLike
Erik, it’s the “in the world but not of it becomes of the world but not in it” problem that neo-Calvinism has. The world affirming piety of the Reformed tradition is what first hooked me. Imagine my frowny face when I realized there was such a thing as world flight in the ranks.
Sean, no, even while we sleep it’s on. But not in a sanctifying dreams sort of way (sorry, Richard). More like a the Spirit always abides even when we are at our least epistemologically self aware times sort of way.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Go ahead and work that out epistemologically demarking every point of the sleep state and the level of self-conscious sanctifying I’m actually responsible for (i.e in the first stage of sleep, i should be able to hold onto the concept that there is a God……)and let’s mark it up, send it to print and get it ready for the confessional revision. Cuz this is a large swath of life that we really should be able to speak to if we’re gonna argue the Christian hat of subjective consideration is always on.
LikeLike
Sean, how about it’s always on but sometimes turned off? But I think we’re being sanctified 24/7 and are mostly unaware of it in whatever state of consciousness.
LikeLike
Nate,
Not to step on my brother’s toes to early by responding so shortly after him, but how are we to view the book of Proverbs? To me, Proverbs is an excellent example of the meeting point of the two Kingdoms. Although this isn’t something developed in my mind, what is interesting is that much of the contents of Proverbs is “borrowed” from other sources/cultures/wise men. That is to say, the secular has recognized/produced it.
When have you ever shied away from stepping on my toes? I am not so sure that Proverbs has much “Kingdom” applicability, as it is broadly lacking in the covenantal language and forms of much of the rest of the OT. Generally, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are recognized as among the most secular of the OT writings, which isn’t to say they aren’t theological, just that they deal with the theological concerns of living in this world, or the present age.
As I see it, the only point of connection between this age and the age to come, is that the eschatological age is unfolding in the present age, only to surpass it, and the present age will fade away – or as Isaiah puts it “Behold I create a new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.” Proverbs and wisdom literature in general give a good indication of how God’s people are to live and struggle well in the current age, given the fact that they will always run up against the futility of living in a fallen world. I don’t see much that indicates a prominent eschatology in most (not all) wisdom lit., which would make it hard to defend some sort of inflection point between the two kingdoms.
We can argue over this on Friday over a couple of beers if you’d like, it might serve as a nice distraction from the fact that Sam’s place will be teeming with family, which kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies if you catch my drift.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The second part works. I’m not sure how the first part accommodates the whole ‘subjectively considered’ sanctimony(it’s not your ‘alleged’ sanctimony, I have in view here).
LikeLike
Stan Hauerwas, After Christendom, p42–The Christian magistrate is in an insoluble dilemma. For the city of God as such, according to Augustine, can never go to war even in self-defense. This is true even though the death of the city is of a different order than the death of an individual. Yet the church is not dependent on any human system for her survival.
“The only ruler who can be trusted to be politically virtuous is the person who is indifferent to the survival of the relative shapes of the existing order, because he trusts in God’s eternal and immutable providence. Politicians with virtue know about the discipline of dying and martyrdom. This truth places the church at odds with the politics of liberalism, built as it is on the denial of death and sacrifice.”
“As Christians we will not serve God or the world well if we pretend (in the naked public square) that the church is only incidental to the world’s salvation. We must witness to God’s rule without ruling.”
LikeLike
Erik, most neo-Calvinists are amillemnielists. I’d guess that the OPC learned its eschatology from its Dutch friends.
LikeLike
Terry – Yes, I know. I was lumping Moscow in with the Neo-Calvinists because of their shared views about cultural transformation, but I know their eschatologies are different. Listed to a CREC sermon or two and you’ll understand all about their eschatology. It’s a big deal to them.
LikeLike
The CREC guy who goes from being a premillennial evangelical to an postmillennial CREC member is akin to the Arminian who discovers Calvinism. They need to be locked away for awhile.
LikeLike
Zrim, I don’t believe in one-size fits all Christian hats. Different Christian hats for different (religious and secular) occasions.
LikeLike
Thanks for the correction.
LikeLike
Sean and Zrim, so that would be a Christian night cap? I like mine as two fingers of bourbon, one cube of ice.
LikeLike
Terry, that’s a pretty bald assertion — neo-Cals as amill. I know Vos was Dutch. I’m not sure many neo-Cals read him, maybe only the ones in the OPC.
LikeLike
Hoekema? Riddlebarger before he became 2K? Storehouse? If you read Gaffin’s critique of theonomy you’d learn that post-mil in the late 20th century theonomic sense is actually a novelty.
LikeLike
Terry, read Gaffin, heck I assign that article. At the same time, I believe Gaffin (like Vos) has a soft spot for transformationalism. If you look at Vos on the kingdom and the church he goes off the spirituality of the church rails at a very revealing point. “Whenever one of these spheres comes under the controlling influence of the principle of the divine supremacy and glory, and this outwardly reveals itself, there we can truly say that the kingdom of God has become manifest.” p. 88.
2k says you can’t identify the heavenly kingdom anywhere but where the ministry of the church is. Only one form of kingdom work — word, sacrament, and discipline (okay, three).
LikeLike
Erik – “It’s kind of ironic that a 2K proponent, by being involved in secular pursuits alongside non-Christians, may have a greater impact upon those secular institutions than the Neo-Calvinist who retreats and forms his own parallel “Christian” institution.”
Maybe I’m not understanding this rightly, but it seems like there is a confusion that takes place by making the exception the norm. Isn’t this type of transformational thinking what happens when we look at the Apostles who gave up everything and had a radical lifestyle makeover, but we forget about the Centurion who kept on being the Centurion and the mass conversions in Acts of people who became Christians but didn’t become traveling missionaries? It seems like what happens is the exaltation the extraordinary and radical examples as what is to be expected and minimizing of the common and mundane as less than great.
I think your observation is correct, that by actually being in the world (secular pursuits) but not of it (as a Christian) you can accomplish the goals of the transformationalists better than they can by building up their miniature Kingdom realm here on earth.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Ba-dum-tsh. It’s been vodka and tonic lately. Pretty sure there’s not even a smidge of self-conscious sanctifying going on. There might be some aberrant dreams happening though, never can remember.
LikeLike
Sean, fair point. One can have a general perspective or attitude towards life without having that at the forefront of one’s mind at every moment.
Aimee writes:
I also benefited from VanDrunen’s distinctions between God’s covenant with Noah and his covenant with Abraham. It shows the distinction, as well as our roles within both kingdoms.
What I don’t get is why the 2K position always seems to be misrepresented by its critics. Are they not bothering to study the doctrine, or are they purposefully setting up the straw man? The picture on the cover of LGTK alone disproves many of the false claims about VanDrunen’s argument. Meanwhile, he speaks in a humble tone, building bridges where he can.
That raises another question, should we first have a secular conversation about the rules of logic in debate, or a Christian conversation about brotherly love before we can even discuss the doctrine? I guess we haven’t successfully redeemed the art of proper argument yet.
Amen to that! You should write this on your blog 🙂
LikeLike
Darryl, this talk of hats is making me hungry, so how about one baptism that fits all? Sure, different hats for different occasions, but one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, and one God and Father over all. There has to be room for uniformity.
LikeLike
Terry, (and Baus if you are out there)
Help me understand how neo-cals are also amil. Do they ultimately see the neo cal peoject breaking down before the end? Honest curiosity here. Maybe a link to an article that shows how they put their easchatology together would help.
Thanks
LikeLike
Jed, true that I have not had problems stepping on your toes – especially since my feet are bigger than yours.
“they deal with the theological concerns of living in this world” – isn’t this what 2K, Kuyperians, et. al are trying to discern?
Looking forward to mentioning another D.G. Hart-blog-post-inspired-discussion in front of our wives. There truly is a reason God ordained men to create beer.
LikeLike
Jed, I don’t think we have to say breaking down, but in the end there is still a Parousia that brings the kingdom in its fullness. (Much the same relationship between our sanctification and our glorification). The Christian community is always “on the way” and the city we strive for is always the future one. But the future is now according to Jesus. I’m not sure I even want to suggest progress in general, but merely local and temporal manifestions depending on how much of a given society is Christian or under the influences of a Christian worldview.
Zrim, you keep confusing “the world” with “the Creation”. “Not of this world” has to do with this fallen, sinful age, not the new heavens and the new earth that have already intruded into “this world” via the coming of Jesus, the presence of the Spirit, the work of the Church, and the ministry of believers in all areas of life.
Darryl, of course Gaffin has a soft spot for transformationalism. He thinks the genius of WTS and the OPC is the melding of Old Princeton and Amsterdam. I agree. You seem to want to revert to Old Princeton (typified in Machen) alone.
LikeLike
What’s actually going on in my head now is the redemptive kingdom and the common kingdom, with the common kingdom containing Dooyeweerdian spheres within it. So call it an experiment – if my head explodes, you know it went badly.
LikeLike
MM,
Just say no.
LikeLike
Modified,of course, Sean. I think it says some valid things about the relationships of various fields of study, including overlaps but also distinct cores that should not be overwhelmed by other spheres. That can all be put into the common kingdom.
LikeLike
Terry, Machen alone? There would be worse options. But even if the sola is illegitimate, and I can see the problems, part of what I am trying to say is that the neo-Cal position has some warts. Generally speaking, the neo-Cals who are most critical of 2k don’t seem to admit neo-Cal problems. In fact, they get huffy if you suggest Kuyper’s slip is showing. I admire hutzpah. But can we talk about neo-Cal defects? Or is that off limits?
Neo-Cals don’t have much problem talking about Old School problems. I am wondering if they live in a glass house.
LikeLike
Darryl, I hope you know I’m more than happy to criticize present day professing neo-Calvinists. Many border on social gospelism and don’t understand their tradition well. Many think that the essence of being Reformed is transformationalism even without the Reformed confession. That’s a serious problem and I agree with your calling Kuyperians to task on their abuses. Why do think I stick around here?
LikeLike
MM,
But even in Kuyperian spheres, the organic church is supposed to leak out of the ecclesial sphere and leaven the other spheres. How is that gonna work in your Dooyewerdian spheres? And why does this feel like a trekie conversation in a chat room on the interweb? I need to go put some Clearasil on and take my head gear off.
LikeLike
It’s my goal to use the term “Dooyewerdian” today in casual conversation with someone who has no idea what that means. I also plan to use the word “fecund” from D.G.’s post on the Dutch.
LikeLike
Terry, I see your point. Out of curiosity, has any neo-Calvinist written a critical assessment of neo-Calvinism?
LikeLike
Terry, you sound like Baus when you hold out for neo-Calvinism yet maintain that most neo-Cals haven’t gotten it right. It’s got no where to go but in the trajectory of social gospelism or cultural Christianity. You say that many think that the essence of being Reformed is transformationalism even without the Reformed confession. But the CRC has “Our World Belong to God” along side the TFU, which looks to me like transformationalism with the Reformed confession. So what are you talking about? The CRC is what worldviewery gone to seed looks like. If you don’t like what you see maybe you need to re-evaluate the theory?
And you can distinguish the world from creation until you’re long in the Kuyperian tooth, but it doesn’t change the fact that the upshot of worldviewery is always Christian sub-culture and an ironic form of world flight. Don’t get me wrong, an upside to the misguided notion that heaven implies earth is that one can end up doing earth pretty well (Calvin College is world class education). The problem is that it’s not really done any better than those who deny heaven altogether, to the chagrin of religious fantasy.
LikeLike
2K makes for some strange bedfellows: http://abetteriowa.desmoinesregister.com/2012/10/19/basu-why-allow-some-churches-to-ignore-law/
LikeLike
I sent an e-mail to the author:
Interesting piece in the paper this morning. The only criticism I have is I think you overlook a lot of politicking that takes place in churches on the left as well. No one seems to notice when a black church invites a Democratic Party candidate for office to speak from the pulpit on Sunday morning. This is as bad as what the right is doing.
There are people who are theologically conservative who have problems with evangelical and pentecostal political activism by ministers. Check out Darryl Hart’s website sometime. Hart has written a book called “A Secular Faith” and a guy named David Van Drunen has written a book called “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” that argues for the Presbyterian doctrine of “The Spirituality of the Church”. Basically the idea is that the church should stick to it’s work of preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments, and practicing church discipline. These issues that are taking place in society at large are secondary and how church members deal with them should be left to individual believers’ judgment and consciences. My personal opinion is that ministers cheapen and trivialize their offices when they try to insert themselves in partisan politics. Their calling is actually much higher than that.
I have tried to argue this position with the Cary Gordons and Steve Deaces of the world and basically get nowhere. Some of this arises from the fact that when a minister preaches a solid, gospel-oriented sermon on Sunday morning no one outside the congregation notices. When a minister calls a press conference on gay marriage, however, the T.V. cameras show up and everyone knows who he is. The best ministers are people hardly anyone has heard of.
LikeLike
John Knox taught two covenants. One covenant was conditional—“the obedience given to God’s precepts is the cause why God shows His mercy to us.” “A godly letter to the faithful in London”, 3:193 And the other covenant taught by Knox was a “covenant of works” for everyone. Thus Knox refused obedience to those he judged to be pagan magistrates, and taught that–since even those outside the national church were under the covenant of works–the need for Christian magistrates who would keep order for Christian reasons, and that without regard for either the confession or the inner state of those outside the national church., 4:491
LikeLike
McMark, YIKES!
LikeLike
Greetings: Please have your webmaster insert a Printer Freindly application on your webpage. Currently any printing of your articles they appear VERY small type. Delete the marginal info so that only your article are printed in a larger format.
B Hodges Jacobs
I tried to Email you through your ‘contact’ page. At the moment it is NOT functioning.
Thank you….
LikeLike
This is what you get when you have Presbyterians running your web site. You need to go hire an emergent or a Unitarian…
LikeLike
The last guy I had helping me was gay.
LikeLike
I don’t know anything about webpage applications, but I’d like some egg in my beer.
LikeLike
Darryl, see Overtures 3 & 6 from CRCNA Agenda for Synod http://crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/2012_agenda.pdf
Also, John Bolt’s essay in the recently translated/published Our Worship by Abraham Kuyper.
LikeLike
Sean, I recall going to a sandy beach on the coast of Maine in the sunshine and 80 degrees – with my hardcover volume 1 of The New Critique of Theoretical Thought. Youth is wasted on the young – I probably should have played frisbee. But it’s been so long since I looked rigorously at it that I’m not fully prepared to express where I am in Dooyweerd-speak, but I am sure my pistic sphere has been modified.
LikeLike
Zrim, what if the CRC isn’t living out their confession/testimony consistently. That seems more likely than having a defective theory, especially when liberal denominations and socially-minded evangelical have paved the way. CRC is more in tune with the latter than with its Kuyperian roots.
LikeLike
Terry – That overture #6 was good. What was the outcome of that?
LikeLike
Darryl:
Here’s a “sovereign sphere,” a judicial one for C. J. Mahaney, a co-defendant along with SGM and other SGM operatives. A class action lawsuit was filed 17 Oct 2012 re: sex abuse coverups. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-md-court-records-for.html
The actual text can be read at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-text-of-class-action.html
It’s a civil tort action: NEGLIGENCE, INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT, MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS.
Here’s an interview with the Plaintiffs’ (3 plaintiffs for now, but almost a year for joinders to the class action) Attorney, Susan Burke. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-radio-interview-with.html
It’s all over the media. AP broke the story. 100s of outlets covered it.
C. J. will be complying with his court-directed appointments for hearings, motions for discovery, interrogatories, depositions and more.
Will CJ be featured at T4G’s spring hoohya in April 2013?
Here’s Mohler premature, uninvestigated, hasty and assured support for Mahaney when things began hitting the fan last year. Ligon Duncan expressed similar support and, most regrettably, Carl Trueman and Kevin DeYoung were a bit quick as well. Here’s Al. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/10/sgm-mahaneygate-mohler-backs-mahaney.html
Mahaney has another sphere to comply with besides T4G now.
LikeLike
Erik, synod did not accede to the overture but adopted a motion for the executive director to communicate with the churches, committees, and agencies to consider the issues raised in the overture and in various debates on the floor of synod. The original recommendation from the advisory committee was to deny the overture. The advisory committee countered with what was passed which if course fell short if the request.
LikeLike
Hope this is not too off-topic, but I just found some unexpected things in Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism. One was that he saw Calvinism as a progression in history, a fourth and higher development than anything that had come before.
“Paganism, Islamism and Romanism are the three successive formations which this development had reached, when its further direction passed over into the hands of Calvinism.…The fundamental idea of Calvin has been transplanted from Holland and England to America, thus driving our higher development ever more Westward, until on the shores of the Pacific it now reverently awaits whatsoever God has ordained. …Thus notice I was not too bold when I claimed for Calvinism the honor of being neither an ecclesiastical, nor a theological, nor a sectarian conception, but one of the principal phases in the general development of our human race.”
The other is his idea that positive development is related to commingling races, and that Calvinism is conducive to commingling.
“…allow me to indicate another circumstance, which strengthens my principal statement, viz., the commingling of blood as, thus far, the physical basis of all higher human development.It is noteworthy that the process of human development steadily proceeds with those groups whose historic characteristic is not isolation but the commingling of blood.…the history of our race does not aim at the improvement of any single tribe, but at the development of mankind taken as a whole, and therefore needs this commingling of blood in order to attain its end. Now in fact history shows that the nations among whom Calvinism flourished most widely exhibit in every way this same mingling of races.”
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/LecturesOnCalvinism.pdf pp. 32-36
I really didn’t expect to find theories like this in Lectures on Calvinism.
LikeLike
Patrick Edouard sentenced to 5 years. Will appeal (presumably on church vs. state grounds). I think his attorney will argue that the state can not declare a minister a “counselor” and hold him to the standards that say a counselor can not have sexual relations with someone under their care. He’ll be free on an appeal bond until the appeal is complete.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121020/NEWS01/310200038/Former-Pella-pastor-sentenced-in-exploitation-of-women?Frontpage&nclick_check=1
LikeLike
MM,
It seems us moderns are the odd ones historically. Racial and ethnic elitism and division has been rampant from the beginning of time and the basis for many alliances and war. Even when I’ve been to Europe recently their lack of PC about such issues allows for some rather frank and sometimes refreshing discussions about such things. It also keeps the door wide open for such divisions to take root again if you put enough stress on those cultures. I think our modern views here in the U.S. are helpful and beneficial improvements but they also tend to leave us naive and somewhat impoverished historically.
This was part of the Schaeffer discussions as he laid the blame for all modern ills at the feet of the french revolution and enlightenment. It was a little uncomfortable to have to remind everyone that many of our better western ideals and helpful secularization, of state and societal moorings was due in no small part to enlightenment ideals and the French. Crickets.
LikeLike
This is for Richard:
“Also conducive to warmer relations (between Old Side & New Side Presbyterians) was Gilbert Tennent’s 1749 sermon ‘Irenicum Ecclesiasticum’ in which he argued strongly for union of the two synods and recanted from his vitriolic remarks in ‘The Danger of an Unconverted Ministry,’ When he said that ‘it is cruel and censorious judging, to condemn the states of those we know not; and to condemn positively and openly the spiritual states of such as are sound in fundamental doctrines, and regular in life,’ Tennent took a major stride in backing away from an attitude that had directly prompted the Protestation of 1741.”
From “Seeking a Better Country – 300 Years of American Presbyterianism” by D.G. Hart & John R. Muether
LikeLike
Terry, those are good overtures. But you’re not suggesting they reflect a consensus, are you?
LikeLike
Sydney Ahlstrom’s definition of Pietism:
“Pietism as a distinct religious movement began to take recognizable shape in the later decades of the seventeenth century. It is an exceedingly difficult movement to define, however, despite the fact that few Protestant impulses have been fraught with larger or more enduring consequences. Described most simply, it was an effort to intensify Christian piety and purity of life. At the outset it also involved a protest against intellectualism, churchly formalism, and ethical passivity. With the passing decades this protest broadened; pietists also began to inveigh against the new forms of rationalism and the spiritual coldness of the Enlightenment. Pietism was thus a movement of revival, aimed at making man’s relation to God experientally and morally meaningful as well as socially relevant. It stressed the feelings of the heart. It emphasized the royal priesthood and sought to revive the laity. It always called for a return to the Bible.”
“A Religious History of the American People” p. 236
LikeLike
Terry, add my huzzah to 6 as well. But I still don’t see how appealing to Kuyperian theory helps it the same way the confessions do. As long as we’re making references, see DVD’s chapter in “Always Reformed.” But in what ways do you think the CRC is inconsistent with its Kuyperian roots?
LikeLike
Echoing Zrim’s point – confessionally where does this church as institution vs. church as organism idea come from?
LikeLike
Or better yet, where does it come from biblically?
LikeLike
Erik,
Ultimately it’s a spirituality that walks by sight rather than by faith. Rome does this too with it’s social gospel and transformation emphasis. It’s an attempt to seperate the invisible reality from it’s visible churchly marks. QIRC
LikeLike
Sean, the Kuyper quote raises a number of issues. For example, if he had a Calvinist view and his view resulted in an oddball view about mingling the races then maybe his Calvinist view is not inexorably the superior view. This wasn’t in some long-buried correspondence, it was a key point in a prominent lecture.
Then I wonder whether his idea of history leading towards a kind of Golden Age of Calvinist Civilization was a major impetus for his work. I haven’t read a bunch of Kuyper, so I wouldn’t venture to answer these questions.
LikeLike
Erik, just to be clear, I’m not questioning the organic/institutional distinction–it’s perfectly legit and fine as far as it goes. I’m just wondering how the Kuyperian emphasis on the organic for cultural Christianity helps the 2k emphasis on the institutional for creedal Christianity.
LikeLike
For Erik and to anyone else interested. Erik, I found the sermon/essay and started reading it. In the first few pages I found the following quote. It does not sound like he was admitting that he had done anything wrong.
Gilbert Tennent in’ Irenicum Ecclesiasticum’
Nor have I been moved to this Important interprise, by any
Thing that concerns myself, either by Grief for any suppos’d
Misconduct of Mine, in Time past, or any Expectation of Credit
Comfort or Benefit, that may result from such a Peace and Union in
Time to come, so far as they Respect me !
But Meerly by the Consideration, of the positive Command
of God, to pray for the Peace of Jerusalem, to pursue peace,
and to keep the Unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace.
LikeLike
MM,
I just think it’s particularly indicative of the time, and quite radical especially when you consider the dutch colony in South Africa, or the rampant elitism of the time across the board whether it’s the notion of Anglo-Saxon superiority espoused all the way through WWII even by the allies or the Arian notions of Nazism. Everything was race and ethnic based on a level we no longer appreciate even with all our PC sensitivities. So, it’s from that backdrop that I can imagine he might see the calvinist and dutch program as being egalitarian comparatively, even progressive, something along the lines of ‘your not subhuman but still beneath me, and in need of indoctrination in a superior Kuyperian Calvinistic view of culture before you’re suitable to lead and hold prominent position in a christian triumphalist culture.” We still see a remnant of this in dutch-reformed congregations-you ain’t dutch you ain’t much. As far as the ‘given’ of Calvin and Calvinism being the apex of reformed expression, I find it interesting to read some of R.S. Clark’s work and his comments of how Calvin was NOT that highly considered in his time, and many other prior and then-contemporary scholars were more often referenced. Having not grown up in the reformed world, when I came in, I got the impression that Calvin was the protestant’s Thomas Aquinas but apparently that really wasn’t the case. In fact, I think Clark credits Barth with the popularization of Calvin in the reformed world.
As regards to your second question, I think it unquestionably was.
LikeLike
Is the “Church as Organism” another way of saying that Christians have duties as individual citizens? I’m just confused what the term means.
Richard – You’re going to have to say it’s a Hart conspiracy if Tennent didn’t clearly recant. Here’s another passage from the Dictionary of the P&R tradition in America. Hart & Mark Noll edited it. The article on Tennent is by S.T. Logan of Westminster (PA):
“While continuing to support the Awakening, he thereafter led the attempt to bring reconciliation, admitting publicly in 1742 that his own censoriousness had contributed to the schism in the church. After retracting his virulent sermon and working diligently to repair the breach, his efforts finally paid off. In 1758 the two sides were reunited, and the united synod elected him moderator in honor of his labors. In tribute Francis Allison, one of the most influential Old Side ministers, wrote, ‘Gilbert Tennent…has written more and suffered more for his writings, to promote peace and union, than any member of this divided church.”
I think the story of how the Old Side and the New Side got back together is actually a pretty inspiring story for Christians who are often to quick to divide and stay divided.
LikeLike
Darryl, not at all. You asked if there were any neo-Calvinistics critiquing the present practice of neo-Calvinism in the CRC (or elsewhere).
LikeLike
Zrim, see http://network.crcna.org/forums/discussion-networks/synodical-reports/whatever-happened-sphere-sovereignty for my views on where the CRC is straying from the Kuyperian path.
LikeLike
Erik Charter: Richard – You’re going to have to say it’s a Hart conspiracy if Tennent didn’t clearly recant. Here’s another passage from the Dictionary of the P&R tradition in America. Hart & Mark Noll edited it. The article on Tennent is by S.T. Logan of Westminster (PA):
RS: Not necessarily a conspiracy at all. I just wanted to read where he is interpreted as recanting and then I saw the words that I copied above. He goes on in that same piece (the introduction to it) to assert the same thing again. It appears to be far from recanting at this point.
LikeLike
Erik, Belgic Confession, Article 29 defines the marks and tasks of the church. Although the phrase “church as institution” is not used it contains the idea. It is similar to the idea of the spirituality of the church. The CRCNA church order Article 28 says that the church as synod, Classis, or consistory ought only to address ecclestical matters.
The broader notion is based on believers’ vocations in all areas of life and the notion that God is sovereign over all creation and that Christ is Lord over all of life. Think WSC Q&A #1 and the instructions to believers as husbands, wives, parents, children, slaves, masters, etc. in various scripture passages. Kuyper’s “not one square inch” quote comes to mind.
LikeLike
Terry, thanks for the link–that was pretty good stuff. Not to rain on your parade, but after the last 14 years myself in the CRC, I see a collective yawn given to the kinds of points you make there. And I think it’s because, as I said, Kuyperian theory may make a distinction between the organic and institutional but it also places the accent on the former. 2k-SOTC does so on the latter and seems to be the better theory to make your points.
LikeLike
Pages 29-30 of Hodge’s Presbyterian history has more quotes. It looks like a lot of this came from a letter Tennent wrote. Apparently he had encountered some Moravians who made him question if excess “enthusiasm” might be a bad thing:
The great sinfulness of this censorious spirit, and his own offences in this respect, Mr. Tennent afterwards very penitently acknowledged. In a letter to President Dickinson, dated Feb-
ruary 12, 1742, he says, ” I have had many afflicting thoughts about the debates which have subsisted for some time in our Synod. I would to God the breach were healed, were it the will of the
Almighty. As for my own part, wherein I have mismanaged in doing what I did, I do look upon it to be my duty, and should be willing to acknowledge it in the openest manner. I cannot justify
the excessive heat of temper which has sometime appeared in my conduct. I have been of late, (since I returned from New England,) visited with much spiritual desertion and distresses of various kinds, coming in a thick and almost continual succession, which have given me a greater discovery of myself, than I think I ever had before. These things, with the trial of the Moravians, have given me a clear view of the danger of every thing which tends to enthusiasm and division in the visible church. I think that while the enthusiastical Moravians, and Long-Beards, or Pietists, are uniting their
bodies, (no doubt to increase their strength, and render themselves more considerable,) it is a shame that the ministers, who are in the main of sound principles of religion, should be divided and quarrelling. Alas, for it, my soul is sick for these things ! I wish that some scriptural healing methods could be fallen upon to put an end to these confusions. Some time since I felt a disposition to fall
upon my knees, if I had opportunity, to entreat them to be at peace. I add no more at present, but humble and hearty salutations ; and remain, with all due honour and respect, your poor worthless brother in the gospel ministry.
” P. S. I break open the letter myself, to add my thoughts about some extraordinary things in Mr. Davenport’s conduct. As to his making his judgment about the internal state of persons, or
their experience, a term of church fellowship, I believe it is unscriptural, and of awful tendency to rend and tear the church. It is bottomed upon a false base, viz. : That a certain and infallible
knowledge of the good estate of men is attainable in this life from their experience. The practice is schismatical, inasmuch as it sets up a new term of communion which Christ has not fixed.
A few years later, when the evils arising from the rash denunciation of professing Christians and ministers had become more apparent, Mr. Tennent protested against it in the strongest terms.
” It is cruel and censorious judging,” he says, ” to condemn the state of those we know not, and to condemn positively and openly the spiritual state of such as are sound in fundamental doctrines.
Here is that e-book: http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/charles-hodge/the-constitutional-history-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-the-united-states-of-am-gdo/page-29-the-constitutional-history-of-the-presbyterian-church-in-the-united-states-of-am-gdo.shtml
LikeLike
Erik C quoting Hodge who was quoting Tennent: : ” I have had many afflicting thoughts about the debates which have subsisted for some time in our Synod. I would to God the breach were healed, were it the will of the Almighty. As for my own part, wherein I have mismanaged in doing what I did, I do look upon it to be my duty, and should be willing to acknowledge it in the openest manner. I cannot justify the excessive heat of temper which has sometime appeared in my conduct.”
RS: But again, what was it that his excessive heat of temper came out at and when did it come out? Was it specifically the sermon in question or…?
Erik C quoting Hodge qupting Tennent: P. S. I break open the letter myself, to add my thoughts about some extraordinary things in Mr. Davenport’s conduct. As to his making his judgment about the internal state of persons, or their experience, a term of church fellowship, I believe it is unscriptural, and of awful tendency to rend and tear the church. It is bottomed upon a false base, viz. : That a certain and infallible knowledge of the good estate of men is attainable in this life from their experience.
RS: Did Tennent claim a certain and infallible knowledge of the good estate of men in his previous sermon? Davenport was clearly way over the top, but to state that Tennent was like Davenport and so his statements against Davenport shows that he turned from his former sermon is not a good argument (not saying you are doing that). What I am saying is that a person can preach a sermon at point A in his life and then turn from other things at point B later in life that others may think are directly linked to point A and so they draw the deduction that he was repenting from point A. Maybe not.
LikeLike
Richard – I think all these guys can be viewed on a continuum with regards to revivalism and the First Great Awakening. On one end would be guys like James Davenport who was most likely flat out mentally ill. At the other end would be an Old Side Minister who was maybe not a Christian and was just going through the motions. Most everyone else was somewhere in between. Tennent may have started nearer to where Davenport was but eventually be moved to a more moderate position. The New Side leader, Jonathan Dickinson, the first President of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton) was also more of a moderate. Edwards was in favor of the Awakening but was also a moderate. It was through people moving from their extreme positions that led to the New Side and Old Side being able to get back together in 1758. Hart would argue, hwoever, that the New Side really won the battle and the split would occur again over the Second Great Awakening. I would argue that the issues were still there when Machen split off to form the OPC in 1936. If you read Hart’s “Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America” (which every man here should do) you see Machen banging his head against a wall arguing for orthodoxy against a church that is more concerned with “heart religion” (and everyone just getting along) than with “head religion”. You also had the modernist/fundamentalist debate going on, but the debates that begin within 18th Century Presbyterianism over the Awakening had far-reaching implications.
LikeLike