While away this summer I read Mary Gordon’s Final Payments, a story about a Roman Catholic women, with a strongly plagued conscience, who figures out to do with her life after her father dies, a man whom she had offended and to whom she tried to make amends by taking care of him (a stroke incapacitated him) for eleven years. It is a novel about growing up in pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism and whiffs of what the new order are like emerge. But it is not a heavily religious novel. It does, though, have this observation about Protestantism in comparison to Roman Catholicism:
Protestants, it said, thought about moral issues, drank water and ate crakcers, took care to exercise and had a notion that charity was synonymous with good works. Catholics, on the other hand, thought about eternity, drank wine, smoked cigards, were somtimes extravavgant, but knew that charity was a fire in the heart of God and never confused it with that Protestant invention, philanthropy.
It is an odd take on Protestantism since one of Trent’s major objections to the Reformation was the idea that one could be saved apart from good works (of course, I’d need to qualify that as the Reformed confessions did). For Rome, Protestantism was an open invitation to licentiousness and antinomianism. Now, Gordon, among others, is telling us we are moralists.
Ross Douthat’s recent post on Jody Bottom’s switch on gay marriage (Bottom was formerly editor of First Things) reminded me of this passage from Gordon and my plan to comment on it:
In the longstanding, not-unjustified stereotypes of Western religious conflict, Roman Catholicism was generally seen as far more accommodating and tolerant — or, alternatively, more decadent and lax — than its Protestant rivals on matters related to the human body and the human heart. The structure of Catholicism, with its elevation of religious life in all its varied forms above the family unit, was always friendlier to what today we might call non-heteronormative aspirations, male and female, than many other churches (and, indeed, than many other civilizations). The emphasis that the church’s sacramental life placed on the cycle of confession-sin-repentance, as Bottum notes, tended to create a moral economy in which fallenness was taken for granted, and wider latitude extended to people who persisted in their sins than was sometimes the case in the sterner, Calvin-influenced precincts of Christendom. (The old Protestant image of Jesuitical confessors performing elaborate logical contortions to minimize the gravity of moral faults — and has — some basis in reality.) And then of course the deeply carnal nature of Catholic liturgy and art and culture created a broad religio-aesthetic landscape in which a wide diversity of enfleshed desires could be projected, expressed, sublimated, channeled, fulfilled.
This historical and cultural backdrop helps explain several things about how the gay marriage debate has played out among American Catholics. (And elsewhere, as well.) First, it’s probably one of the reasons why Catholics as a demographic have tilted somewhat more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than other major Christian groups.
Of course, Rome was not always tolerant of all form of deviancy. It did give us the Inquisition, the Index of Books, and bishops at Vatican I were excommunicated for not endorsing papal supremacy and infallibility. Why the church would fudge on morality but not on words, ideas, or authority, or not see how looking the other way on morality might actually jeopardize authority is another matter.
What I find intriguing about Douthat’s piece is this kind of admission about Roman Catholic laxity in the context of a major sex scandal. Again, I don’t like going after the child abuse business because it is a case of hitting a man when he is down. But would the kind of leniency Douthat describes account in part for a culture that covered up what priests did? Wouldn’t that also explain why Vatican officials ignored the enormous indiscretions of the Renaissance popes? Might it not also explain why the Vatican was cozy — too much at times — with fascist governments? Sure, you could say that the fascists were anti-Communist. But John Lukacs has long argued that Communism is closer to Christianity than fascism. In other words, rather than a strength, Douthat’s depiction of Rome is a weakness (some would say major).
Meanwhile, the church did advocate celibacy, poverty and other forms of self-abasement as the surest way to salvation for monks, nuns, and clergy. Maybe they needed to be forgiving of sexual shenanigans since the laity didn’t have a clear guide for life in the secular world.
One last thought concerns the severity of Calvinism. I have no doubt that Calvinism draws its share of moralists — just say hello to the theonomists. But if you read through the registry of Geneva’s consistory — at roughly the very time when Englishmen were being inspired to be Puritans (as in purify church and society) — you see remarkable patience with the sins of the Genevans. One case, for instance, involved a man who had gotten his married chambermaid pregnant through fornication. This fellow’s penalty: he was admonished and sent to the city council who imprisoned him for 9 days. (Registers of the Consistory of Geneva, Vol. 1, 388-89). If this example is any indication — and I’ve only skimmed the Register, the moralism that afflicts contemporary Reformed Protestants may have less to do with Reformation theology than the spread of middle class virtues and an egalitarian intolerance of difference.
Bottom line: I’m not sure why Douthat finds this side of Rome appealing. Nor am I certain that moralism is inherent to Calvinism.
Old Life 
Very thoughtful piece. Speaking of moralism: This from today’s local paper:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20130828/NEWS/308280038/Court-of-Appeals-candidates-quizzed-on-marriage-religion?archive
Court of Appeals candidates quizzed on marriage, religion
A finalist for the Iowa Court of Appeals was asked publicly last week by a nominating commissioner if she made covenant vows with her husband.
And another applicant was asked about her church involvement.
The question about covenant vows was made from nominating commissioner Scott Bailey, a vice president of the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators from Otley, to Jeanie Vaudt, an assistant Iowa attorney general and a finalist to become an Iowa Court of Appeals judge.
The question about church involvement came from nominating commissioner Elizabeth Doll of Council Bluffs, who asked applicant Jennifer Miller to “comment on her methodology of choosing a place of worship.”
One critic says the questions were inappropriate and polluted the separation of church and state traditionally viewed as a protection guaranteed by the First Amendment.
“First, he would never ask that of a man,” said Donna Red Wing, executive director of One Iowa, a civil rights group focused on gays and lesbians. “And second, to ask about somebody’s covenant with her husband, I think that crosses a church-state line. Wow.”
But Chuck Hurley, vice president of the Christian conservative Family Leader, disagreed, saying that the nation’s founding fathers’ vision allowed for selectors of public servants to look at a potential officeholder’s moral qualifications.
The question to Vaudt, first reported by the Associated Press, violated the commission’s own guidelines and came as some legal observers worry Republican Gov. Terry Branstad has packed the panel with conservative activists.
In addition, the handbook for commissioners warns that questions about marital status, a spouse’s employment and religion are inappropriate. One example of an inappropriate question from the book is: “What does your spouse think about your being a judge?”
Calls to Branstad’s office seeking comment on the issue were not returned Tuesday. Both Bailey and Doll were appointed to the commission by Branstad.
Twenty-two candidates were interviewed by the nominating commission Aug. 21 and 22 at the Iowa Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines.
Vaudt initiated a discussion about her marriage, specifically noting her long-distance relationship with her husband David Vaudt, a former state auditor who resigned in May to take a job in Connecticut as the chairman of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
“There’s one more question I suspect that some of you may have wanted to ask me during the personal interviews and for whatever reason you didn’t,” Jeanie Vaudt said during her presentation before the nominating committee. “So I’m going to ask and answer the question because I think it’s important and I don’t want anyone making any decisions about me based upon assumption or presumptions that might be inaccurate.”
She then went on to say that she would make whatever sacrifices were necessary to become an Iowa Court of Appeals judge.
In response, Bailey asked: “Did you make covenant vows with your husband, and do you feel you have or that you are breaking those in this situation?”
Jeanie Vaudt responded by saying she has the full support of her husband in her judgeship endeavor.
On Tuesday Bailey told the Associated Press that he intended for the word “covenant” to refer to guiding principles in all areas of life.
“I wanted to know if her husband was supportive,” Bailey said. “I wanted to know whether her ambition was so high that there was no relationship in life that mattered more to her than her becoming a judge.”
Martin Diaz, an attorney from Iowa City and another member of the nominating committee, told The Des Moines Register that while he’s uncomfortable being critical of another board member, he wished the question from Bailey had been stated differently.
“He could have asked: ‘Is your husband supportive of your decision?’ ” Diaz said.
“The question he asked sort of creates a religious perspective that maybe wasn’t necessary.”
Hurley, of the Family Leader, also said he felt the question from Bailey probably could have been better stated.
But he said the underlying question is one worthy of response because family support is an important factor in strong public service.
“It may seem a little bit invasive but, shoot, nobody forced her to apply for the judgeship,” Hurley said of the question to Jeanie Vaudt. “I would think it’s just prudent to make sure that spouses are not at odds with an application.”
Miller was asked to “comment on her methodology of choosing a place of worship as you’ve traveled to different places.” Miller, who is from Springville in Linn County, is an attorney for the Wachtel Missry law firm in New York.
Miller, 42, responded by saying she has sought parishes that have a sense of community and need a bit of help so she could offer her services to assist with legal work or other services.
Doll told the Register she asked the question because Miller’s resume and background material included information about how she previously chose a church in Harlem where she felt she could be more engaged in her community.
Doll said she wanted to highlight Miller’s civic commitment rather than her religious affiliation.
“I thought that was interesting on a socioeconomic level,” Doll said. “It was a business aspect of her resume. I’m almost positive she is a Catholic but I didn’t say that. I felt I was conscientious. I wanted to hear about her business experience.”
Dorothy O’Brien, a lawyer member of the committee from Davenport, said she felt the question to Miller was designed to encourage a flow of information about the candidate’s commitment to people who are less fortunate rather than to dig up her religious affiliation. But she was uncertain about the question regarding Vaudt’s covenant vow with her husband.
“I was puzzled by the question because I wasn’t sure what covenant meant, but it did seem to have religious overtones,” O’Brien said.
The commission later recommended Vaudt, 59, of West Des Moines as one of three finalists to replace retiring Chief Judge Larry Eisenhauer.
The commission also selected Sharon Greer, 57, an attorney in Marshalltown; and Christopher McDonald, 38, a Polk County judge.
Branstad has one month to make a selection.
LikeLike
The zany high jinks that ensue when moderate Republicans appoint hard right Republicans to boards and commissions…
LikeLike
Perhaps any candidate for political office (or other community leadership) should be questioned about having “anabaptist” sympathies. Because we all know that anabaptists are both the evidence and the cause of the anti-authoritarian culture of American individualism. Anabaptists have the bad soteriology of the Roman Catholics, but without all the good “common grace” civilization creating and uniting qualities of the Roman Catholics.
And of course the 2k version of being Reformed has not yet been really tried, so we know that Reformed churches are not to blame for our sick culture. Indeed, those who are Reformed now have institutions where families can escape the influence of baptist culture.
Scott Clark, “Magic and Noise: Reformed Christianity in Sister’s America.”, in Always Reformed
James Jordan and Gary North, The Failure of American Baptist Culture
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/21ce_47e.htm
LikeLike
McMark, you make a good point. I’m gonna pass this on to my ref bap. pop-in-law. He’ll particularly appreciate the double whammy of being an ecclesiological incompetent and cultural albatross. If you hear from me again it will be because I didn’t tell him. I think I’ll tell him and give him your name.
“Indeed, those who are Reformed now have institutions where families can escape the influence of baptist culture.”
Thank goodness. My father’s KOC brethren would like the addresses of all the Jack Chick kin while you’re at it. We know all ya’ll are hiding them.
LikeLike
The Catholic/Protestant takeaway from that story is that the moderate governor, who has been in office longer than any governor in U.S. history (or close to it) is Catholic and has done next to nothing to wear his religion on his sleeve the entire time he has been in power. Meanwhile, the (presumably) fundamentalist or evangelical homeschooling advocate that he appoints to a board takes about 5 minutes to wear his beliefs about marriage (and stay-at-home moms/wives) on his sleeve.
LikeLike
Sean, haven’t you heard that “america is an anabaptist nation”?
America is a pacifist nation?
No, wait, you have not taken a course on Reformation history in a good Reformed seminary. If you had, you would know that “anabaptist” does not really mean “pacifist”. And anyway, if we were all pacifist anabaptists, we would have never had this country but still be under all those taxes imposed by king george.
So, we are NOT an anabaptist culture?
It depends. If you let us define ‘anabaptist” as everything which is wrong with the culture, everything which is subjective and not doctrinal, then yes Americans are mostly anabaptist.
But if you define it as pacifist, maybe not. So let’s not define it as pacifist. Let’s ignore the Amish and the Mennonites and focus on violent Marxists like Jim Wallis. Or better yet, lets ignore the last 300 years and go back to the time before Menno Simons and look at the sedition and resistance to magistrates by lesser magistrates at Munster. That’s how we need to define “anabaptist”, so that the typologies that we got from (neo-orthodox liberal brothers Niebuhr) will continue to work and then baptists who are not pacifists can still be scapegoated as basically all the same.
Because you see the brothers Niebuhr believed in the wrath of God and also learned the doctrine of original sin when they read the newspaper and found out they needed to kill the bad guys in WW2. And what could be more American than WW2, which was the good old days but nowadays the anabaptists seem to have taken over everything. That obama he must be a baptist too, and i know that clinton and carter were, so there you have it….
Say hi to your father in law. If he’s like most of the southern baptists I know, he could very well be Arminian ( he would say plan of salvation instead of “conditional covenant”) but he might hit you if you call him a pacifist.
I remember when I taught at a Dutch Reformed school—on the playground, a child would express dislike for another child by saying “you are freewill”. They didn’t know what it was, but they knew it was bad.
Thus: the forces which are making things worse every day are —- “anabaptist”
I do love churches which serve as sanctuaries and retreats from this old world. We need less “engagement” and more quiet fellowship.
LikeLike
Darryl:
A brief aside to your larger points.
I hope to hear more on your musings re: Mr. Calvin’s Geneva and the registry. It looks good, but am running in some other directions. A bit pricey too. Geneva was a nursery or school house for English Reformers.
Speaking of which, on a very narrow slice relative to your post, it may be that Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer had “some” influence on Mr. Tudor. Henry’s “King’s Book” of 1543 downgraded “purgatory” and forbad the use of the term. Yet, this is an odd item. There are myriads questions in the complexities, including the possible influence of the ever-pliable Mr. Cranmer, the mystery man. Then too, there is the question of Mr. Calvin’s connection to Mr. Cranmer in 1542-43. Clearly, Mr. Canterbury’s letter of 1552 to Mr. Calvin notes that he [Calvin] is a man who “excels in erudition and judgment” [Cranmer’s words], no mean comment from a slow, plodding, and judicious…if not occasionally cowardly…bishop. But, I digress or meander. Back on point: hope to hear more of your musings on Geneva’s registry.
This goes to a slightly larger point, to wit, the phony and broken Nicene Christology of Rome (said during services) attached to an incompetent soteriology of ineffectuality, but that’s for another day; Exhibit A for an incompetent Redeemer with inefficacious redemption = purgatory.
Also, wonderful to see the tools affixed to pass your messages on.
Regards.
Donald Philip Veitch
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
LikeLike
My Roman Catholic second cousin posted this on FB today, along with “This is what our country and lives are built on! Thank you Lord! Great song!”
(I like the kid’s face on the far left at around 2:00.)
LikeLike
Mark, loved this as sarcasm: “I do love churches which serve as sanctuaries and retreats from this old world. We need less “engagement” and more quiet fellowship.”
But with regard to the Douthat comments and the Gordon piece, I do think that most of this boils down to interpretation and discernment. Many of the theonomists I know drink wine, smoke cigars and have an over realized view of eternity. Coupled with their soteriology and view of the Church, they surely have a great deal to do with catholicism. But their idea of cultural engagement is to put the common domain under Church rule and to play historical revisionist with institutions like slavery and the crusades.
Many pundits coming out against culture these days are trying to draw parallel lines between theonomists and the missional types. However, the motivation of the two are extreme opposites. My experience has been that most theonomists have very little interest in evangelism or outreach to the lost as a matter of commitment. And my experience with missional folks is that they tend to downplay the formal church or high church (but not always – Keller does not). The theonomist’s idea of affecting culture is to “exercise dominion” over it, whilst the missional crowd attempts to approach culture as an ambassador’s in a foreign land might seek to influence and persuade. Their vulnerability of course is that they often become swayed by the foreign land and cross a line into the territory of betrayal.
When a person who is missiologically oriented engages in Christian liberty (ex:cigars or wine) not for the purpose of self-indulgence but rather to gain a hearing for God, much like Paul speaks of in Romans and 1 Cor. On the other hand, the theonomically inclined often engage in acts of Christian liberty not to flaunt it, but rather to enjoy that which God has called good. (As you can tell by now, I am a bigger fan of the missional approach)
So, the bottom line here, from my perspective, is that all non-R2Kers do not fit neatly together and that their underlying motivations and purpose are almost on opposite ends. Thanks.
LikeLike
“……………………..The structure of Catholicism, with its elevation of religious life in all its varied forms above the family unit, was always friendlier to what today we might call non-heteronormative aspirations, male and female, than many other churches (and, indeed, than many other civilizations). The emphasis that the church’s sacramental life placed on the cycle of confession-sin-repentance, as Bottum notes, tended to create a moral economy in which fallenness was taken for granted, and wider latitude extended to people who persisted in their sins”
Me: Yep. From seminary to Nawlin’s. She also needs to open up about the ‘donation’ opportunities that enabled the priestly charism to be turned in your favor whether ordinary or extraordinary.
LikeLike
Lou, are you saying Keller does not downgrade the church? I think Keller does. That’s why he is a Presbyterian by convenience.
LikeLike
Thank you DGH for bluntly stating that Keller “downgrade(s) the church.” Yes, he does.
LikeLike
DGH: …not see how looking the other way on morality might actually jeopardize authority is another matter…
I am with you on this — and I’m certain this stems from a two-fold failure on their part:
First the erroneous application by Augustine of the wheat-and-tares parable to the church (vs. the Donatists — City of God 20:9; The Letters of Petilian the Donatist, 3:4-5). Jesus himself says “The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one”. That seems to leave no room for a “mixed” church — much less, a mixed “infallible hierarchy”.
And second, their need to insist on using vast swaths of evil papacy and episcopacy as “placeholders” to keep the “succession” alive.
There is no other way for them to maintain the illusion that they maintain.
What I find intriguing about Douthat’s piece is this kind of admission about Roman Catholic laxity in the context of a major sex scandal. Again, I don’t like going after the child abuse business because it is a case of hitting a man when he is down.
I think they need to be hit, and repeatedly, on this. This is a worst-case-scenario to Liccione’s CIP; he is hanging onto a cliff by his fingers, and these fingers must be stomped on until Liccione and all those who are clinging to him are in a free fall and have NO OTHER RECOURSE than to call upon the name of the Lord. That is the only chance at salvation for these people.
But would the kind of leniency Douthat describes account in part for a culture that covered up what priests did?
For the CTC crowd, it’s not cultural — it’s ultimately doctrinal. There is no other way for them to maintain the illusion that they maintain, to the effect that there have been two or five (nobody knows, but it’s not that many) instances in all of history, when the certainty, under certain well-defined conditions that Liccione’s CIP posits, could possibly have happened.
I’m less inclined to morph any of this into the Vatican being cozy with any governments. I don’t think what the Roman Catholic “culture” did in 1932 has any linkage to what they might do today, especially not given Vatican II and the embrace by some quarters of Schleirmacher and all that. Vatican II has disconnected them from all history, and that institution is free-floating in some irrevocable place.
LikeLike
It’s interesting that Mary Ann Glendon, the RC laywoman who was (I think she’s retired) a professor of law at Harvard, when writing about her growing up in Dalton, Mass., commented on the oddity that the supposedly works-focussed RCs in town seemed to be focussed on “faith” (she really means religion, rather than biblical faith), while the Protestants (Congregationalists) concentrated on works, i.e. philanthropy.
LikeLike
Lon: Many of the theonomists I know drink wine, smoke cigars and have an over realized view of eternity. Coupled with their soteriology and view of the Church, they surely have a great deal to do with catholicism.
mark: Lon, thanks for the interaction. I had not seen you around here before, but I am only guest/alien, a five-pointer (tulip) but not “Reformed”. This also was my experience when I visited Bahnsen’s church in California a long time ago. Growing up a fundamentalist, and then coming to “Calvinism” with puritan Banner of Truth types who suspended assurance on certain behaviors (and subjective emotions), I was surprised by their “reverse legalism” ( I call it a bondage to one’s emancipation, in which it is required that you drink and smoke in order to prove your liberty). But I was also surprised at how little they actually talked about the gospel (soteriology) since it was almost all culture and “church courts”. I had a friend who was a member of the church who was “excommunicated to hell” but it was not because of a difference about gospel but a difference about ordination (clergy/laity distinctions).
So as you say, at the least “parallels” could be drawn between early FV (theonomy) and Romanism. But as one who is often on the receiving end of parallels, I don’t put too much significance where cause and effect can’t be proven. When it comes to “anabaptism”, some Reformed folks tend to throw a lot of s—- on the wall and see what sticks. As in, I didn’t mean you specifically. As in, well, I am not really talk about pacifism but about revivalism. Or I am talking about puritanism–and how is that a “baptist” thing, well it’s a bad thing, so it must be….But there’s been plenty of introspection and preparationism in Reformed churches….
Lon: When a person who is missiologically oriented engages in Christian liberty (ex:cigars or wine) not for the purpose of self-indulgence but rather to gain a hearing for God, much like Paul speaks of in Romans and 1 Cor. On the other hand, the theonomically inclined often engage in acts of Christian liberty not to flaunt it, but rather to enjoy that which God has called good. (As you can tell by now, I am a bigger fan of the missional approach)
mark: well, thanks for letting me know which way you lean, but I don’t see how being Kantian about it makes anything better. Is something more “moral” because you do it as a duty or a means instead of enjoying it? If that’s what being “missional” means, then it sounds like moralism to me. It also sounds like a drag, like being in the army or something. Relax and enjoy the forgiveness of sins based on the already finished work of Christ.
(check out these three books on joy in exile while waiting—How to be Idle by Tom Hodgkinson.
For the Nations, by John Howard Yoder (Eerdmans), expecially the chapter on diaspora, “See How they Go with Their Faces”. And A Biblical Theology of Exile, by quaker Daniel Smith-Christopher( Fortress)
lon: So, the bottom line here, from my perspective, is that all non-R2Kers do not fit neatly together and that their underlying motivations and purpose are almost on opposite ends. Thanks.
mark: If I understand you, you have two subsets under non-2kers, one theonomists, and the other missionalists. I can see some differences of course, but perhaps the typology is not as neat as you make it sound. But for sure, not all 2kers are alike either. Some of them seem to be very much into attempting to improve things as individuals. Many of them, despite their present reluctance to attempt transformation, seem to be very eager to locate a “baptist” fall of American culture from the good old days when Reformed churches were established
(of course, the two very different books I would recommend here would be Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity, and Franklin Littell, From State Churches to Pluralism. Hatch is the president of a baptist college (Wake Forest) but do not deceived by that, because he would still like to have an evangelical empire which would “parallel” that of Roman Catholics).
LikeLike
Again, I don’t like going after the child abuse business because it is a case of hitting a man when he is down.
What in the world are you talking about, dude?
I had a brief run in with a immature priest who later went on to become a big time offender and a lot sooner than I realized when the you know what finally hit the fan 20 or 30 years later.
That said, his superior who covered it all up and wouldn’t have him for an associate pastor when he took a rural charge later on, earns the brunt of my contempt when I look back on that little episode.
The scandal went to the infallible top of the church Christ founded and these folks didn’t protect the sheep. They merely moved them around to another chicken coop instead of quarantining them. You run, do not walk, to the exit in these kinds of circumstances.
In protestantism, you move on. In Rome, you are stuck. There is no other church, infallible as it may be – which in reality prevents any kind of real reformation from taking place. But of course, Rome doesn’t need reformation. And yrs truly doesn’t need any
antifreezekool aid, whether roman or oh so nice protestantism.cheers
LikeLike
John Bugay: “First the erroneous application by Augustine of the wheat-and-tares parable to the church (vs. the Donatists — City of God 20:9; The Letters of Petilian the Donatist, 3:4-5). Jesus himself says “The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one”. That seems to leave no room for a “mixed” church — much less, a mixed “infallible hierarchy”.
mark: Amen and amen. One problem in many Protestant churches is that this Augustinian ecclesiology still dominates. Instead of “coming out” (as Machen did), the idea is to stay in and reform, thus keeping the continuity. Why turn over a “mainline” congregation completely to the devil when they at least have the correct creed and sacrament, especially when separatism sounds so Manichean and Donatist? So there is still some question about if discipline is indeed a third mark of true churches. But as you say, to be biblicist about it, the Bible text does clearly say that the field is the world (not a true church).
Nobody I know denies that a visible church is “mixed”, but Calvin added discipline into the mix so that we could do what it is humanly possible to be set apart. I Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church[b] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
But of course, when you agree to the logic of discipline, then you open the door to a “restriction” on infant baptisms, first only to the infants of one parent whose profession of faith you accept, and then to nobody unless they profess to be one of those the Lord has effectually called.
One more obvious thing to say. When one’s agenda is to transform the world (anti 2k folks), then it becomes more and more difficult to make distinctions between a true church and the world. Martin Luther King and Jerry Falwell considered the world to be their parish. And you cannot discipline the world the way a voluntary association would govern itself. Thus the NT Wrights and Charles Colsons and Tim Kellers of the world use their church affiliations as convenient platforms in attempts to influence the world to be a better world.
LikeLike
DGH, yes I’m saying that Keller does not downgrade the church. In fact, I’d make the assertion that he elevates the church. I have attended two services at Redeemer in NYC and they followed a traditional liturgy, read from the Old and New Testaments, recited the Apostle’s Creed, prayed corporately during the service at least three times, including The Lord’s Prayer, received in new members and baptised at least five people while I was there those two times (three of them were infants). The Sunday School that I went to was based on the WCF, where we were studying from GI Williamson’s book.
I actually think that Keller gets it right most of the time (with some obvious areas of critique – such as evolution). I actually wish that more churches were like Redeemer, where the formal church setting is still held in high regard and where smaller groups are encouraged to meet throughout the week for prayer, encouragment, and edification whereby they may be built up in all of their vocational callings whether inside or outside the church.
The current PCA controversy that pits the high calling of the church against outreach and cultural engagement is disheartening to many of us.
LikeLike
Mark: Thanks so much for the engagement.
I apologize for not being clearer. Most of my comments were actually geared more for the current intramural discussions within the Reformed tradition that is trying to tie theonomists and missional/church planter types to the same pole. The reason why I focused on those two strands that reject R2K is because I was more specifically responding to that debate. Sorry for the confusion.
One a side note, (to the OldLifers), I’ve written privately within my local church and even in book reviews on Amazon in support of WSC over against the John Frame’s and FV’s criticisms, so I’m not coming at this with an anti-2K bias. What I am agruing is that R2K tweeks the discussion to far afield where the general domain is concerned (IMO). For example, I have agrued here in the past that being a Christian in the workplace actually should make a difference, to which the R2Kers here disagreed that there is not a difference at all.
LikeLike
Lou, what exactly is Presbyterian about Redeemer? How much does Redeemer advocate the planting of Reformed Protestant churches over against cooperating with Baptists, Pentecostals and other urbanists?
LikeLike
Lou, regarding whether faith makes a difference in the workplace, my parents, who were not Reformed, insisted that faith should make a difference. 2k is actually bringing back the Reformation doctrine of vocation away from pietists who seem to think that faith, to be real, needs to be seen on the sleeve.
LikeLike
Lou, and if you want to add credibility to your claim of not having any anti-2k bias then drop the R please. Rabbi Bret invented the term.
LikeLike
Lou:
It’s called 2K.
If one cannot resist putting letters or swear words or hashtags in front of 2K, they are immediately sent to the “cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs” waiting room.
LikeLike
You guys know Keller and co blogs, right? Maybe pay them a visit..
LikeLike
DGHillsdale,
So how about making the trip down I-75 at the end of October to make this a fair-and-square tag-team affair? http://cpcvandalia.com/refconf_2013.html
LikeLike
ZRIM and kent: I got the R2K term from this site. It stands for Radical Two Kingdoms. Before you start accusing people of using swear words (or hashtags), you might want to brush up a little bit. I didn’t realize that you don’t make a distinction between 2K and R2K. Among Presbyterians, there is an understood distinction for most. Sorry if saying so was offense. No offense was intended.
LikeLike
DG: “Lou, what exactly is Presbyterian about Redeemer?”
I will refer you back to my description of the Sunday worship service. I believe that covers most of the bases.
LikeLike
Lou – For example, I have agrued here in the past that being a Christian in the workplace actually should make a difference, to which the R2Kers here disagreed that there is not a difference at all.
Erik – Such as?
How does it look different from a pious Jew or an honest atheist?
LikeLike
Lou, I’m well aware of what the “R” means. That’s why I suggested you drop it if you want to maintain that you have no anti-2k bias. But if you do think there is a difference, maybe you could spell it out. What makes something go from 2k to rrrrrrrrradical2k? I’ve never been able to figure it out.
LikeLike
DGH: “A monergistic understanding of union is of no great help in the Christian life the way it is commonly explained as a rebuttal to Rome’s charges of antinomianism. If union is the work of the Spirit, how can Protestants claim that this reality becomes a motivation for good works? Rome’s logic was that once God does it all in salvation, a believer has no reason to be virtuous.
Hart: “Of course, Protestants rightly respond that the work of the Spirit is a reality that is conforming believers more to the image of Christ. But conformity to the image of Christ is not the work of a believer. It is the work of the Spirit. In which case, Rome’s accusation stands. The Spirit-wrought nature of salvation in the Protestant scheme has an antinomian impulse and appearance because good works are not the substance or catalyst for any of the blessings of Christ’s work.”
LikeLike
Erik,
Some reformed folks would argue the terms and say that there is no such thing as an “honest atheist” (because everyone knows that God exists, and an atheist is simply being dishonest). Personally, I don’t hang my hat on that, because I do believe in the concept of common grace and that unbelievers still have imprint/image of God that allows them to “Do Good” in the common sense (ultimately, not in a saving “good” way – ie, there is only One who is Good).
That said, my being a Christian in the workplace today, vs. being a non-Christian in the workplace 20 years ago are remarkably different in nearly every way – the way I treat others, the quality of my work, my loyalty, reliability and dependability – as I do all things to the Glory of God, as if working for Him directly. Definitely, still imperfect, but undeniably different.
Now, compared side by side to the unbeliever, who also happens to have a high level of skill and other qualities that make him or her an excellent employee, some of the things that I think should mark a Christian co-worker is the empathy of putting others before self, the willingness to submit pride, ego, money, and the like to faith working itself out in love. None of the strictly Christian attributes (such as those mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount or the Fruit of the Spirit) will hardly be present or at a minimum consistent in the non-believer. The non-believer who does not live life in the power of the Holy Spirit cannot expect to live in a manner that is not bound to the flesh. Even his good works are motivated by and done in accordance with seeking the rewards of the flesh. The Christian employee should not be marked by this type of living at all. (I do note the word “should” creates a loophole here, but nonetheless if a person claims to be Christian and resembles not at all the life of the fruit of the spirit, then this ought to be considered rather an anomoly than normative).
Here is an example of an ordinary Christian worker, behaving Christianly in the workplace (and how this changes everything):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MelQCClmDD8&feature=player_embedded
LikeLike
Lou,
You had me until the last sentence. All you said about the different motivations of the Christian at work vs the non-Christian, very true. And how the faith affects the believer’s work ethic, how he treats others, etc., is surely the result of a converted heart. But nowhere in the Bible are we promised that our work will have a great impact on the workplace, besides the impact of being a good testimony of Christ. Stories like the one you posted need to be balanced with the frustrations of millions of Christian workers who feel the effects of Ecclesiastes; that there is no lasting change under the sun (apart from personal regeneration – new creation). most often we work at a place, and the management remains incompetent or unethical, the business does not prosper, and the feelings of uselessness and vanity are constant struggles. Suggesting that Christian, simply by virtue of being Christians, should have a great effect on their workplace only increases the guilt and feelings of being failures to God, when God never promised such a thing in the first place. That is what we are objecting to, not the fact the the faith affects all we do Mon. through Sat., which we all agree on.
LikeLike
I take sides with Jacques Ellul in being cynical about the pretentiousness of most Christian talk about “vocation”. I don’t need Franky and Os walking around making “Christian movies” in the museums of Europe to tell me that collecting garbage is also a “calling”.
Marx thought that the meaning of life was found in work. Should Christians agree with Marx about this? Hey, puritans, we have the liberty to retire (NOT TO WORK) when the bills are paid. It’s not our “duty” to “earn all we can and save all we can”. That’s Wesleyan methodism, not the gospel.
Have you ever noticed that the celebrities who most like to talk about “vocation” are elitists who have not done much work in their lives? Why sweat when instead you can snobbishly attach a “worldview” to other people’s job? The rhetoric won’t let you work just for pay. It doesn’t even let you be perhaps useful to others. It always always want something more grand….
The capitalist “work ethic” may be moralistic but it’s not all that grand.
LikeLike
Mark,
That’s a nice comment.
Ayn Rand also put tremendous value on work.
LikeLike
Lou,
A bookkeeper taking down a school shooter is not a great example because it had nothing to do with her job. If she does honest bookkeeping she’s just acting as a Christian should, not doing “Christian bookkeeping”. I remain skeptical. Christians hopefully just do common jobs well, as we would expect them to.
As far as spreading all kinds of grace around in our jobs, it’s easier said than done. Most of the time it’s not our money to be gracious with.
I would rather tell people, “be a Christian at home, at work, and at church” and leave it at that. People can make their own specific applications as they see fit.
LikeLike
Meanwhile in Iowa we have pro-choice Democrats praying at an abortion rights rally…
LikeLike
Best You Tube comment: “That prayer did not go higher than the ceiling.”
This prayer must have been offensive to the atheistic Democrats in attendance…
LikeLike
AB, I used to look at those blogs. Too much gee willie stuff about urban churches and their accomplishments. Boring.
LikeLike
Ken, too late. The brochure sets the card. DVD is on his own. (Plus I think I’m traveling somewhere that weekend.)
LikeLike
Lou G., Presbyterian stands also for subscription and for connectional church government. And then you’re going to have to convince me that Keller’s views of worship square with the regulative principle that he subscribes (I thought).
LikeLike
Lou, “way I treat others, the quality of my work, my loyalty, reliability and dependability.”
Me — All of those are true of some unbelievers and untrue of some believers. This kind of thinking makes it seem that Christians are the only decent, responsible, and nice people in the world. Do you know how that sounds to unbelievers? Do you know how untrue that is?
LikeLike
I for one am extremely proud to live in a country where gay couples can now get shafted by “the marriage penalty” the same as straight couples.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/irs-to-recognize-all-gay-marriages-regardless-of-state.html?nl=afternoonupdate&emc=edit_au_20130829&_r=0
LikeLike
Mark: Vocational elitists? Do you mean people like Veith, Luther and Calvin? They are ‘sort of’ celebrities afterall (two of the three have had entire branches of theology and countless denominations named after them). Or were you erecting that pole to hang a few contemporary fellows?
Erik: you wrote: “Stories like the one you posted need to be balanced with the frustrations of millions of Christian workers who feel the effects of Ecclesiastes; that there is no lasting change under the sun ”
The problem with this thinking is that a Christian worker who is disappointed that the outcome or results of their faithful and spirit-led work doesn’t meet their expectations IS the same as the unbeliever who operates in the flesh. The part you guys are missing is that if the Christian is doing his or her work to the glory of God, they trust the outcome and the results entirely to the Lord and they understand that they are merely earthen vessels through whom God IS working. If we trust the Lord’s will and sovereignty, we won’t fall into the Solomon/Ecclesiastes trap. Peter exhorts us to be blameless so that when unbelievers see our good works they will glorify God. Clearly, we are called to be different — and clearly this call to obedience is NOT for the sake of creating a guilt-ridden conscience, but rather in the Holy Spirit who enables us to walk in the good works that God has prepared in advance for us. When we are participating in the Redeemers work, we find our ultimate satisfaction and joy. I hope this helps.
(fyi-in case anyone is thinking about going there: I’m an optimistic realist/amill, a la GK Beale, not a triumphalist/postmil type) Thank you gentlemen! Have a great day and a happy Labor Day weekend.
LikeLike
I don’t need a crucified and risen Saviour in order to be an upper tier golfer or electrician.
During a recent breakfast speech before 30 men from my church, one member of the audience disagreed and stated how he did a superior job in a specific situation at work, because of his faith.
I nodded, grateful for good audience interaction for 90 seconds, and won’t argue with him for that particular instance.
But it doesn’t change my first sentence.
LikeLike
Lou G., and if we trust the results entirely to the Lord, then we don’t let ourselves become poster boys for transforming Manhattan.
LikeLike
DGH: Thank you very much for the interaction. This has been a very good discussion and I am grateful that you actually took time to engage with me. Blessings in Christ to you, sir.
LikeLike
DIfferent, but from the employer’s perspective not necessarily better. See, as a Christian, you might realize that you need to rest on the sabbath rather than coming in to get ahead for the week. As a Christian father, you might also realize that you need to be home to have dinner with your kids meaning that 12 hour days are out. You might also need to set aside time to talk and engage with your wife in the evenings which means that burrowing away in your office after the kids are tucked in isn’t an option.
So my dean might be more pleased with my non-Christian colleague on his third marriage because that colleague spends every waking moment in the lab, writing papers, and submitting proposals. Indeed, that colleague might be the one admitted to the National Academy and nominated for a Nobel Prize – a far more successful employee than I.
Now if all you mean by different is that I exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit, then who could disagree?But those fruit don’t necessarily make much of a difference to the bottom line. These fruit don’t help me write more compelling proposals, write code more elegantly, or explain complicated concepts to my students more clearly. Indeed, being a Christian can (and often does) conflict with being a good employee.
LikeLike
“If we trust the Lord’s will and sovereignty, we won’t fall into the Solomon/Ecclesiastes trap.”
Though granted this is a common interpretation of Ecclesiastes, that the vanity experienced by the author is present only because he is not walking with God, and thus if we trust the Lord, or get our lives right, we will not experience such vanity, this simply is not allowed by the book itself. The vanity of this life is experienced by both the righteous and the wicked throughout the book
8:14 There is a vanity that takes place on earth, that there are righteous people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and there are wicked people to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity.
9:1-3 But all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God. Whether it is love or hate, man does not know; both are before him. It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil,a to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all.
Ask any Christian parent who spent the last 18 years raising his child to be a Christian and seeing his child reject the faith; ask any Christian police officer, who, no matter how many arrests he makes, watches the same crimes being committed day after day and people he arrested put back on the streets, ask any Christian who tries his best to live a healthy life who is told by the doctor even though he is only 42 that he has contracted a terminal disease, while the chain-smoking, overweight sloth next door is in perfect health; ask them if they experience the vanity of life in Ecclesiastes.
True, there is an inner joy and confidence that vanity and death do not have the last word, but the gospel does, but that doesn’t minimize the pain of vanity living in a fallen world where death still reigns. To ignore this is to introduce a dangerous over-realized eschatology where the “no more tears” that applies to the New Heavens and Earth now must also apply here and now if one is considered a truly faithful Christian.
LikeLike
Why do people like Todd and SDB chose to extract a phrase and interact with it in isolation, rather than actually reading an entire post. i think Lou did a pretty job of addressing your “concerns” already.
LikeLike
Monica, I don’t know about sdb, but Todd’s just that way. We’ve also talked to him about kicking his dog, but he tells us all “to go take long walks off short piers.” Whatever that means. However, apparently you can appease him with Alberto’s mexican food. So, there’s that.
LikeLike
Monica, the point may be to ask where Lou’s outlook makes any room for failure in the Christian life. What happens when the unbeliever outpaces us in whatever provisional capacity? It happens all the time, but the way Lou speaks it’s a theory of Christian victory that doesn’t match with reality very well. But could it be that even when believers fail they still glorify God?
LikeLike
Monica,
If you have an issue or disagreement with something we write you can actually address us by expressing it or asking for clarification. We don’t bite, I promise. I did read Lou’s posts in their entirety and stated before I agreed with many of his thoughts.
But when Lou states “The problem with this thinking is that a Christian worker who is disappointed that the outcome or results of their faithful and spirit-led work doesn’t meet their expectations IS the same as the unbeliever who operates in the flesh,” I believe that is wrong and actually introduces a hurtful concept. It is not necessarily “fleshly” to be disappointed in life’s work not meeting our expectations, it is, according to Ecclesiastes, part of the cry of the righteous, it is in essence a cry for the Lord to return and make all things right. So there is a real difference here in our understanding of the source of dissatisfaction and disappointment for the Christian.
LikeLike
@Monica
Because I’m a terrible human being with mediocre reading comprhension skills? Feel free to set me straight if I’ve missed something.
LikeLike
It’s always cute and sweet and amusing when outsiders jump on here and think that they will overturn 2K or our NAPARC denomination membership.
Bring it on…
LikeLike
Sean,
If you are going to publicly impugn my character, at least get it right. It’s my cat, and theonomic postmillennialists. Sheesh!
LikeLike
Sorry Todd. I thought the dog reference was adequately generic. I’d be more familiar, but MM is always looking for an opportunity to rebuke me for scaring people off and I’m still not recovered from the last keyboard lashing he doled out.
LikeLike