Do disagreements stem from antithetical w’ws? Toby Jenkins thinks so:
Ultimately, there really are only two worldviews: Does the created order belong to God to do with as He pleases, and therefore we should endeavor at every level to direct our culture and our pleasures and/or approvals in accord with His revealed holy precepts for life? Or, as the masters of our own destinies, should we live as though the assertion of ancient Greek naturalist philosopher Protagoras is true, namely that, “Man is the measure of all things”?
In that worldview, no one should try to impose his or her views on anyone else because everyone is free and responsible enough to do whatever he or she wants, “so long as it doesn’t harm me” (which, by the way, we all know is simply rationally and practically untenable).
Unfortunately, many of our individualistic 21st century peers naïvely assume that merely imagining we can live as such anthropological islands somehow magically trumps divine revelation’s accurate portrait of the solidarity of Old Testament Israel [Deut 28-30; Josh 7], the New Testament church [1 Cor 12-14], communities in general [Matt 12.25-26; Eph 4; Phil 4.2-3], and even all humanity [Rom 5]). What one person advocates will inescapably affect the community, despite the denial of the naïve.
Where one locates himself on the scale of these two worldview poles will determine how he interacts with any issue, whether it be broader matters such as politics, economics, or environment, or more specific and personal concerns like work ethic, family construct, health care, organizational affiliation, etc.
So what are a husband and wife to do when they have an argument?
Simply telling someone who doesn’t follow Jesus Christ that he or she is wrong and you disagree with his or her conclusions will usually only spark an unresolvable debate (not because the issue is unresolvable, but because the darkened anti-God, self-preserving mind will always ultimately reject holiness [Rom 8.7-8; Titus 1.15-16]).
True dat.
So, the discussion might be better served if you simply communicate to your conversation partner that you realize the ground from which you derive your perspective seems to be at odds with what grounds his or hers, and that the worldviews from which you take your opposing stances are obviously fundamentally different. You can even tell your friend that you realize you probably won’t reach a consensus because of that; but at least both of you will have the opportunity—whether or not that opportunity is seized with honesty—to examine your worldviews before the face of the thrice-holy God who would not have us grope around in darkness for how we should live.
Or perhaps we don’t try to press the metaphysical or epistemological issue all the time. Maybe I avoid attributing my wife’s point to her Satan. Maybe instead I simply look for a way to resolve the issue and find a way to live with a green wall in the bathroom. And perhaps if I compromise, or she does with me, it is not an instance of betraying Jesus.
Old Life 
If my wife and I are both believers, would my perspective on the issue of difference be because we come from fundamentally opposing W’Ws? Please forgive my naivete but I would think hypothetically we should be coming from the same W’W. Also why is every disagreement a debate over fundamental issues of the faith? Aren’t some things, like marriage among humans, going to pass away? I can live with a green bathroom until the consummation!
LikeLike
My wife and I already know that I am the one who takes sides with Satan. That’s why I aspire to take sides against myself and let my wife’s first word be the last word.
I wonder if the wife of Jonathan Edwards hung on his every word: “God’s upholding created existence, or causing its existence, is altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing, at each moment, because its existence at this moment is not merely in part from God, but wholly from him; and not in any part, or degree from its antecedent existence.”
My wife would say–whatever
Whoever says that which will not last (the secular) has no value will probably try to say that marriage is forever, even into the age to come (the sacred)
LikeLike
Do worldviewers read Paul who advises believers married to unbelievers should remain so? But if worldview makes life so impossible for believers and unbelievers to live together, how did Paul miss it?
LikeLike
Chris M., right. You have the same w-w. And you disagree. So what does w-w solve, except giving its partisans the feeling of superiority?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Obviously because the Apostle Paul didn’t have a biblical worldview, naturally.
LikeLike
Richard, but he thought it better to remain unhitched, so he was on to something. Not useful for the family values contingent of worldviewry though.
LikeLike
Yeah, and then, who knows, the conversation might then naturally steer itself (all by itself, of course) to about whether the other person has time for even just
one round of nine holes this weekendone worship service at some point in the future.LikeLike
Darryl, do you really thing that we think that what color the bathroom wall is a worldview issue? No wonder you think we’re crazy. But sometimes when you think that other people are crazy, you’re the one.
Christian liberty on adiaphora is alive and well in neo-Calvinism.
The whole premise of the article was communicating with someone with a DIFFERENT worldview and how you navigate differences that arise from that. Why mock it for saying something it wasn’t? (Aside from the entertainment value, perhaps? Reminds me a bit of a certain conservative daytime radio show host.)
One might think that the American political process could be served by this insight. Perhaps we wouldn’t have an all or nothing attitude. But rather we could be conscious of the common ground particular worldviews have and develop coalitions and consensuses on the bases of those common grounds. Here’s where I tend to fault the pro-life movement. It seems that we could arrive at some beneficial political decisions by agreeing where we can agree (banning late term abortions, having good adoption policies, including abstinence at least as an option). Pro-lifers may not be able to get the morning after pill banned, but why would they expect unity on that issue given a different worldview. (Not even all Christians agree that conception is the beginning of human life.) Even in a so-called “Christian culture” there would be politics as we navigate our common life together (what color is the bathroom wall?). In a pluralistic culture in a society that thinks protecting the religious/worldviews of all is a value, politics becomes the art of seeking out common values where possible and compromising in the interest of the common good. For the record, that is a neo-Calvinist political approach (to be distinguished from a theonomic one).
Zrim, who said anything about Paul being wrong? The unequally yoked marriage will simply have some additional difficulties. Of course, equally yoked Christian marriages have their own difficulties as we tend to have expectations of one another because of our worldview that sometimes non-Christians don’t have (holiness, piety, interest in church activities, ways of raising kids, Bible doctrine, etc.)
LikeLike
Terry, but those unequally yoked marriages aren’t much helped by the thievery theory. How does a believing wife heed Paul’s command to respect her unbelieving husband when you’re telling her he’s a cosmic thief?
LikeLike
Zrim, you overplay the “insult” character of the the accusation. It’s a worldview difference plain and simple. If you don’t believe in God, then you don’t give God His due in the mind of those who do believe in God (and give thanks). It’s akin to calling someone unsaved or saying that they’re going to hell. While I’m not sure I’d make it a daily conversation if I were married to an unbeliever, it would be something worth bringing up from time to time.
LikeLike
Terry, I disagree. It has not been uncommon for me to hear from neo-Cals that a good but unbelieving father is not as good a father as he could be. For those of us believing sons who regard highly our unbelieving fathers, this is an insult and an invitation to break the fifth commandment. And the thievery theory is what aides and abets this sort of slander. It’s no different in the case of un/believing spouses.
LikeLike
Terry, do you hear yourself? Every square inch? Sound familiar? Now you’re saying Christianity doesn’t apply to interior design (why should have homosexuals have all the beautiful interiors?). You’re neo-Calvinism is leaking.
And where’s your Van Til when you talk about the common ground of worldviews? That is precisely where the antithesis raises its antagonism.
You’re going soft.
LikeLike
Pro-lifers may not be able to get the morning after pill banned, but why would they expect unity on that issue given a different worldview. (Not even all Christians agree that conception is the beginning of human life.)
I’m not sure that it’s biologically clear that the morning-after pill acts as an abortifacient in this case (and I don’t know what that says about my or anyone’s worldview). Regardless, if you can reconcile those two sentences into a coherent argument for, or even definition of, the Christian worldview, I’d be interested to see it.
LikeLike
Speaking of the pro-life movement, worldview, and reconciliation, I also wonder how Terry would explain secular pro-lifers. Can he do so without resorting to the theory of thievery or the legacy of Christendom in the west?
http://www.secularprolife.org/
LikeLike
“Ultimately”? Ultimately there are two seeds (seed of the serpent vs seed of the woman), two ages (this present evil age vs the age to come, the kingdom of the Son), etc., and it was God who created those. So now we’re supposed to believe that the dialectical pole of Obamacare is Jesuscare? I’m confused, ur or, maybe Toby Jenkins is confused.
LikeLike
must be tough to fall in love and think one is totally in line with a philosophy, and then spend hours and days and years navel-gazing while trying to prove this philosophy is sound and you are consistently living it
better to live by faith, take part in the means of grace on the Sabbath, do good works and spend a little bit of time in frivolity during leisure hours
LikeLike
Darryl, there you go again, forgetting some key aspect of neo-Calvinism when it’s convenient. Why can’t you just say “OK, neo-Calvinists who remember all parts are sensible.” Van Til talks about “after a fashion” sufficient “to get along in the world”. As a natural scientists I have long ago come to terms with how to deal with “common ground” between theistic and non-theistic world views. Antithesis and common grace must be held together. Clearly, for the unbeliever, the religious ground of whatever they do in the world, however good it is, is misdirected.
Of course, Christianity applies to interior design. God made it. God made our aesthetic sensibilities. When non-Christians do good interior design they are “borrowing” (softer than stealing so as to not cause offense to Zrim) from God’s world without admitting it.
Zrim,unbelievers can be excellent in what they do, by God’s grace. (As excellence in believers is also by God’s grace.)
LikeLike
Terry, it looks to me like it’s heads you win, tails the non-believer loses proximately. When the antithesis is in play, he’s an idolater and blasphemer. When common grace is working, he’s a thief. Some grounds for entering the public square (where all the unbelievers have no rights).
LikeLike
Jenkins – So, the discussion might be better served if you simply communicate to your conversation partner that you realize the ground from which you derive your perspective seems to be at odds with what grounds his or hers, and that the worldviews from which you take your opposing stances are obviously fundamentally different. You can even tell your friend that you realize you probably won’t reach a consensus because of that; but at least both of you will have the opportunity—whether or not that opportunity is seized with honesty—to examine your worldviews before the face of the thrice-holy God who would not have us grope around in darkness for how we should live.
Erik – The problem with this approach is that by the time you finish the statement the guy’s eyes have glazed over. Just tell the guy what you believe, and, if you have time, why. Try to be a friend. At some point life might throw him a curve ball and he might remember you. He might have a more open mind then.
LikeLike
Approach unbelievers from a standpoint of humility and concern for their well-being. This will always yield better results than approaching them from a standpoint of superiority.
LikeLike
Terry, so “borrow” is soft neo-Calvinism and “steal” is hard? But when 2kers say transformationalism is soft neo-Calvinism and theonomy is hard you balk. Why do you get to use the sliding scale but we don’t? Sheesh, we share the same worldview. This must be what it feels like to be an unbeliever in a room full of neo-Calvinists.
LikeLike
Zrim, the actual content of my belief is no different regardless of the choice of word. No real change in meaning. I just thought you might appreciate a little less in your face language. While theonomists may be neo-Calvinist in a general sense, I’m not sure that the theonomic view of the state is neo-Calvinism at all. Ask Mr. Kuyper.
Darryl, where do you get that unbelievers have no rights? In a society where there is religious/worldview pluralism, they have the same rights that I have. Such as it is in this in between age an age where people are called to faith by the ministry of the word and not by the sword.
Pieces of worldviews may overlap. For example, in a Christian view God governs all his creatures and all their actions. In an atheistic materialist view nature is autonomous, the laws that govern the world just are. (Dawkins thinks that asking where natural law comes from is a “non-question”; to be cute he then asks “where does God come from” and thinks he has scored some kind of victory.) But both worldviews have regularity that the practicing scientist and the scientific method need. In religious terms, the atheist is worshiping and serving the creature whereas the Christian is acknowledging the true and living God. The unbeliever is an idolator; the Christian worships and gives thanks to His maker. Van Til would say that the unbeliever is functioning “after a fashion” enough to “get along in the world” and that any success the unbeliever has is by God sending his rain upon the just and the unjust (common grace). But he doesn’t want to give an inch on the epistemological claim. Knowledge of God the Creator is part and parcel of knowledge of the creation. So the unbeliever doesn’t truly know.
It’s really not that complicated. Common grace and antithesis must be held together, perhaps in a bit of tension.
I’m not sure that’s the end of the matter, but it’s foundational. And for some things (mathematics, physics, chemistry) it may be all there is to say with respect to the fundamentals of theorizing (i.e. non-Christians are doing “Christian” (Creational) science). So common but not neutral.
Is there a difference between an inter nos and an extra nos discussion of these matters? I’m not sure I’d talk about these things in exactly the same way in the public square. In a pluralistic society I can have my party’s reasons for doing something and another party can have their different reasons for doing something, but we can end up in the same place. For example, I think it’s possible to make a humanistic and a biological case for a pro-life position. I haven’t studied the non-religious pro-life movements that closely but I suspect they go along those lines. You could make common cause with such folks on pro-life legislation even though they don’t share your sanctity of human life based on the image of God basis for your pro-life position. Or, think of state funding of parochial schools. A Muslim and a Christian and a Secularist might all believe that education involves worldview issues and that schools/teachers ought to be allowed to teach freely from their worldview. They may also believe that the State ought to support education at some level. Thus, there could be common political ground without their being a common worldview.
LikeLike
ec, didn’t we try that with vd, t?
LikeLike
Terry, how do “thieves” have rights? Are you a Democrat?
You’re the one who used “steal” to describe unbelievers. That’s the sort of understanding that informed Christendom, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, which denied rights to infidels. Think Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. But you now want a modernized, domesticated, kinder, gentler way of viewing “thieves”? Well, so do I. But the antithesis used the way you use it invokes older forms of segregation.
Come on over to 2k. The water is warm and we don’t bite.
LikeLike
D.G.,
We did, and I’ve begun to believe that we are in error to continue to engage him in the way we do. I don’t believe him to be sincere and he should probably just be ignored at this point until God humbles him to the point that he is sincere.
This is not a statement of superiority on my part, just a recognition of where I think he is at and how wisdom dictates how we should relate to him. As it is, we just feed his fire and give him attention that is neither helpful to him or us.
LikeLike
You could make common cause with such folks on pro-life legislation even though they don’t share your sanctity of human life based on the image of God basis for your pro-life position. Or, think of state funding of parochial schools. A Muslim and a Christian and a Secularist might all believe that education involves worldview issues and that schools/teachers ought to be allowed to teach freely from their worldview.
Terry, you could but it doesn’t seem to happen. One wonders if an unspoken goal is to be able one day to lay claim to religious reasoning for historical and legislative victory, sort of like what is done today with the abolitionists (i.e. the evils of chattel slavery would never have been abolished if it weren’t for the religious among us). And you’re forgetting another possibility: a believer making common cause with those who rank pro-lifery as moralized politics and favoring a states’ rights approach to reproductive legislation.
Still, if you can make common political cause with unbelievers then why not common educational cause, as in forming common local schools that are free from state regulation but also include all sorts, even covenant children? But kind of hard to imagine with worldviewry still informing matters and confusing the categories of curriculum and catechism, e.g. CRCNA CO 73 and URCNA CO 14.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’ve decided that you already don’t think I’m a neo-Calvinist and that I’m more or less 2k. I think you’re on the first count but I can’t seem to get you to agree with me on a definition. On the second count…well I am more or less 2k (looks like I lump differently than you). I still protest your vision of the New Heaven and the New Earth, but that has little to do with practical 2k-ism, especially if you affirm the goodness of Creation and a Natural Law case for justice.
Zrim, I could do that. (Actually I was in public schools my whole life as a student, and with the high school/college years of our kids–home-schooled before that and taught at Calvin for 11 years.) However, I think that education, because of its formative nature, is best done with worldview issues in view. But in your “common” education environment you severely limit the connections that can and ought to be naturally made.
LikeLike
Terry, on the contrary: The formative nature of education is all the more reason to avoid a worldview pedagogy. Why would a 2ker want to foster neo-Calvinism’s confusion of Christian worldview and Christian faith?
LikeLike
With Erik.
LikeLike
Zrim, of course, from your perspective (to apply the original blog post). And, for one who doesn’t think there is any confusion, my view follows. You’re merely living out your worldview and I’m living out mine. Seems odd to me when there is so much overlap in our worldview and theology, but we obviously don’t share something basic here.
You will note in my example wrt schools that there were Muslim, Christian, and Secular schools. As Jews typically joined the Secularist schools (and weren’t part of the Christian schools) in Kuyper’s pillarized society so I would expect that hard core 2k advocates would choose the Secularist schools rather than the Christian schools.
Confessional commitments are part of the worldview. Thus, I tend to be leery of evangelical and fundamentalist Christian schools over against Reformed ones. Homeschooling becomes the ideal choice. This has been problematical in my own career as my commitment to Reformed theology often stands in the way of biology/chemistry teaching at distinctively Wesleyan institutions.
LikeLike
Terry, I’m not sure what’s so odd, but my guess is that it may owe to the mixing and matching and making synonymous worldview and faith. My point is that these are essentially two different categories. Worldview has to do with the things of this world, faith the things of eternity.
Academia was never ordained to nurture faith, so it’s curious how worldviewers speak as if it does. Only Word and sacrament do that. Christian worldview is inherently a project in religious ecumenism (God made all things brings together lots of religious folks), Reformed confessionalism is inherently a project in doctrinal precision and exclusivity (justification is sola fide which separates lots of religious folks). Given that, what is the biblical defense for the project of worldviewery?
LikeLike
Zrim, they’re not synonymous, but they are connected. The Christian (and Reformed) worldview is rooted in the Reformed Confession. The faith undergirds the worldview. And, yes, the worldview and its outworking is broader than the “narrowness” of the faith. This stems from the fact that worldview includes Creational revelation in addition to Biblical revelation. This is why we have “spirituality of the church” and “sphere sovereignty”. The church as institution is narrow in scope. But Creation, reality, and God’s realm (“the earth is the Lord’s”) is “all of life” and “every square inch”. I reject wholeheartedly your claim that worldview is limited to the things of this world. Worldview includes notions of who God is and how he interacts with the world, the nature of a human being, include spirituality and eternal destiny, the notion of life after death and what that entails is part of a worldview, even the character of the age to come (ethereal vs. matter-esque; spirits vs. embodiment; etc.) are part of the worldview. So worldview is informed by Scripture (and summarized in the Reformed confessions) and Creation.
Of course, you won’t grant me any of that, but it’s another case where it’s good to be conscious of differences. The Bible starts with God creating the heavens and the earth and it ends with the new (renewed) heavens and new (renewed) earth. Creation – Fall – Redemption – Restoration – Consummation are all depicted in the most comprehensive terms.
LikeLike
Terry, if worldview is as particular as that then why is enrollment at Christian schools open to those who don’t share “notions of eternal destiny,” i.e. to both those who maintain sola fide and those who reject it? The Christian school my CRC worldviewers once proposed was open to both Protestant and Catholic students (and others, for that matter). The term “Christian” was loosely used. Reformed churches don’t do that, they make membership contingent on confessing and practicing what the church narrowly confesses and practices. The term “Christian” is narrowly used.
So when you say “worldview is informed by Scripture,” you talk about worldview the way historic Protestantism talks about faith. Special revelation and faith correspond, general revelation and worldview correspond. It’s not that I reject the category of worldview. But a worldview is something formed primarily by families, whether they are believing or not. One may be raised in unbelief and his worldview is formed there and he may maintain much of it even after coming to faith. But his faith can never be formed by natural revelation (apples to oranges).
This is all reminding me of when a Presby Headmaster from the south filled our CRC pulpit. Fond of numbers and stats, he relayed that at his school only 10% of the families attended church weekly. I know you’ll say this is another instance of bad implementation of neo-Calvinism, but it was revealing. It seems to me that a stat like that suggests parents are confusing curriculum and catechism and likely thinking their children are getting religion 6 days a week in baptized academia (so why bother with church on the 7th?). Say what you will, but Van Drunen’s assertion that the institutional church has not fared well under neo-Calvinism’s watch again rings true.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’m not sure I’d restrict who may enroll. In my view a Christian school ought to have a charter that includes a statement of faith (it could be 3FU or WCF or some educationally appropriate abridgment) that board members, administrators, teachers, and staff must adhere to as a condition of employment. Parents/families don’t necessarily have to agree with everything but they know what the faith/worldview claims are and choose to enroll knowing that’s what they will get. In my view it is the family (and not the state or the church) that is primarily responsible for childhood education. Thus, some aspects of faith formation (catechism, Bible study, devotions, worship) may be part of the school’s operations and the family integrates it (adjusts for it) into the other faith formation work of the church and home. If there are disagreements with the school’s views, then the family corrects for that at home and at church. If the school’s views aren’t comprehensive enough with respect to faith matters then those things will be added at church/home.
LikeLike
Terry, if you wouldn’t restrict who may enroll in a Christian school the way you presumably would who may join a Christian church then that suggests worldview isn’t nearly as comprehensive or religiously important as you previously said.
But back to the thievery theory. Notice how Calvin stops well short of impugning unbelievers:
Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of all the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [Corinthians 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. [Calvin, Inst., 2.2.15]
LikeLike
A thought regarding unbelievers:
Scripture warns us to beware of being corrupted by unbelievers and by those Christians who have fallen into sin:
“Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”
If we keep in mind that our standing with Christ (and avoidance of being dominated by sin) is not a result of our own righteousness and goodness, but only a result of the mercy of God, then we will treat unbelievers and believers who have fallen into sin with kindness and mercy.
It’s hard to be kind and merciful to people if we are mostly worried about avoiding them. This is my concern with the antithesis: If Christians don’t get involved in these people’s lives and try to help them get out of the trap they’ve fallen into, who will?
2 Corinthians 5.20:
“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
LikeLike
I can’t even read this wit ha straight face.
LikeLike
Zrim, Calvin is writing about common grace — I have no problem with that. I don’t know why you guys keep thinking that neo-Calvinists disagree with Calvin. We don’t. And we receive their insights as coming from God — “If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth…”
It seems though that he doesn’t mince words about them: “though fallen and perverted from its wholeness” and “even after it was despoiled of its true good.”
As to “that suggests worldview isn’t nearly as comprehensive or religiously important as you previously said.” — Nope. It just suggests that the school isn’t the church.
LikeLike
Greg,
If you’re talking to me, you should take what I said to heart. If you can combine your concerns about holiness with more kindness, humility, and gentleness you could be more effective with people. We all have rough edges to work on, though. You’re not alone in not quite having it all together. Hopefully we’re all moving in the right direction.
I have some concerns about you having some good Reformed ideas but not being in the context of consistent Reformed preaching, sacramental administration, and church discipline. You should seek these things out in your area if at all possible. If you are in a church that lacks those things that will have an negative impact long-term as far as having a good balance in your life.
LikeLike
Terry, but 2kers will along with Kuyper admit when we disagree with the theocratic Calvin. And it’s not that you disagree with him so much as you seem to go beyond him (a form of hyper-Calvinism?), i.e. his words honor the creational achievements of unbelievers whereas while you also honor your thievery theory begrudges what you admit.
And if the school isn’t the church (as you rightly say), then why do CRCNA CO 71 and URCNA CO 14 make it sound as if it is? Why are councils to “diligently encourage members of the congregation to establish and maintain good Christian schools and…urge parents to have their children educated in harmony with this vision according to the demands of the covenant” or “elders to promote…God-centered schooling”?
LikeLike
Greg, your face is gay? Don’t tell the Baylys.
LikeLike
And, Terry, why do churches financially maintain Christian schools? Is there biblical warrant for applying tithes and offerings to this work the same way there is for missions? Where does the Bible prescribe curriculum?
LikeLike
Zrim, the church order does observe sphere sovereignty, I think. The church is to encourage parents to establish… The church doesn’t do the work of the school and neither supervises it. However, the church encourage parents to fulfill their covenantal duties. Although I think Christian schools are a good thing, I think there are other ways to fulfill those duties.
As for the finances…I would prefer a system where funds used to support a school were separated from the regular tithes and offerings of the church. Special second offerings and whatnot. But I’ve never been in a church that has done what you describe. We have had a Christian school tuition fund, but homeschoolers were allowed to request funds to help pay for expenses.
I suspect your experience of “practice” overshadows the principles that are probably in place but I’m only familiar with a handful of specific examples. The GR Christian Schools were not run by any CRC congregation, classes, or the Synod, as far as I knew. To my knowledge day schools utilized by CRC members are not owned and operated by the church but are parent/board run separate entities. Calvin College as a church owned and operated college is a glaring exception. I think Dort, Trinity, Redeemeer, etc. practice the neo-Calvinist principle more consistently.
LikeLike
Terry, I’ve yet to inhabit any Dutch Reformed church where Christian schools were not one of the top three line item budgets. But how are day schools ways to fulfill covenantal duties, unless you are conflating worldview and faith, curriculum and catechism? The test case may be contexts in which day schools are not available (I know, hard to conceive in the modern era, but we’ve not always been in the modern era and since the Bible applies to not only all of life but all places and times…). Can parents still fulfill covenantal duties, or are they hobbled by their context? But even parents who have no schools available to them nor are able to read and write themselves can bring their children up in the fear and knowledge of God–schools are a luxury and a privilege, so why encode schools into the faith and disenfranchise those who don’t have those luxuries and privileges? Why not encourage parents to diligently attend their children to the means of grace (and catechism) and by done with it?
And tithes and offerings are acts of worship. Acts of worship must have biblical warrant. How is a special offering for something not commanded in Scripture warranted in a Reformed church?
LikeLike
Zrim, overlap not conflation.
LikeLike
Terry,
How widely do you think you can cooperate on a Christian school board before it becomes a problem? Do you include RCA members, evangelicals, Baptists, Catholics, people who are maybe not Christians but are avoiding certain things in the Public schools? Who is allowed to influence curriculum and rules and who is not?
It’s on my mind after talking to a Catholic woman today who is taking her kid out of a Christian school because it is LOSING it’s affiliation with a Baptist church that she likes. Strange bedfellows or admirable ecumenism depending on your perspective.
LikeLike
Erik, not sure I can bring much practical advice. In my experience Christian schools exist to promote Creationism and a God-bless-the-red-white-and-blue sort of Christian America. To me this is a brand of fundamentalism that I would probably find unacceptable as a parent and would opt to homeschool or even public school in that context. A Catholic school would also be unacceptable. We have a Christian school in town but it tends to the Baptist/fundamentalist direction. The CRC here has had most families involved in the public schools. A few have opted for the Christian school. And more recently a few have homeschooled. Many years ago I had a conversation with an OPC or PCA pastor (can’t remember for sure which) who was involved in a Christian school in the Asheville, SC area. He said that you could bring lots of people together from various Christian traditions around the notions of Creation/Fall/Redemption (and be importing some Reformed theology along the way). The sort of themes that are in Al Wolter’s Creation Regained could inform the curriculum and the disciplines. I don’t know how this “protects” you from Young Earth Creationism or Christian America versions of US History other than by not using BJU or A Beka curriculum and having teachers without those baggages. I would probably want to see substantial confessional commitments. (I could probably gloss over differences in sacraments and ecclesiology, but I’m not sure I can live with evangelical Arminianism.) I also would want to see a commitment to a Kuyperian-like worldview (Creation/Fall/Redemption, “all of life”, all vocations are from God–not just full-time Christian ministry).
LikeLike
Terry, uncle. But as a 2ker who could tolerate worldviewry in his children’s educational backdrop, I’ll settle for a neo-Cal who sounds like he could endure secularism in his (but you know you’re a minority, right?).
LikeLike
Terry,
That was a rousing (un)defense of the importance of Christian schools.
It’s things like that from you that keep me reading…
LikeLike
I Timothy 2:1 3 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5z9NxiP36s
If we could only get away from this godless secular society, and have theocracies again, women would not be permitted to teach their husbands , and all would be well
in a secular society, our congressman talks about “his faith” being useful to him, enabling him to have the strength to still go on being in congress and collect his three pensions
but because it’s secular, he never says what is the object of his faith
in a theocratic society, we have the imposition of faith through politics
in a secular society, we have the imposition of secularism through politics
LikeLike
You really can change the world, if only you choose the right spouse, one who can detect the problem when you add to the parable in order to make the parable fit your point about the Prodigal Father.
http://www.mbird.com/2015/01/on-symbols-dutiful-wives-and-religious-recession/
LikeLike