Category: Paleo Calvinism

Peculiar, Idiosyncratic, Vinegary, Nonsensical

Published on by D. G. HartLeave a comment

These are just some of the words used to describe this pilgrim’s efforts to explain, defend, and promote a Reformed understanding of two-kingdom theology and the spirituality of the church. Thanks to David Strain, I get another chance and readers have an opportunity to expand my vocabulary.

I first met Pastor Strain at a Reformation Day conference in Douglasville, Georgia. He was then a Free Church minister to a congregation in London. Now he is a PCA pastor in a setting even more southern. His background, outlook, and location are reasons for keeping up with his posts at Letters from Mississippi.

The Limits of Theology and of Those Who Use It

Published on by D. G. Hart8 Comments

Our favorite theonomic pastor in the Christian Reformed Church has ranted yet again on the infection he diagnoses as the “radical 2k virus.” The good pastor’s comments are useful for showing what the two-kingdom view actually says and does not say, and also for showing the inherent weakness of those who overrealize Christ’s Lordship in this life.

The pastor in question is responding specifically to the claim made here that the teaching of history should differ little if taught in a class at a secular university or a Christian college. The point being that the standards governing historical scholarship do not come from Scripture – since the Bible as little to say about the use of primary and secondary sources or about the polity of nation-states and the relations among them – but from organizations like the American Historical Association.

The really right reverend comments:

Can Darryl be so thick as to miss the decided difference between the Marxists Charles and Mary Beard teaching a survey of American History and a R. L. Dabney teaching a survey of American History? Darryl assumes his position and then goes on to act as if the standards of “secular” history proves his position. Talk about circular reasoning! What Darryl has forgotten is that Theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Biblical Christians would insist that History is but Theology clothed in a different discipline, but this is not the way Darryl reasons. For Darryl, Theology resides in the Church and each compartmentalized discipline is Lord over its own realm. Talk about creating sacred and profane realms. By Darryl’s standards a student could become a Marxist historian, complete with all that implies, and still be a Christian as long as he could navigate the gross contradiction.

A couple of points show how convoluted this reaction is. First, hello! Robert Louis Dabney was not a historian and simply being a theologian does not grant proficiency or expertise in every single academic discipline, secular vocation, or square inch (Kuyper even knew this). If it did, then theologians would function in western society the way Imams do in Islamic societies – that is, as interpreters of God’s word they have authority over everything. So, I would likely trust the Beard over Dabney on interpreting American history – though I might give Dabney extra credit on the South.

Second, why does being a Marxist invalidate one’s credentials as a historian? Why even some very good Christian historians such as Carl Trueman have been known to have affection for Marx and the usefulness of Marxist analysis not only for secular but also church history. Our CRC pastor is apparently aware that sometimes Christian historians apply the insights of Marx but rejects outright the compatibility of Christianity and Marxism.

So as in all good circular reasoning, what goes around comes around. We trust the Pastor will not become so dizzy about two-kingdom theology that his mind explodes. Here’s the trick: take two aspirin (get it?) and keep your theology in the appropriate kingdom.

Losing the Keys and Finding a World View

Published on by D. G. Hart23 Comments

David Koyzis, over at Notes from a Byzantine-Rite Calvinist, takes issue with the two-kingdom critique of neo-Calvinism. The particular piece that provoked him was first published here.

Koyzis is not moved by arguments about what the Bible does and does not reveal, or by what properly belongs or does not belong to the church’s authority. He concedes that the Bible does not speak to a host of matters, and that the church as institution should not regulate a wide swath of human endeavor. But because the Bible teaches that everything we do should be done to the glory of God, and because Scripture also prohibits idolatry, something that clings to everything human beings touch, the neo-Calvinist project is still in order. We still need, Koyzis argues, to find a Christian outlook on politics, the arts, economics, and the rest of subjects taught and studied in modern learning. He writes, “Disparage as he might the supposed pandemic of world-and-life-viewitis amongst evangelical Christians, Hart’s approach does not represent a workable alternative.” If we want discernment “with respect to the idolatries afoot in ‘secular’ areas of life,” Koyzis recommends turning away from two-kingdom thought to neo-Calvinism.

Part of the basis for this critique is the drift of secular culture, its influence upon universities, and neo-Calvinism’s apparent capacity to remedy the situation. (One point that neo-Calvinists don’t seem to understand about two-kingdom thought is that the two-kingdom view is not a solution to this world’s problems; two-kingdom folk actually don’t believe solutions will come in this fallen world until the consummation.) So Koyzis complains about the toxic mix of secularism, idolatry, and Christians who simply stand back and watch the accident happen.

Continue reading “Losing the Keys and Finding a World View” →

Inspiration in Denial

Published on by D. G. Hart1 Comment

This was the proposed title for the piece (below) responding to Nelson Kloosterman’s series on Christ and culture for Christian Renewal in which he brands a Klinean two-kingdom outlook as “religious secularism.”  The essay appeared as a letter to the editor in the May 27th issue of CR on pages 5 and 9.  Thanks to the editors for giving so much space for a response.

The Reformed faith is an inspiring one. For this writer, few stories are as noble as that of J. Gresham Machen. Nor are death bed utterances as inspiring as his – “isn’t the Reformed faith grand!” Yet, the Reformed faith is not without its bumps in the road. Machen himself issued those inspiring words while under great pain from the pneumonia that took his life. No amount of inspiration could overcome that lethal disease short of penicillin – which had yet to be discovered. Nor could all the inspiration in the world overcome the repeated difficulties and set backs that Machen endured while trying to maintain and defend the Reformed faith in a liberal Presbyterian church.

Nelson Kloosterman would apparently have the readers of Christian Renewal believe they can have all the Reformed faith’s inspiration without any set backs. In his series, “The Pilgrim’s Pathway,” he has been particularly critical of what he terms “religious secularism” and highlights the views of Misty Irons, Meredith Kline and myself. “Religious secularism” is an unfortunate phrase that appears to be designed to alarm. Speaking for myself, “Reformed confessionalism” or “paleo-Calvinism” work much better for designating those who hold a two-kingdom point of view. Whatever terms are used, Kloosterman leaves readers with the impression that those who tell Christians that Christ’s lordship over their lives will be difficult, and will not achieve uniformity among Christians, let alone in a society consisting of believers and un-believers, is simply betraying the genius and heart of Reformed Christianity. Kloosterman defends an integrated morality, a unified world view, a comprehensive understanding of Christianity, all in attempt to do justice to Christ’s lordship. For him, the Bible has the Christian’s solutions, and Scripture equips believers to go into any arena with a Christian answer. Kloosterman admits that Reformed Christianity can sound triumphalist, but he does little to restrain it. Continue reading “Inspiration in Denial” →

Godfrey on Calvin

Published on by D. G. HartLeave a comment

Christianity Today interviews W. Robert Godfrey on his new book, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor.

Between a Millstone and a Mandate

Published on by D. G. Hart179 Comments

Nelson Kloosterman, professor of Ethics and New Testament Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, is laying it on thick in a series for Christian Renewal, a Dutch-Canadian Reformed news and opinion magazine. The series is entitled, “The Bible, The Church, and the World: A Third Way.” In it, Kloosterman attempts to forge a middle ground between theonomy on the one side and two-kingdom theology on the other. Dr. K tips his hand by calling two-kingdom advocates such as Misty Irons, Meredith Kline, and D. G. Hart “religious secularists.” (“Secular” is to “secularism” what “behavior” is to “behaviorism” or what “material” is to “materialism.”)

In his most recent articles, Dr. K. has taken a detour into the subject of Christian schooling (though the skeptic might wonder if Kloosterman determined to go after two kingdom theology specifically to score points in current debates within the URC about requirements for church officers to support and send their children to Christian day schools). Three of the articles in what is so far a fourteen-part series in this interlude on Christian education are called, “Mandate or Millstone: The URC and Christian Education.” Continue reading “Between a Millstone and a Mandate” →