Two Kingdom Myths: How the Critics Get VanDrunen (and Calvin) Wrong
[N]o area of life can be completely slotted as civil and not at all as spiritual -
David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms
No doubt most of you are tired about reading about the two kingdoms doctrine. So much of the debate seems to be about rhetoric (at worst) or disagreements about application (at best), and it has increasingly become clear that virtually everyone in the Reformed tradition holds to some sort of two kingdoms doctrine (though some are in denial about this). If you look past the rhetoric, the real debate usually revolves around the meaning of the doctrine and its significance for today. And that is certainly progress.
David VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms continues to be a flashpoint in the debate. On the one hand, numerous writers have legitimately pointed out gaps in VanDrunen’s narrative, points at which additional clarity is needed, or even areas in which VanDrunen’s formulations are sometimes misleading. On the other hand, most writers recognize that VanDrunen has made a significant contribution in recovering some fundamental concepts from the Reformed political theological tradition – concepts that promise to help shed light on the church’s social and political engagement in the 21st Century.
Although much work yet remains to be done (VanDrunen views his own project as preliminary and suggestive, to be taken up and improved by other scholars), it is worth noting that not everything that is claimed about VanDrunen’s work is accurate. In particular, two myths have made their rounds, both of which distort VanDrunen’s scholarship and the relation of that scholarship to John Calvin’s two kingdoms doctrine.
The first myth is that VanDrunen misinterprets Calvin when he associates the two kingdoms, or twofold government, with the institutions of the church and the state (or to put it less anachronistically, the church and the civil magistracy). The irony here is that on this point VanDrunen is solidly in line with the consensus of Calvin scholars. There is no point in my quoting scholar after scholar – although I could do that. My own interpretation of Calvin’s two kingdoms doctrine, in which I address this issue, will appear at Reformation 21 soon. For now suffice it to say that virtually every Calvin or Reformation scholar I have read (and I have read a lot in this area) rightly acknowledges that Calvin associated the spiritual kingdom with the visible church and the political kingdom with the civil magistrate, and there is no shortage of passages in Calvin’s Institutes and commentaries to prove the point. Pay close attention when the critics are propagating this myth. Do they actually offer evidence for their views? Do they make sense of the many places in which Calvin clearly identifies the spiritual kingdom with the visible church?
Second, and just as important, a number of scholars have claimed that VanDrunen presents the two kingdoms as two realms strictly separated, indeed two “hermetically sealed” realms. James K. A. Smith made the claim here, and now Cornel Venema has made it here (with seemingly warm affirmation in an otherwise helpful response to Venema by Brad Littlejohn here). Venema even goes so far as to (repeatedly) describe VanDrunen’s position as being that Calvin distinguished an “ecclesiastical kingdom” from a civil kingdom. Needless to say, VanDrunen never refers to the spiritual kingdom as the “ecclesiastical kingdom” and Venema’s slip here suggests he has gotten something profoundly wrong. Indeed, VanDrunen never identifies the spiritual kingdom with the church “simpliciter“, as Venema suggests.
Once again, readers should take the care to ask themselves, Does VanDrunen really argue what the critic claims he argues? Is the critic actually quoting VanDrunen, and does he make sense of the passages in VanDrunen’s work that seems to contradict his summary of it? Has he even read VanDrunen’s most recent work (yes, believe it or not, one author who made the above claim in an academic journal critique of VanDrunen’s two kingdoms doctrine admitted to me that he had not even read VanDrunen’s definitive work on the subject, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, which had already been published when he submitted his paper for publication.)
Here I want to offer one very clear quotation from VanDrunen’s chapter on Calvin in his Natural Law and Two Kingdoms to prove the point. Defending Calvin’s argument that the consistory of the church should have authority over wide ranging matters of civil life, VanDrunen writes,
[M]ost of the civil affairs which Calvin made answerable to the Consistory can be said to have a spiritual dimension. Certainly the issues of marriage and family that took up so much of the Consistory’s attention are matters that, while clearly civil, also implicate the spiritual condition of people and thus are of rightful concern to their pastors and elders. Broadly, one might say that since people can fall into sin in any area of life, no area of life can be completely slotted as civil and not at all as spiritual. (87)
That is a striking claim, and it does not fit the script offered by some of VanDrunen’s critics. It certainly doesn’t sound like a doctrine of two “hermetically sealed” realms. Yet VanDrunen makes similar claims throughout his work, particularly in his Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, the fullest statement of his own version of the two kingdoms doctrine. For instance, he writes,
According to the New Testament, the redemptive kingdom and the covenant of grace come to their fullest earthly expression in the church, and in the church alone. It is true, of course, that Christians are citizens of this kingdom and members of this covenant at all times. They should live obedient lives to Christ in every aspect of life and should manifest the power of Christ’s kingdom and covenant in all they do. But the church is the only institution and community in this world that can be identified with the redemptive kingdom and the covenant of grace.” (102).
He goes on, “Though the church is not identical to the covenant of grace or the kingdom of heaven, it is precisely in the church that the covenant and kingdom are experienced until Christ returns.” (116)
VanDrunen also clearly affirms the lordship of Christ over all of life:
The Lord Jesus Christ rules all things… So how does Christ now rule the many institutions and communities of this world other than the church? The answer is that he rules them through the Noahic Covenant, for they are institutions and communities of the common kingdom. They operate according to the same basic principles and purposes as before Christ’s first coming. What is different [after that first coming] is that God now rules them through the incarnate Jesus, the last Adam who has entered into the glory of the world-to-come.” (118)
In the later part of the book VanDrunen reminds his readers that believers and unbelievers share the same moral standard for their lives: God’s moral, or natural law, as summarized in the Ten Commandments. But he points out various respects in which for believers “cultural activity should be uniquely Christian: even in their most ordinary and mundane tasks, Christians must act from faith, in accord with God’s law, and for God’s glory. (167)
There are certainly valid criticisms that can be made of VanDrunen’s work on the two kingdoms doctrine, and I myself have made some of them. But there is also a lot of misinformation and confusion flying around out there and none of this does much in the way of bringing us closer to the truth. Again I would urge you, check the evidence offered by the critics. Don’t believe everything you read.
Posted on October 12, 2012, in Calvin, David VanDrunen, Two Kingdoms and tagged Brad Littlejohn, Calvinist International, Cornel Venema, Darryl Hart, James K. A. Smith, Nelson Kloosterman, two realms. Bookmark the permalink. 57 Comments.
Great post. While I immensely respect Dr. Van Drunen, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here. But the bone to pick I have with him is not his historical analysis but rather the way it is interpreted and applied today, which Matthew wisely notes. It’s hardly the fault of a theologian if his teaching/conclusions are abused. Since the 2K of Van Drunen and Co. has not, in my view, been massaged and nuanced enough (after all, this version is, one must admit, early in development), many have ran with it and its followers, I find, seem to take it to extremes and chastise everyone from culture warriors to neo-calvinists, poo-pooing any cultural engagement at all, at times. Take a look at the blogs and Facebook posts and you’ll know what I mean. So I would blame those who apply it. Listening to some, commenting on a presidential debate can earn a scornful reply: “they’re separate kingdoms”, “the Gospel is more important, this is all temporal.” Really? Proponents of this “straw-man version” of 2K seems at times like the pietists of old. Perhaps it would behoove DVD to nuance more, and issue more disclaimers on why it is not wrong for the individual Christian to engage politically. I for one believe he has a responsibility to correct those who distort 2K, for good or ill.
Scott, you speak of unnamed 2ks who are “poo-pooing any cultural engagement at all, at times… Listening to some, commenting on a presidential debate can earn a scornful reply.”
I’m guessing that the 2ks you consider the most “r” visit this blog. So tell us when anyone has ever said these things. You might have heard objections to the preponderance of the adjective “Christian” before “culture” and you might have heard something to make you think a man in the pulpit should not comment on a presidential debate.
Remove the straw(man) from your own eye first?
Anway, 2k does not tell Scott Oakland to be unconcerned with politics. It might encourage modest goals in doing so, it might counsel against proclaiming one’s view “The Christian Position,” and it might tell you not to teach Sunday School based on your politics, but it says nothing about your interest in that area.
To this layman, the work of scholars is to enhance our leisure time theology reading and provide deeper thoughts for the application of our faith during this life.
It is much appreciated when someone at WSC again writes a strong theological work that is accessible to those of us outside the ivory tower.
And I understand the world of scholarly gamesmanship in this attack, but it is sucking in a large contingent outside that world that could be doing a lot of better things for the Kingdom.
Mindlessly attacking anything coming out of WSC is a blight on the Reformed faith.
Scott,
I agree with you that the abuse of someone’s theological perspective is not always their fault, although it can be…
However, I think to scorn some one about commenting on a presidential debate, in the context you provided, is representative of some one who does not understand the 2k model. I dare say DVD would agree.
May be I am just simply minded but from what I gather from DVD’s, and others work on 2k theology, is political involvement is not only approved but encouraged – For the glory of God and the good of neighbor. Yet the church as an institution has no business preaching politics from the pulpit or anything else for that matter outside of the gospel and it’s implications.
This seems to be largely prevalent in their work and anyone who would chastise someone for their debate comments has simply not read DVD’s books. I have actually been more motivated to be involved in politics because of his and others work on 2k. Way more motivated than I ever was with a semi-transformationalist mindset.
Matt, you know that my beef with VanDrunen and (neo)2k folk is not that I think they discourage involvement in culture, but rather that they insist that such involvement cannot be considered “redemptive” (eg. LGTK, p.15). If on page 27 of LGTK, VanDrunen says that pressure to find uniquely Christian ways of doing ordinary tasks is “unbiblical,” then how does one consistently square that with his later insistence (as you point out) that such tasks should be done in the unique Christian way of being done in faith, morally, and for God’s glory? And how can culture be done in faith, etc, if it cannot be done in terms of the believer’s redemption? If critics are perpetuating myths about VanDrunen’s position, it might be because he has been unclear (at best) about what his position is.
Baus,
The phrasing of your question I think is rather telling in that you seem to equate “unique Christian” manner of doing things with a “redemptive” manner of doing things. As those united to Christ, living in the age to come while in present evil age, our new life is spiritual or supernatural. In every aspect of our life, we are called to glorify and show forth the Spirit of Christ that we have been given. This is the “unique Christian” manner of doing things. Our works are good and are always already an aroma pleasing unto the Lord. However, this “unique Christian” approach does not privilege the ontic quality of this work as it is manifested in this good creation in the present evil age. An unbeliever may be a much better plumber than his Christian co-worker, despite the Christian’s effort to serve Christ well. There is a sense in which the unbelievers work done well is glorifying to God (to borrow from Kuyper), but by no means is it redemptive, nor if the Christian were to improve his skill as a plumber would the craft be redeemed. It is not the sort of thing that is fallen, though the world feels the curse of those whom are fallen. The Spirit is manifested in the form of living – love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control – but how the Spirit is manifested has no pre-given objective shape, precisely because we still live under the veil of the present evil age while in the age to come.
Brian, you are welcome to comment here on my blog. This post addresses your concerns and shows the importance of understanding the “structure/direction distinction”: http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2012/04/sanctifying-common-2.html
Notice how the subjective and objective is explained.
Baus, that’s a good question, and I think VanDrunen actually explains the answer quite clearly in LGTK when he distinguishes between something being objectively Christian and something being subjectively Christian. When VanDrunen says that objectively there is not pressure to find unique Christian ways of doing things all he is saying is that the Christian standard is the same as the standard for all: God’s moral or natural law. On the other hand, he acknowledges that the reasons why Christians do things, and their motivation for doing it (i.e., the subjective), is indeed unique. In the latter sense Christians do things redemptively, as VanDrunen indicates.
I really don’t think VanDrunen is all that unclear on many of these points. I do think he is unclear, or does not say enough, on particular points, and we should talk about these points. I think you can tell from my blog I am sensitive to these concerns. I also have areas in which I disagree with him. But the critics are not simply pointing to areas of lack of clarity, or areas needing development. They are frequently failing to wrestle with VanDrunen on his own terms, often constructing simplistic (or outright false) versions of his doctrine, and then beating down the straw man (I’m not saying they are all doing this).
This has been one of my concerns with certain iterations of 2k theology, and it made Dr. VanDrunen’s section on education in LGTK hard to read. The critique is framed in a way to sound like a rejection of claims of schools like Dordt to espouse a Reformed worldview or to teach from a uniquely Christian perspective.
Properly understood, I don’t think that’s the real purpose. I don’t think that most 2k’ers would fault people for emphasizing the fundamental nature of our faith in framing our way of seeing the world or trying to work out the implications of Biblical norms in our vocations, and, at its heart, that’s what talking about a Christian perspective is getting at, even when used by Neokuyperians. It has always seemed like a straw man to me to start the critique from the point of saying “show me how you objectively do the technical work of a plumber differently as a Christian. If you can’t, stop talking about a ‘uniquely Christian perspective.’”
Call it semantics, but when Horton, Van Drunen, or any others start from this point, I feel like they’re intentionally riling up people who were raised to value things like Christian education highly, making it seem like the next argument is always going to be “there’s nothing unique about education, so why all this “Christian” nonsense,” when the purpose of the 2k position is not really a rejection of Christian education.
Does that make sense?
Donald, but for many (neo)2k advocates, the purpose *is* rejection of (what we mean by) Christian education. For example: http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=302&issue_id=74
This isn’t a misunderstanding.
“VanDrunen says that pressure to find uniquely Christian ways of doing ordinary tasks is “unbiblical,” then how does one consistently square that with his later insistence (as you point out) that such tasks should be done in the unique Christian way of being done in faith, morally, and for God’s glory? And how can culture be done in faith, etc, if it cannot be done in terms of the believer’s redemption?”
It is enough that such tasks preserve societal order and flow from a concern for the well-being of our neighbor. Such can be done in faith and for the glory of God. I don’t see how the non-redemptive nature of such activity deprives it of either.
Matt, thanks. A few questions: can you point to the section/pages in LGTK where he discusses the objective and subjective along those lines? Does he give examples of what “objectively” Christian things are? And does he say that the sum of possible Christian “subjectivity” (in this sense) is reason/rationale and motive? or does he allow for there to be more to it?
Yes, Christian morality is the only morality for anyone, but there are more kinds of normativity for cultural activity, and while these other norms are also “universal,” through redemption Christians (uniquely) can have their sin-misdirected antinormativity re-directed in Christ, and this is not possible for the unregenerate. Does VanDrunen deny, or affirm, or not address this, or is he unclear about it? (If he affirms it, then he has no basis for disagreement with a neocal “redemptive model,” but he says he does disagree with that model).
Baus, check out pp 166-172. Time’s tight for me right now so I can’t answer all your questions, but you should find some answers there. For what it’s worth, I think VanDrunen would affirm the statement you make in the second paragraph. But the key is to note what elements (or proponents) of the neocalvinist redemptive model he disagrees with. He obviously does not disagree with everything. I suspect plenty of Neo-Calvinists would want to say a lot more about how cultural activity inaugurates the kingdom. But for myself, I am happy to distinguish between moderate Neo-Calvinists and radical Neo-Calvinists.
Mikelmann, how are you going to have “non-redemptive” faith or glorify God apart from redemption? And if redemption has nothing to do with the “preservation” of order than how can you do it in faith? And why would you need to if it’s enough without it?
Matt, I’ll check it out, yes. Thanks.
I’m a radical Neo-Calvinist, I should make clear.
Thanks Baus. How would you define your neo-Calvinism? For instance, do you think the cultural products and institutions of this age will be preserved in the new creation, or do you believe these products and institutions are passing away?
Matt, I think the question of continuity & discontinuity between pre- & post- consummation can be an important/helpful one… but I see the question of what “stuff” will be around at the resurrection as a bit irrelevant. First, we will have consummate dominion over created (now glorified) reality. Second, people are saved, and culture is what people do (so it’s not about stuff, but about us do’ers). Third, the “form” (1 Cor 7) and “desires” (1 John 2) of this world that is/are passing away is sin (& corruptibility itself). Many other things are temporary, like marriage, but they cease to exist in the consummation not because they were sinful, but because they served their intended purpose and are now fulfilled.
I define my (academic) Neo-Calvinism in terms of a number of general philosophical and special socio-philosophical commitments. The religious non-neutrality of culture is a big part of it. Another essential is societal sphere sovereignty. Another is common grace. You might find some elaboration here: http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-kuyperian.html
I’m a radical because I’m a hardcore purist and not a soft or moderate neocal. I reject the idea of blending or diluting it with other approaches, and I have pushed its assumptions farther to “entailed consequences.”
But, theologically speaking, Neo-Calvinists are simple Reformed confessionalists (we are historically, anyway) favoring redemptive-historical hermeneutics (covenant theology), and thus are amil.
Donald, nice point. I think the key to understanding the debate is to recognize that to a certain extent, both sides are polemically reacting to exaggerated rhetoric. I’ve long thought that VanDrunen made a mistake in making so much of the adjective “Christian.” It confused people in just the way you are describing. That said, I understand the frustration that some neo-Calvinists seem to over-complicate the requirements of Christian vocation by describing it primarily in terms of how it advances the kingdom rather than how it expresses love for the neighbor in service to Christ. And you have to remember that until quite recently most Reformed people had no understanding of natural law at all (and therefore a minimized understanding of general revelation). So when people don’t understand the idea of natural law, the emphasis that everything we do has to be distinctively Christian and ordered according to Scripture can be quite confusing. People end up trying to find absurd implications from various texts in the Bible, just so that they can call what they are doing Christian. Finally, I think there is legitimate concern that people end up using the word Christian dogmatically to sanctify their views or practices, and hold that over and above others (i.e., in politics, education, etc.). (See LGTK pp 161ff on this)
But of course, some 2k critics (and at times even VanDrunen) have polemically overreacted.
To answer your question though, here’s a statement of VanDrunen’s that says exactly what you are saying: “The New Testament indicates that Christians should be involved in this [common] kingdom and instills a basic perspective that should shape all of their cultural pursuits.” (LGTK 123) If that is not “Christian world and life view” I don’t know what is.
Anyway, I agree with you; we all need to tone down the rhetoric and the polemics.
Matthew, just a comment regarding your assertion that Dr. Venema has “gotten something profoundly wrong” by interpreting VanDrunen’s position (and supposedly Calvin’s) as being one that distinguishes between the “ecclesiastical kingdom” and the civil kingdom. I have not examined VanDrunen’s entire work thoroughly enough to know whether or not he ever refers to the spiritual kingdom specifically as an “ecclesiastical” or “ecclesial” kingdom. It may be that he refrains from using that explicit terminology. Regardless, I do think Dr. Venema has captured something of the implications of VanDrunen’s position by employing that wordage. Numerous thoughtful readers of VanDrunen, experienced theologians among them, have understood VanDrunen to be strictly identifying the church with the “spiritual kingdom.” On page 80 of his “NL and the TK” VanDrunen concludes that Calvin saw “non-ecclesiastical” activities as “constituting [that is, making up and forming] the civil kingdom.” With similar strictness of language, VanDrunen identifies the church as the “spiritual kingdom of Christ.” In fact, on page 81, he makes these strict identifications even more clear. VanDrunen writes, “Calvin’s basic identification of the spiritual and civil kingdoms with the church and civil government had significant concrete impact upon his understanding of the nature of ecclesiastical and civil authority and their relationship to each other.” Clearly, he would have us sustain a fundamental identification [conjoining] of the concepts of “spiritual kingdom,” “church,” and “ecclesiastical authority,” just as he would like us to maintain a strict identification of the concepts of “civil kingdom,” “civil government,” and “civil authority.” From this, I can’t see how Dr. Venema’s use of “ecclesiastical kingdom,” as distinguished from the civil kingdom in VanDrunen’s theology, is a “profoundly wrong” identification.
Thanks for your comment Tim. I understand your point, and I’m not trying to be needlessly critical or polemical. To be honest, if you read my blog long enough you’ll know I hate writing these sorts of posts. I’m genuinely looking forward to the new book because I hope it will move the discussion forward in a helpful way. But in order to move the conversation in a helpful way, we have to actually understand each other. Otherwise we are always stuck in polemics.
The problem is, Venema doesn’t work hard enough to understand what VanDrunen means by phrases like “basic identification.” He doesn’t use one phrase of VanDrunen (i.e., there is no area of life that is entirely civil and not spiritual) to qualify another (i.e., non-ecclesiastical), as a charitable reading demands. And when taken in the context of his invalid claim that VanDrunen speaks of “hermetically sealed realms”, and that VanDrunen identifies the kingdom with the church “simpliciter” it is obvious that speaking of an “ecclesiastical kingdom” is a fundamental misunderstanding of VanDrunen’s argument. Remember, VanDrunen clearly states that Calvin views the kingdom as spiritual, as immaterial, and even as otherworldly. How then can he view it simpliciter as ecclesiastical? No matter how you try to look at it, summarizing VanDrunen’s view in this way is sloppy.
To be sure, I believe VanDrunen could have been clearer about the eschatological foundation of Calvin’s two kingdoms doctrine, and I have written on that point in many places. It is because non-ecclesiastical affairs are of the present age that they are part of the political kingdom, and it is because the church is the institutional expression of the age to come that it is the unique foci for Christ’s spiritual kingdom (even though that spiritual kingdom extends in its significance to every area of life, as VanDrunen says).
It would be one thing if Venema had called VanDrunen to clarify certain points. But why did he feel the need to summarize VanDrunen’s arguments in words that VanDrunen never uses, and in ways that obviously represent VanDrunen’s argument as weaker and less nuanced than it is?
Thanks for the comment Brian, and brilliantly put! One of the ways, if I understand him correctly, that Brad Littlejohn has articulated this point is to say that the gospel can help to bring about restoration (what VanDrunen I believe would call preservation) of the cultural/political work of the natural order, according to the standard of natural law, but that it does not bring transformation according to the character of the eschatological kingdom of God. Part of the dispute is over whether or not the word redemption should be used to apply to this restoration/preservation, or whether it should be limited to what is spiritual (i.e., what participates in the age to come, manifests the eschatological character of the kingdom). But even to make the distinction, terminology aside, is to utilize the two kingdoms doctrine.
Thanks Matt! It has been a long time since we have talked in person. I am so glad that you are continuing to write extensively on the two kingdoms and I am looking forward to reading you further.
I am rather nobody to adress this, but I cannot image how the word “redemption” would be a clarifying term over “preservation” or even “restoration”. Granted that “redemption” is a broad term, we are accustomed to associate God’s redemptive work with His eschatological salvific work specifically. If we want to be clear in what we mean, why use an ambiguous term? Leave “preservation” as a proper term for God’s providential care. Even if one can tie the entire peace of a political order to the fact that many (or hypothetically all?) in that order have been set free from sin and brought into the marvelous light it would seem inappropriate to use the term “redemption”. I think to do so would be to place an unprophecied epochal intrusion between the ascension and return of Christ. We are wanderers, just as much as those who face martyrdom (though sorrowfully they feel it more), even if many of our companions now are headed to glory.
There is a sense in which the unbelievers work done well is glorifying to God (to borrow from Kuyper), but by no means is it redemptive, nor if the Christian were to improve his skill as a plumber would the craft be redeemed.
But there has to be an accounting for the reality of the believer being outpaced by the unbeliever in a common task. It happens all the time. So what is going on there? Within all the non/redemptive language gets lost, I think, the older speech about faith. The believer who does mediocre work is still glorifying God because everything he does is done in faith, which glorifies God. I’ve seen in these discussions the suggestion, drawing on Kuyper, that the unbeliever “in some sense” glorifies God in his good work. But this seems to tie performance to glorifying God instead of faith; it escapes me how any unbeliever can ever glorify God apart from faith. All he can do is good work. It may irritate work ethic sensibilities, but doesn’t the believer glorify God from failure to mediocrity to excellence by virtue of faith?
Zrim,
I will leave it to a non-choir member to adress your first question. But with regard to your second concern, an unbeliever can glorify God in his or her works without faith the same way that the heavens declare the glory of God without faith. The manifestation of the glory of God is wider than the glory shown in mercy and redemption.
The manifestation of the glory of God protologically considered has its own integrity. It is seen in creation in its orignal goodness, the completion of God’s own Sabbatical work week. It is also the means by which the covenant of works can be and should be completed.
The unbeliever is born with this impetus, though simultaneously guilty of having broken this covenant in Adam (and we all show that we have broken it). Naturally considered, creatures are glorious. No matter how hard they may run towards hell, they cannot but show forth the glory with which they were endowed and simultaneously abuse. The unbelieving will may be selfish, but the will is not coextensive with the created body.
Eschatologically considered their works cannot and do not glorify God. Whatever protological glory is manifested, it does not matter on this side of the broken covenant without faith in Christ. Eschatologically considered, that the will is not coextensive with the body does not do them any good.
The believer satisfies both accounts, always already through faith, even if their natural ability may pale in comparison to unbelievers. They participate in the creation mandate by being the fruit and means of multiplying as that originally mandiate is substantially fulfilled through the spread of the kingdom of the second Adam over the face of the earth, even though they might still have the faculties to fulfill the creation mandate protologically considered.
I don’t think that most 2k’ers would fault people for emphasizing the fundamental nature of our faith in framing our way of seeing the world or trying to work out the implications of Biblical norms in our vocations, and, at its heart, that’s what talking about a Christian perspective is getting at, even when used by Neokuyperians. It has always seemed like a straw man to me to start the critique from the point of saying “show me how you objectively do the technical work of a plumber differently as a Christian. If you can’t, stop talking about a ‘uniquely Christian perspective.’”
But where does the Christian sub-culture stem from other than from the idea that the gospel has a direct and obvious bearing on creational tasks and institutions? Yes, Christian people live before the face of God 24/7, but so do unbelievers. It just seems to this 2ker that there is a difference between Christians doing education and Christian education. How does the former imply the latter?
Matthew, thank you for the meaningful response. I share your commitment to pursuing greater clarity on these matters by representing and interpreting each other’s views as faithfully as possible. Like you, I am saddened when I see these discussions taking place with insufficient concern for congeniality, patience, and Christian love. Greater clarity and humility can and should be employed by both sides of the debate for the overall health of Christ’s church.
I can appreciate your commitment to “let VanDrunen interpret VanDrunen,” as it were. We should certainly take into account the various ways he tries to qualify or nuance his Two-Kingdoms approach to life. However, what I see as a stumbling block to many scholars who would critique VanDrunen is the sustainability or validity of some of his qualifications, given his overall contentions. Scholars nuance their positions repeatedly, but you know very well that the job of their interpreters is to consider whether such stated qualifications validly coincide with the dominant themes of the view they are clearly proposing. Simply offering a qualification does not relieve scholars from defending problematical aspects of their overall paradigm, which may or may not be overcome by the nuanced statements scattered throughout their work. In short, while VanDrunen does state in various ways and at limited points in his book that, “Broadly, [...] no area of life can be completely slotted as civil and not at all as spiritual,” one might question whether scholars can truly believe this statement is supported by the rest of his Two-Kingdoms paradigm? Is this statement valid and applicable given what he has said throughout his work? Does it comport with the overall tone of the book which, as many trusted scholars have noted, inserts a seemingly problematical division between Christ’s kingship, His redemptive work, and between the identity and distinctive norms of the believer’s existence. I struggle to see how affirming such a strict paradigm, dividing the Christian’s life between a properly common kingdom and a properly spiritual one, allows VanDrunen to make the above qualification that no area of life can be considered not at all spiritual. To ask N.D. Kloosterman’s question, “readers may wish to stop a moment to ponder [...] If no area of life can be dismissed as non-spiritual, then why can’t the Scriptures be addressed to every area of life?” (I’m just curious, Matt, if you’ve had the chance to read Kloosterman’s brief work, “Peering Into a Lawyer’s Brief: An Extended Examination of David VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms”? I’d be particularly interested to hear your thoughts on how VanDrunen uses the statement of John Bolt concerning the distinction between the Son of God pre-incarnate and the Son of God incarnate. I think Kloosterman does a fair job exposing VanDrunen’s somewhat “sloppy” scholarship there, but I’d like your thoughts).
To go back rather quickly to Venema’s use of the term “ecclesiastical kingdom”: It seems to me that what Venema is picking up on is VanDrunen’s propensity to describe the spiritual activity (as opposed to the strictly “common” activity) of believers as that which only belongs properly to the institutional church. Along with VanDrunen, Horton has described the “common” kingdom activities of Christians as “neither holy nor unholy, but simply common.” Seemingly, holy activity performed by the believer in a consciously spiritual manner, unto the honor and glory of the Spirit of God and by his power, only takes place within the “church” sphere. In his pamphlet, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law,” VanDrunen describes the two kingdoms in terms of the “common realm” and the “spiritual realm.” He says, “The religious realm, the church, [...] is a realm of separateness and particularity [unlike the common realm] (34). He clearly places “the church” in apposition to “the spiritual realm,” as if they were interchangeable terms. Perhaps, picking up on this language and interpreting it along with VanDrunen’s broader theology leads scholars to use the term “ecclesiastical kingdom.” And perhaps they are not far off?
I’m not quite ready to call Venema’s scholarship “sloppy” on this account. But I appreciate the dialogue and perhaps (DV) greater clarity can come of it. Blessings on your labors this week! I will be traveling this weekend but I look forward to your response upon my return.
Nice to see Scott Oakland still dumping on what he calls on his blog “R2K.” “R” basically means someone who doesn’t run around with his hair on fire at the thought of another Obama Presidency and who doesn’t call those who vote Democrat as “evil.”
It’s seems that mikelman and Richard have bone to pick with my rather reasonable assessment of the situation I opined in my post. I was giving DVD the benefit of the doubt and blamed a distortion of 2K’s application on the distortERS. Yet I still received scorn. There’s a big difference, guys, attacking a questionable doctrine such as 2K, vs. attacking an individual just because they don’t subscribe to every jot and tittle of 2K. I suggest you reconsider these responses. Re-read my post, please.
Scott, your were criticizing “the way it is interpreted and applied today…many have ran with it and its followers, I find, seem to take it to extremes and chastise everyone…Take a look at the blogs and Facebook posts and you’ll know what I mean. So I would blame those who apply it. Listening to some…those who distort 2K, for good or ill.”
If you fire a shotgun into a crowd you’ll hit a lot of people. Some will say “ouch.”
Tim,
I appreciate your willingness to have positive, constructive conversation on this issue. I’ll try to respond to your points one by one, and we can move forward from there.
You note that we should allow VanDrunen’s own statements and qualifications to be self-interpreting. But then you write that many scholars question the “sustainability or validity of some of his qualifications, given his overall contentions.” The job of interpreters is “to consider whether such stated qualifications validly coincide with the dominant themes of the view they are clearly proposing.” You then say that one might question whether the qualifying statements are “truly supported by the rest of his Two-Kingdoms paradigm.”
All true. But then why does Venema not do this? Venema seems to have done all of this privately, and then decided that not only does he not have to publicly acknowledge the qualifications and wrestle with whether or not they are consistent with VanDrunen’s other affirmations, but that he can simply present VanDrunen’s thought as if the qualifications did not even exist. Indeed, he can replace VanDrunen’s nuanced language with language that would make the qualifications impossible to make. Without showing his readers the justification for doing so, in other words, he has reinterpreted VanDrunen for himself in simplified, unqualified manner, and then made that the basis of his public critique. Remember, the characterizations we are discussing are not in the part of Venema’s chapter that is evaluating whether or not VanDrunen’s interpretation of Calvin is valid. They are not points that he is suggesting (on the basis of argument) are unintended consequences or implications of VanDrunen’s thought. They are in the summary parts of the chapter, the parts in which you are supposed to summarize your subject’s view, show that you understand it, and thus earn the right to critique it. With all due respect, it seems to me that Venema has utterly failed to do this.
You then write, “I struggle to see how affirming such a strict paradigm, dividing the Christian’s life between a properly common kingdom and a properly spiritual one, allows VanDrunen to make the above qualification that no area of life can be considered not at all spiritual.”
But I would simply respond to you, and to Kloosterman and Venema and others, is it possible that if you cannot square the two kingdoms doctrine with such a qualification, whereas VanDrunen and many other theologians who have praised his work can, that you have not understood VanDrunen? At the very least, if you struggle to square the two together, you have to show in your critique why VanDrunen makes contradictory assertions that do not hold together. But again, Venema did not do this. He simply ignored the qualifications, exaggerated the assertions (i.e., “ecclesiastical kingdom”; “hermetically sealed realms,” etc.). Even your own statement is more autobiographical than analytical or scholarly. “I struggle to see …” Fair enough, but then you should keep struggling until you see, or demonstrate why VanDrunen has failed. But again, Venema has not done this.
I have read Kloosterman’s review several times. In response to Kloosterman’s rhetorical question, “If no area of life can be dismissed as non-spiritual, then why can’t the Scriptures be addressed to every area of life?” I would simply point to VanDrunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms in which he agrees with just this point, affirming that the Bible shapes the way Christians should view all of their cultural and political activities. I’m honestly not sure why Kloosterman imagined that VanDrunen would not agree with this statement. VanDrunen believes in Christian discipleship. He is a Christian ethicist. Have you ever read his primer on bioethics?
On VanDrunen’s use of Bolt, I think Kloosterman actually misses what VanDrunen says. And so while Kloosterman’s description of what Bolt is saying relative to the Christian’s cultural engagement is true, that does not make VanDrunen’s claim any less true. In fact, Kloosterman’s claim regarding Bolt actually presupposes VanDrunen’s claim. Let me explain.
If you go back and read NLTK you will notice that VanDrunen does not say that Calvin grounded the two kingdoms in the distinction between the pre-incarnate Son and the incarnate Son. What VanDrunen says is that later Reformed writers did this, and that by distinguishing between Christ as mediator of creation and Christ as mediator of redemption, Calvin laid some of the groundwork for this move. So all VanDrunen is getting from Bolt is that Calvin distinguished between Christ’s roles as mediator of creation and as mediator of redemption. If you then check out Kloosterman’s comments in his review, he quotes Bolt as saying that cultural and political activity does not have to be redemptive in order to be faithful Christian activity; it simply has to be faithful to the wisdom of God as revealed in creation. For Bolt this statement presupposes the fact that creation must be distinguished from redemption. Shalom (the eschatological future) is not identical to the natural created order. What is this if not confirmation of VanDrunen’s basic thesis that faithful Christian cultural and political engagement is evaluated by the standards of creation and natural law rather than eschatological or spiritual redemption!
If you question whether Bolt takes this attitude to the two kingdoms doctrine, I’d encourage you to check out his essay in John Calvin and Evangelical Theology (ed. Sung Wook Chung). There he uses Calvins’ two kingdoms doctrine to critique the modern transformationalist use of Calvin. For instance, using Calvin to critique Moltmann he writes, “Calvin is an Augustinian on this score while Moltmann’s eschatology of hope is part of a tradition of challenge to Augustine. Instead of seeing the kingdom of God as a spiritual reality manifested primarily in the church, as Augustine did, Moltmann joins a long line of theologians of messianic eschatology or historicizing eschatology that was present in the early church, repudiated by Augustine, but revived by the twelfth-century Calabrian Abbot, Joachim of Fiore.” (257).
I do want to point out that in LGTK VanDrunen has explicitly stated (as the quote in my original blog post demonstrates) that Christ rules over all things as the incarnate Son. Keep that in mind.
Finally, you offer a few quotations to suggest that for VanDrunen the church is so closely linked with the spiritual realm or spiritual things that it is a legitimate interpretation of VanDrunen to call what he calls the spiritual or redemptive kingdom the ecclesiastical kingdom. In addition to the comments I made above, I would simply make a couple points in response. First, why doesn’t VanDrunen ever refer to it as the “ecclesiastical kingdom”? Second, is VanDrunen really wrong to identify the church as the locus, the focal point, of the realization of the kingdom of God in the present age? If so, then Augustine’s whole project in the City of God, as Bolt notes, is wrong, as is Calvin, who repeatedly “identifies” the kingdom of God with the church. None of these figures identify the two together “simpliciter” but all of them at times make unguarded assertions or comments that could, if taken out of context, be interpreted in this way. Third, it is most certainly the case that VanDrunen’s thought has developed. I would not take A Biblical Defense of Natural Law as his formative statement on the two kingdoms because he is much clearer (and even changes on some points) in his later writing. And of course, that is true of every writer. What is striking is that Venema (like Smith) basically ignores the one definitive, constructive work VanDrunen has written on the subject. What is interesting to note about so many criticisms of VanDrunen’s (especially the criticism that he doesn’t think we should look at natural law through the lens of Scripture) is that VanDrunen’s major project the past few years has been a biblical theology of natural law. Of course, the critics can’t be expected to know this, but the fact is, VanDrunen has always suggested this was approach, as is indicated by the very title of his first popular book A Biblical Defense of Natural Law.
Well, this may be the longest comment I have ever written! Perhaps I should turn it into another post. But for now I’ll wait for your further response. Thank you again for the constructive engagement!
Thanks, Matt, for the detailed response. Your interaction is helpful on several points, and I am appreciative of that. I will keep my response shorter due to time constrains, touching on only a few things:
1. You ask, “Is it possible that if you cannot square the two kingdoms doctrine with such a qualification, whereas VanDrunen and many other theologians who have praised his work can, that you have not understood VanDrunen?” Yes, it is a distinct possibility that many scholars have not understood VanDrunen. I suppose every scholar’s work is open to misunderstanding at some level. However, another equally distinct possibility is that many trusted theologians, who cannot square the two kingdoms doctrine with such a qualification, do not praise his work because it is either inherently inconsistent or unclear on various points, and thus open to frequent misunderstanding. These matters, of course, are part of the nature of this broader discussion, and I pray more clarity will emerge in the coming days. Perhaps it would help my thinking to hear how you, in practical terms, reconcile the affirmation that “no area of life can be dismissed as non-spiritual” while still holding to a perspective that separates life into strictly “common” and “spiritual” realms? I imagine that to some readers this would seem contradictory. It would help my thinking to hear how you would explain to a parishioner (in layman’s terms) how to live according to this paradigm.
2. Bare with me as I attempt to understand the full nature of what Bolt is affirming in the quote VanDrunen and Kloosterman employ. Bolt states that we cannot relegate distinctly “Christian” activity to the institutional church. Rather, Christian activity is that which properly comports with the “Wisdom of God,” which pertains to the whole range of Christian existence. You interpret the “Wisdom” of which Bolt speaks to be that which is “revealed in creation.” But does Bolt’s statement itself limit Godly wisdom to that which is derived from natural law/creation? He calls “Christian” activity that “which explicitly acknowledges the lordship of Jesus Christ” [the Anointed Savior]. Moreover, “Christian” education aims “to discover and understand the wisdom and law structure of the triune God which governs creation.” Again, Bolt doesn’t appear to equate such wisdom and law strictly with “natural law”. He says believers have an obligation to be distinctly Christian on a world-wide scale. Their unique Christian identity is not limited to ecclesiastical activities only. Instead, “The Church, [and here Bolt seems to employ the ecclesiological distinction between institute and organism] by its faithful ministry of the Word,” “calls the world truly to be the creation which God fashioned through his Wisdom and destined for his sabbath glory.” Living distinctly as Christians [Church as Organism], while acknowledging the lordship of their anointed savior, all believers have the obligation to call their world back to its original function. Christians witness to “the way things are supposed to be” (and the way things will indeed be fully one day!).
Again, thank you for the congenial conversation! I do appreciate your responses. Blessings!
Matt,
If, as you admit in the comments thread, VanDrunen has not been altogether careful in the way he has stated some of these matters, then perhaps you shouldn’t be so hasty as to accuse his critics of propounding “myths.” At the very least, they are in many cases honest misinterpretations based on poor statements that VanDrunen has made—for, despite the quotes you offer, there are other quotes which appear to say quite the opposite. Or perhaps they are demonstrations that VanDrunen is in fact inconsistent, and that these qualifying statements cannot really hold in light of other principles to which he appears to be committed.
In light of this, I have undertaken in my response to lay out some principles for how these debates need to be adjudicated, and why divergent interpretations can prove so intractable, before I actually tackle the particular points in this post and your “Friendly Chatter” post. I hope to have this first part of the response up later today.
Brad, I think a critic earns the right to critique someone by demonstrating that he understands him (even if that understanding is demonstrated in the ability to show tension, confusion, or contradiction).
Anyway, I look forward to your response.
Brian, I agree. I think in general we should be quite flexible with our terminology (especially when it comes to buzz words) but the word redemption is a biblical word with rich theological meaning, and we dilute that meaning at the price of theological confusion.
Thanks Tim, I appreciate your response. You note that it is possible that VanDrunen’s work is “either inherently inconsistent or unclear on various points, and thus open to frequent misunderstanding.” You are right on that point, and I wish scholars like Smith or Venema would have sought to work through this question, rather than taken the approach they did. Taking this approach would require them to wrestle deeply with the full corpus of VanDrunen’s work. But it is something that needs to happen, and that would be good for everyone concerned. Again, I can assure you personally, VanDrunen would be the first to say that his own work and paradigm requires development, improvement, and correction.
Answering your second point (how would I put things) I would direct you to a lecture I gave to precisely the group you are interested in – lay people. If you go to the audio section of this blog you will come to a lecture on the two kingdoms I gave at a URC in the Grand Rapids area. The response was very positive (including, by the way, from Nelson Kloosterman). Real quick I would note that I have written against the advisability of speaking of the two kingdoms doctrine in terms of a “perspective that separates life into strictly ‘common’ and ‘spiritual’ realms. For my proposed alternative, I’d point you to this response I wrote to James K. A. Smith: http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/?s=James+K.+A.+Smith
I know you’re busy, but when you get a chance, I’d be very grateful for your feedback on this lecture and response. I’m eager for all the feedback I can get before I start publishing my work in more academic or structured media.
On the Bolt quote, I tried to clarify some of these ideas in today’s blog post on John Bolt. Did you get a chance to read that? It is here: http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/the-two-kingdoms-doctrine-at-calvin-seminary-john-bolt/
In that piece Bolt is quite clear on where he stands on some of these issues. But in relation to your comment, real quick, you are right that Bolt would use the adjective ‘Christian’ more broadly than VanDrunen tends to use it, and on that point I would probably agree with Bolt. But the main point here is that for Bolt what makes something Christian is not that it is redemptive (i.e., eschatological or spiritual) but that it comports with the “wisdom and law structure … which governs creation.” This is exactly what most theologians (including VanDrunen) mean when they speak of natural law. Remember, however, that you cannot confuse the moral standard of natural law with natural law as an epistemological source. I think a lot of people confuse this. So to say that Christian engagement of culture and politics is judged by the standard of natural law does not mean it is not under the authority of Scripture, or that human reason is the sole source. As VanDrunen himself reminds us, natural law is the same moral order as is found in Scripture, especially in the Ten Commandments.
To acknowledge the lordship of Christ in culture and politics, therefore, is to seek to see culture and politics organized according to the order of creation, or of natural law. It is not to seek to turn the creation into the coming kingdom. Jesus makes precisely this point in Luke 20 with reference to marriage. Paul makes it with reference to property, slavery, marriage, etc., in 1 Corinthians 7. What is distinctive Christian activity for Bolt is therefore, as you quote, that “The Church, by its faithful ministry of the Word,” “calls the world truly to be the creation which God fashioned through his Wisdom and destined for his sabbath glory.” That’s exactly what VanDrunen would say, but I would point out that the very statement presupposes a distinction between “creation” and the “sabbath glory” for which creation is destined. So I, and VanDrunen, and Bolt, would agree with you when you say that “all believers have the obligation to call their world back to its original function. Christians witness to ‘the way things are supposed to be.’” But I, and they, would not equate that, as you seem to, with “the way things will indeed be fully one day!” because we would make distinctions between the created order and the order that will one day be. And again, to understand what I mean by that I’d point you to passages like Luke 20, to my audio lecture, and to Calvin’s own quotations on the difference between earthly and heavenly things, or between the present age and the age to come.
I hope that helps (and is clear). I do appreciate your continued feedback.
Good morning Matt,
This dialogue has proved beneficial to sharpen my reading of VanDrunen. I thank you for that, and though my skepticism regarding the sustainability of some of his viewpoints remains, I am alway eager to work through difficult theological concepts. Admittedly, my paper in the upcoming book interacts less with VanDrunen and (purposefully) more with various popular writers who have sought to offer a practical guide for Christians living in the “already and not yet” from a two-kingdoms perspective (primarily Stellman). Much of my work was completed in college, prior to the release of “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms.” My aim is more to interact with two-kingdoms advocates of various stripes, examining how their social paradigm impacts Christian spirituality as it comes to expression in the social realm. I hope, at some level, it will be a helpful contribution. But, as you say, our work and paradigms require development and maturity! (interestingly, even in VanDrunen’s NL2K, page 1, he writes of “the church (the spiritual kingdom)” — in those words. Apparently, his thought has not progressed in clarity from “A Biblical Case for Natural Law” on this point, though, as you say, he may not be speaking simpliciter. Still, this choice of words may generate confusion for some).
Thank you for directing me to helpful resources (both the lecture and written responses) for furthering my thinking on these matters. When time allows I will glean from them I’m sure!
I appreciate your reminder: “Remember, however, that you cannot confuse the moral standard of natural law with natural law as an epistemological source. I think a lot of people confuse this. So to say that Christian engagement of culture and politics is judged by the standard of natural law does not mean it is not under the authority of Scripture, or that human reason is the sole source. As VanDrunen himself reminds us, natural law is the same moral order as is found in Scripture, especially in the Ten Commandments.” Could you point me to a place in VanDrunen’s writings where he clearly lays this out?
Regarding the quote from Bolt: He seems to be making a distinction between the church as institution and organism. Distinctive Christian activity is not only that which pertains to the proper ministry of the institutional church (Word and Sacraments), Bolt says. Then, seemingly in contrast, he adds, “The Church, by its faithful ministry of the Word,” “calls the world truly to be the creation which God fashioned through his Wisdom and destined for his sabbath glory.” Is he speaking of the Church as Organism here?
It seems I opened myself up to misunderstanding by that last parenthetical phrase. I would not equate “the way things are supposed to be” with “the way things will indeed be fully one day.” I certainly affirm a distinction between the current created order and the renewed creation. My statement simply wished to affirm that as Christians, we proclaim God’s sovereign intention to cleanse and renew his world. As “new creations,” we testify to the coming new creation and its fullness. Simply put, I am not a “transformationalist,” though I do affirm that responsible Christian activity in the civil realm can result in positive change (no matter how small). Pursuing the justice, beauty, and truth germane to the kingdom of God, Christians witness to “the way things are supposed to be.” Yet, we anticipate Jesus Christ’s victorious return to consummate the kingdom. I also see Calvin making a clear distinction between the present age and the age to come. And yet, at the same time, he can affirm the restoration of all things by Christ’s death is “yet in the course,” and while the perfection of all things is “deferred until the last day,” those things “annexed thereunto” do appear in part right now!
Thanks again, Matt! Blessings!
Thanks Tim, given your last couple paragraphs, it seems to me that you and I are pretty much on the same page in terms of what Christian cultural engagement should look like. For quotes from VanDrunen on the identity of the natural law and the Decalogue see NLTK p. 109-110. There he writes, “Calvin had already made clear earlier in the Institutes that he found the content of this moral or natural law in the Decalogue.” See also his discussion of the way in which Scripture shapes our politics in LGTK, p. 194ff.
On your Bolt paragraph, I’m not sure I understand the referent of your question (“here”). I do believe Bolt is distinguishing between the institutional church and the church as organism, and I would agree with him on that (I also disagree with some of what I’ve read VanDrunen says on this distinction). One thing I worry about, though, is that distinguishing between the church as institution, on the one hand, and as organism in culture, on the other, we lose sight of the church as a communion of the saints, which seems to lie somewhere in the middle, and which seems to be the focal point for Calvin in a lot of his work, as well as of the New Testament. In that sense putting too much emphasis on either the institutional ministry of the church, on the one hand, or believers’ cultural engagement, on the other, could obscure what is perhaps the goal that is more important than all of this – the body of believers that fellowships with one another and with Christ (think 1 Corinthians 13). Thoughts on this?
Anyway, your last paragraph helps clarify that point. I think I entirely agree with you. Perhaps it helps illustrate a point. If you and I are so close on these issues, and yet differ so much in our judgment of VanDrunen’s work, why could this be? And is it possible that focusing on whether or not VanDrunen got everything right or not misses a more important project, which should be for all of us to take the various paradigms of insight (i.e., the lordship of Christ, the two kingdoms, the church as institution/organism distinction, etc.) and use them to help us come to some semblance of unity and consensus on what Scripture teaches about all of this?
I really appreciate your engagement, and I’ll look forward to reading your chapter.
Pingback not working, so here’s the response—
http://www.swordandploughshare.com/main-blog/2012/10/15/once-more-into-the-breach-pt-1-manners-and-methods.html.
Matt, a comment on Bolt.
you wrote:
“…Bolt as saying that cultural and political activity does not have to be redemptive in order to be faithful Christian activity; it simply has to be faithful to the wisdom of God as revealed in creation. For Bolt this statement presupposes the fact that creation must be distinguished from redemption. Shalom (the eschatological future) is not identical to the natural created order.”
I don’t know if I agree with Bolt (it seems he waffles on this), because the neocalvinist position is that faithful Christian activity that is faithful to the wisdom God reveals in creation *is* to be redemptive, because Christians (let alone non-Christians) do not have faithful access to understanding (morally or epistemically) the created order apart from redemption. Moreover, pre-consummate redemption is inaugurated eschatology… and that’s why we neocalvinists (in keeping with Calvin’s view!) are redemptive/transformationalist in our view.
I still maintain that this cannot be made clear apart from the fundamental structure/direction distinction. http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2012/04/sanctifying-common-2.html
Baus, could you please explain how when you say that “faithful Cristian activity that is faithful to the wisdom God reveals in creation *is* to be redemptive”, what you are saying is different from what VanDrunen says when he calls Christian cultural activity subjectively redemptive?
Also, could you please point me to some points in Calvin’s writings where he talks in this way?
Matt, I couldn’t check out pages 166-172 as you recommended, unfortunately. I don’t have a copy here with me in China, so perhaps VanDrunen elaborates on objective and subjective in those pages in a way I would agree with, or in such a way that I could draw the contrast between our views more precisely.
However, on page 31 he says “Learning, working, and voting are not uniquely Christian tasks, but common tasks. Christians should always be distinguished from unbelievers subjectively: they do all things by faith in Christ for his glory. But as an objective matter, the standards of morality and excellence in the common kingdom are ordinarily the same for believers and unbelievers.”
I agree with this after a fashion, and it points to the structure/direction distinction. The church is structurally/objectively holy and ecclesial activity can be done directionally/subjectively in a holy or profane way. Culture is structurally/objectively common and cultural activity can be done directionally/subjectively in a holy or profane way.
The issue is what do we mean when we say that cultural activity can be done in a holy way. Neocalvinists mean that this re-direction in faith to God’s glory is possible by redemption in Christ. Thus, it is a way that the unregenerate don’t have access to. The structural norms are the same, but the mis-direction of sin distorts the unregenerate’s ability to recognize them for what they are.
Therefore it is quite helpful to say that Christians can do common cultural activity in a redemptive or transformational way. By Christ’s redemption, through the Spirit, in faith, to God’s glory, Christians can turn from profane antinormativity in cultural action to holy normativity in cultural action. It’s a transformation that comes through redemption.
This isn’t mere preservation of the structure (creation and its norms) in terms of the Noahic covenant, although God certainly does that.
Normative action in this sense (ie, in terms of it’s direction) is not made possible by the norms being universal creational (structure), because activity (or ‘use’ of things, as Calvin says) is always “direction’ed” (in fall/rebellion or redemption/obedience). It is not automatic or guaranteed in every action for Christians, but redemption makes such obedience possible.
And (in the linked post) I have shown how Calvin speaks that way in his comments on 1 Timothy 4. I wrote: “Calvin notes that the normative use of food must be judged not only from the person who eats it, but also, he says, “partly from its substance.” This means that a Christian’s discernment of the sanctified use of culture involves discerning from creation or natural revelation, the norms that God ordained for cultural activity.” So, Christian cultural activity is distinct not because the person doing it does it in faith with no concrete differences in the activity, but because, as it is discerned by a Spirit-wrought illumination and insight into God’s natural revelation, that faith can result in re-directed normativity in cultural action.
Unregenerate understanding of natural revelation is always partially falsified in idolatry, and I have pointed to Clouser’s work as elaborating on that. I wrote in the comments to my post: “…the standard of comparison isn’t ‘this individual believer’ to ‘that individual unbeliever’, but rather, in terms of ‘belief’ to ‘unbelief’ (or rather, to false belief).
Clouser particularly demonstrates this through the deifying reductionisms of false belief. One example of Christian redirected understanding relates to conceptions of society and the false alternatives of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’.” These make real concrete difference in everyday life.
I get the impression that VanDrunen wouldn’t see or express this type of difference as a matter of the “implications of ones faith”. Wouldn’t he rather say that since societal norms are universal/creational that Christian faith offers no principle advantage in having a more normative understanding or action?
On the other hand, if VanDrunen, after all, holds that cultural activity is always “direction’ed,” and that Christians’ redemption makes possible a re-directed (transformational) and distinct understanding of general revelation and normative use of culture that can produce concrete differences, then we are on the same page. And I will encourage him to *join us* in exploring and explicating how, after all, the structurally common tasks of learning and working, etc can be understood and done in a uniquely Christian way –a way that makes a concrete difference in our cultural activity beyond superficial (surface) similarities.
Certainly, there are many “common grace insights” (partially falsified by idolatry) in the various unbelieving conceptions of natural law that can be redeemed/transformed and fruitfully resituated in a distinctly Christian framework. There’s plenty of work to be done in holy service to Christ for God’s glory, and it will not be in vain.
“Brad, I think a critic earns the right to critique someone by demonstrating that he understands him (even if that understanding is demonstrated in the ability to show tension, confusion, or contradiction).”
Well, how’s the following, then:
“The Lord Jesus Christ rules all things… So how does Christ now rule the many institutions and communities of this world other than the church? The answer is that he rules them through the Noahic Covenant, for they are institutions and communities of the common kingdom. They operate according to the same basic principles and purposes as before Christ’s first coming. What is different [after that first coming] is that God now rules them through the incarnate Jesus, the last Adam who has entered into the glory of the world-to-come.” (VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 118)
“The Son of God rules the temporal kingdom as an eternal member of the Divine Trinity but does not rule it in his capacity as the incarnate mediator/redeemer” (VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 181).
“To distinguish between the Son as creator and the Son as redeemer entails that the title of ‘Christ’ belongs only to the latter . . . in his special mission of becoming incarnate for the particular work of saving his people.” (Ibid., 313)
If that’s not confusion or contradiction, I don’t know what is.
Thanks Brad. So if you were doing a work of historical theology (and I seem to recall you may have some expertise in this) how would you interpret this? What tools might you make use of? Would you, as some authors seem to do, ignore the later, normative formulations of an author, in favor of the earlier, more historically focused formulations, or would you try to explore whether, perhaps, the author has developed his views? Would you dismiss it as mere “confusion or contradiction” or might you characterize it as improvement or clarification? And to what extent would you take the genres of the books into account? To a significant extent, I suspect you would agree, the legitimacy of your critique or analysis would depend on your skill and charity in working through these issues. There is room for solid analysis and critique here, no doubt. But then let’s do it, and responsibly.
Matt,
Your loyalty to your teacher here is laudable, but really, this looks like special pleading. After all, LGTK was published in *the same year* as NLTK. Afterward, to be sure, but not much time for historical development. If I was doing a work of historical theology, and found that a historical figure had published two works in the same year containing contradictory claims, I might well tend to think that this was proof of confusion. As far as the “genre” of the books, my thought has always been that since NLTK is a hefty scholarly tome, chock-full of footnotes, in which VanDrunen’s views gain additional clarity by being compared and contrasted with historical antecedents, it is a *more* reliable source than the layman’s popularized version in LGTK. Perhaps a flawed assumption, but not an irresponsible one. I can’t speak for other critics, but in my own reviews of LGTK, I have certainly not ignored some of these points, but acknowledge that when it comes to practical application, many of VanDrunen’s prescriptions seem fairly commonsensical and unobjectionable; however, they do not really seem to follow from the principles that he commits himself to, in NLTK and earlier in LGTK.
In any case, I would be very glad to hear that VanDrunen had in fact seen the error of many of his earlier statements, and had attempted to correct them, but if so, why is there no hint of this in LGTK? I don’t recall, and flipping through now, cannot find any point at which VanDrunen attempts to retract one of his earlier statements, or acknowledges that he said things poorly before, or whatever. If we were just talking about a change in nuance or whatever, that wouldn’t be that big a deal. But, in the above quotes, we’re talking about an about-face on a matter that he makes central to the argument of NLTK. Without any clear indication on his part that he intends to retract the earlier formulation, all I can assume is that he is either being deceptive (pretending never to have said it) or is oblivious and confused. Confronted with such alternatives, the latter is in fact the more charitable reading.
Brad, in actual matter of fact NLTK was completed by 2007 (Eerdmans was very slow in processing it), with many of the key parts obviously written well before that. Here is where publishing dates are misleading, though I can understand that you would not be aware of that.
Keep in mind also that VanDrunen presents NLTK as a largely historical, rather than a normative work, in which VanDrunen himself highlights inconsistencies or tensions within Reformed thought on the two kingdoms. You have the liberty of judging his work as “oblivious and confused” of course, and your readers have the liberty of finding your judgment confused in turn.
Again, as anyone who reads this blog knows, I break with VanDrunen in a number of ways, and have offered public criticism of some of his statements years ago already. But I do take seriously the responsibility of clarifying to people what VanDrunen has actually written, especially when what reviewers write is highly misleading on that point. When we are defending theses as broad as whether or not VanDrunen’s project is valid, in general (not simply on particular points), this matters somewhat, don’t you think?
Matt, fair enough. I didn’t realize that about NLTK, and it makes some difference, to be sure, although I reiterate the point that if there were significant retractions, VanDrunen ought to have noted them.
To your final paragraph—sure, that’s fine. Note, of course, that I haven’t read your blog consistently for more than a few months, so was not aware that you “have offered public criticism of some of his statements years ago already.” I do believe that you break with VanDrunen in fact in more ways that you realize, as you know.
In any case, if you are critiquing Smith for being a careless reader, I quite agree. Venema, less so, but you have some fair complaints. But I would ask you to read the critics more carefully, if you are asking them to read more carefully, and not to lump them all together, as you appear to do in the post above.
(It may be relevant to point out that I in fact supplied to Dr. VanDrunen a copy of a paper I presented at AAR last year critiquing NLTK, before I presented it, and took his feedback seriously; we also went out for a beer and discussed it. Only at one point, really, did he suggest I had not quite understood him, and that was on the point that you have highlighted—that Scripture really is relevant for the Christian as he undertakes his civil kingdom responsibilities. And, responsive to that, I have, I think, sought to avoid caricaturing his position on this in anything I have written since.)
Thanks Brad, this helps. You may be right that VanDrunen should have clarified his change of position on the two mediatorships. In any case, it helps that we all hold the same position now right?
I also think it’s helpful to hear what you say about the role of Scripture for the Christian in cultural engagement. This is a key point that is often lost on readers, and in the popular debate, it may be the single most damaging misconception people have about the two kingdoms doctrine.
In all honesty, I wonder if you are actually closer in your position to VanDrunen than you are to Venema. You make some key criticisms of Venema in your response to him, and in your judgments about certain forms of neo-Calvinism, your distinction between restoration and redemption, and your concerns about the exaggerated claims regarding the necessity of Scripture for all of life all put your fairly close to Dave, rather than Venema.
For me the big stumbling block is obviously still your insistence that Dave got Calvin on the relationship between the spiritual kingdom and the church wrong. But perhaps we’ll have to leave this for further discussion …
“In any case, it helps that we all hold the same position now right?”
Well, that’s a tad over-optimistic. If VanDrunen has changed his position here, then I would say that he still has a lot to do in terms of rethinking the ramifications of this. I.e., very briefly, if Christ reigns over the kingdoms of this world as incarnate and ascended redeemer, then the kings of the earth must kiss the Son *in that capacity,* not merely in his capacity as Creator. My sense is that while VanDrunen is now willing (or maybe always was willing? but if so, it isn’t entirely clear) to say that in their private capacity, Christian individuals are to acknowledge this reign in their public involvement, it must receive no public recognition by magistrates. I disagree. But this doesn’t entail, I think, a wholesale abandonment of liberal political order for theocracy.
As far as being closer to VanDrunen than Venema…well, on some points, perhaps— certainly I have always held the neo-Calvinists somewhat at arm’s length, despite Kloostermann’s attempt to enlist me as an ally for his crusade early on. But on certain crucial points, not at all. No point hashing this out further here, though. All shall be made clear (or a good bit should be made a lot clearer, at any rate), in part 2 of my response, which should go up on TCI in the next few days.
Mr Tuininga,
It would seem the gist of your contention is that DVD is somehow very interesting and useful, but you can’t ever say exactly how- it’s more like he offers a set of emphases and commonplaces you find appealing.
Of course, I am one of the critics (one whom you seem to be very careful nowadays to never mention by name), who did, in fact, contrary to your assertions, engage closely with both Calvin and modern Calvin scholars in reply to you (as Mr Littlejohn has pointed out in his recent post regarding you at his blog). I am quite certain that we have read DVD carefully enough- Mr Littlejohn, for instance, just offered some pretty damning quotes just above, and yet you, without proving any substantial change in DVD on that point (something Mr Littlejohn seems to have let pass), reply by simply quibbling about dates. And if DVD does indeed now hold the same Christological position “all of us” do (something you do not demonstrate at all), how does that not dramatically alter the nature of his political theology? Why isn’t he recalling the earlier works from the shelves?
So for the record (and for more of the record, your readers can go to The Calvinist International or to the Sword and Ploughshare), we have always said that we are, with regard to practical sensibility, not so far in a number of respects from the more intelligent and moderate wing of the R2K. What DVD offers by way of a practical picture in his popular material is often alright enough; again, we have affirmed this repeatedly. Further, we have praised the R2K writers for at least bringing the topic of the Reformers’ political theology. Our point is and has always been that the *principles* of R2K are profoundly mistaken, that it is not at all the 2K of the Reformers (the real 2K of the Reformers, to which we hold) and that this R2K error in principles will eventually vitiate the practice and the prudence of those who hold to them.
We are certainly not Neocalvinists, and expressly contend against their peculiar principles (which Mr Baus has helpfully enumerated above). We deny, just as Calvin does, the thesis that non-Christians have no reliable access to understanding of the creation, and we are not “redemptive” transformationalists in that sense, although we do say that the redemption intends all of creation in its scope. Neither are we theonomists. We are simply reading texts carefully in the light of Scripture and reason, and prudently applying the genuine principles of the Reformers and the tradition to modern circumstances. Reading carefully is something you call for a great deal; but with you, this call too often seems a move to deflect or defer textually-based judgments of your favorite authors’ texts. If authors are constantly “developing” and changing their mind, you can’t credibly ask people to read them more carefully- what you mean to ask is, that we regard their works not as expositions of propositions, but rather as moments in some basically positive career whose final shape we don’t know, and further, that we wait indefinitely as this unfolds. But that’s not reading carefully- in fact that’s not reading at all. It’s just being a friend, or a fan, of the author in question.
pax
P
I suppose Peter was seeking to distinguish his position from the neocalvinists’ when he writes: “We deny, just as Calvin does, the thesis that non-Christians have no reliable access to understanding of the creation”
It depends on what is meant by “reliable.” If it means “non-falsified,” then I don’t think Calvin denies that thesis.
Anyway, I don’t think there’s anything Calvin affirms about the non-Christian’s access to understanding creation that neocalvinists deny (or vice versa). But maybe Peter can give an example of what he has in mind.
Hi there, Peter.
Matt, I do assure you that Peter’s bark is worse than his bite. But, although I might have tried to tiptoe around it more delicately, he does have a point.
I just want to tell you that I am just new to weblog and honestly enjoyed this web-site. Most likely I’m likely to bookmark your blog post . You actually come with excellent well written articles. Thanks a bunch for sharing with us your webpage.
Pingback: The Two Kingdoms Doctrine at Calvin Seminary: John Bolt « Christian in America
Pingback: Once More Into the Breach (Part 2): Clearing Up the Two Kingdoms Conversation | The Calvinist International
Pingback: VanDrunen’s Response to Kingdoms Apart | Christian in America
Pingback: Once More Into the Breach (Part 2): Clearing Up the Two Kingdoms Conversation ‹ The Calvinist International
Pingback: Under Attack in the United Reformed Churches: Two Kingdoms Theology and its Critics | Christian in America
Pingback: Under Attack in the United Reformed Churches: Two Kingdoms Theology and its Critics