The Two Kingdoms at Covenant College: toning down the rhetoric
When it comes to the two kingdoms doctrine and Christian liberal arts institutions like Covenant College (the college of the Presbyterian Church in America) in Lookout Mountain, Georgia there may not be that much conflict after all. That, at least, is the conclusion to which one might come in response to a panel discussion on the topic yesterday between Michael Horton, a professor at Westminster Seminary California, and several Covenant College faculty.
Horton began the panel discussion by reminding the audience that there is no such thing as an “Escondido theology” or Escondido two kingdoms doctrine. The faculty of Westminster Seminary California is not monolithic in its views of cultural engagement, the institution’s president Robert Godfrey himself being a staunch Kuyperian. Suggesting that it makes little sense to describe Kuyperian neo-Calvinism and the two kingdoms perspective as contrary positions, Horton pointed out (as did Godfrey in a presentation several years ago) that on most important points these perspectives are agreed. Among the commonalities he described:
1) Both clearly distinguish the form of cultural and political engagement obligatory on Christians from the model of Old Testament Israel.
2) Both maintain a sharp critique of the militancy and culture war mindset that marks much of the Christian Right, which has its own version of the social gospel.
3) Each perspective affirms basic neo-Calvinist concepts concerning common grace, the antithesis, and sphere sovereignty.
4) Both seek to distinguish the work proper to the institutional church (church as organization) and the way in which believers serve Christ and witness to his kingdom in every area of life (church as organism).
5) Both agree that Christians cannot bring the kingdom of God to earth through their cultural work.
6) Each perspective insists that Scripture has much to say about how Christians should be involved in culture through their vocations.
7) Both agree that the church must proclaim what the word of God says about God’s law to the state, while avoiding false claims to expertise in matters of economics or policy.
8) Both affirm that while the actual objective work of Christians often looks similar to that of unbelievers, in terms of motivation, worldview, and sometimes objective results such work is profoundly different.
9) Both affirm the value of Christian parachurch organizations like colleges and seminaries, while at the same time preserving the liberty of Christians to participate in non-Christian organizations as well.
In their responses to Horton the various Covenant faculty affirmed their basic agreement on these points, expressing in particular their appreciation for the emphasis the two kingdoms doctrine places on the importance of the institutional church.
Of course, they had questions too. Jeff Dryden, a professor of New Testament, affirmed David VanDrunen’s critique of certain over-optimistic versions of redemptive transformationalism, but he rightly noted that more moderate accounts of transformation are by no means incompatible with the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. He worried that certain expressions of the two kingdoms doctrine misinterpret the New Testament call to believers to seek things that are above, where Christ is, rightly pointing out that the New Testament describes such seeking in terms of concrete, this-worldly virtues (as I argued here).
Bill Davis, a professor of philosophy, suggested that while the the rhetoric of two kingdoms advocates and moderate transformationalists often makes the two perspectives sound radically opposed to one another, in actual point of practice there is virtually no difference between the two positions. To be sure, Davis rightly questioned the notion that natural knowledge of God’s moral law is a sufficient standard or point of commonality for Christian cultural and political engagement. He also worried that passivity rather than militancy is the greater temptation of young Christians today, and he legitimately criticized the tendency of some two kingdoms advocates to speak as if there is no spiritual element to the ordinary vocational work that Christians do. But Davis again reminded the audience that while adherents to the two perspectives often describe their approaches to culture quite differently, in actual practice they are doing the same things.
Brian Fikkert, a professor of economics and author of the highly acclaimed book When Helping Hurts, likewise affirmed the two kingdoms emphasis on the work of the institutional church and on Christ as the one who alone brings his kingdom. He also lauded the humble approach to cultural engagement inherent to the two kingdoms perspective. But he worried about the idea that Christians bring little that is objectively different from unbelievers to their work, pointing out that while in principle Christians share the standard of natural law with unbelievers, in practice unbelievers constantly suppress that law. He gave excellent examples of instances in which the Christian faith helps Christians bring something to their work that does indeed look objectively different from the work of unbelievers.
Horton responded to these concerns by affirming many of them. He did suggest that in the New Testament redemption is always described as something that God does for us, not something that we do in our vocations or cultural activity. Why not choose a better word to describe what we are doing? We all agree, he pointed out, that we should seek to bring a Christian influence to our culture. But there are varying ways to talk about how we do that, some of which are more faithful to biblical language than are others.
Horton agreed that Scripture is necessary not just to the Christian doctrine of salvation but to the proper interpretation of natural law for the purposes of cultural and political engagement. He agreed that Christians need to be careful not to articulate theologies of culture that pander to passivity, highlighting the important legacy of the Reformation doctrine of vocation. He clarified that the two kingdoms doctrine does not amount to a distinction between material and immaterial things but between the present age and the age to come. For that reason he rejected versions of the doctrine of the spirituality of the church that have been used to argue that the church should not speak out against patent evils like the racial slavery of the Antebellum South.
Horton concluded in a spirit that seemed to be echoed by many of the faculty present (at least those with whom I spoke afterwards). He noted that while the two kingdoms perspective is often portrayed as a position in conflict with moderate neo-Calvinism, in reality the perspectives are less polar opposites than points on a common spectrum. Once one looks past prominent rhetorical and linguistic differences it can often be difficult to determine what in practice is actually being disputed. And indeed, when it came to the greatest dangers threatening Reformed believers in their cultural and political engagement the members of the panel were in significant agreement. That is a point worth thinking about as this conversation moves forward.
Posted on October 30, 2012, in Abraham Kuyper, Neo-Calvinism, Two Kingdoms and tagged Bill Davis, Brian Fikkert, Covenant College, Jeff Dryden, Michael Horton, Westminster Seminary California. Bookmark the permalink. 40 Comments.
Thanks Matthew for this incredible summary! I, like many others, am grateful to see the conversation moving in this direction and I appreciate all your work to seek clarity in this area.
Reblogged this on Water Is Thicker Than Blood.
If there is so much agreement, then what’s all the fuss?
The fuss comes from serious differences (especially introduced by neo-Calvinism as VanDrunen’s NL2K book makes clear in the late chapters where he shows that Kuyperians blurred lines between Christ’s redemptive and providential work).
The fuss also comes from the way neo-Cal’s assert the antithesis.
Looks like a good opportunity was missed to clarify rather than impersonate Rodney King.
Do we know if any of this discussion is available to download?
I agree with DGH–clarifications would have been more helpful instead of a “Kumbaya” moment.
Richard, it will be available at some point. I’ll try to keep tabs on that.
But you’ll quickly see it was not a “Kumbaya” moment at all. It was refreshingly amicable, forthright, and charitable. However, it did illustrate that what often passes for “the” two kingdoms position or “the” neo-Calvinist position are actually extreme positions held by relatively few. When people get together and talk, defining their terms, as happened in this panel, they don’t seem so far apart.
I was a student at Covenant, a history major. There is nothing I was taught in the history department there remotely incompatible with the two kingdoms doctrine. If anything, they taught me its basic principles without the name.
Matt,
Well, this is a change at Covenant, I recall hearing several current pastors and actually a member of our church who attended Covenant who were taught a transformationist neo-Calvinist view; a two kingdoms view seemed to take them by surprise since it didn’t mesh with Francis Schaeffer.
Yes, change may be one factor; there has been a growing awareness over time of the problems with radical neo-Calvinism. At the same time, there is a lot of diversity at a place like Covenant. No institution like that is monolithic.
If this is a cease-fire from demonization and caricature, that part is certainly welcome.
I would think confessions would be a nice and sufficient meeting place.
Perception might be based on exposure. From my vantage point, I don’t see neo-Cals distance themselves from the Christian right (#2), and the ones I see tend to come hard after anyone who is not in step with the Christian right.
Then I wonder exactly what it is that the Church is supposed to proclaim to the state (#7), especially when the Westminster standards clearly say the church should not meddle except in cases extraordinary.
Then on the common grace of #3, what I see from neo-Cals at ground level is really degrading to the intellect and capabilities of the unbeliever, which I see as a negative in trying to reach the unbeliever besides just being wrong.
More could be said. So if the fangs are put away that’s a good thing, but I hope that facilitates rather than stills continued conversation about these and other differences. And, Matt, I think you are helping to facilitate such a conversation here.
MLM,
You obviously didn’t go to Calvin College. My son graduated from there recently and the neo-Calvinism he got wasn’t from the right, but the left. Incoming students were required to go through Plantinga’s “Engaging God’s World.” Left/right–just different sides of the same transformationalist coin.
Both affirm the value of Christian parachurch organizations like colleges and seminaries, while at the same time preserving the liberty of Christians to participate in non-Christian organizations as well.
But for those of us who exercise Christian liberty and employ non-Christian schools for covenant children it doesn’t always seem like this. Very often it seems like Reformed Christians think of non-Christian schooling the way Baptists think of adult beverages, intellectual personal holiness and asceticism to match physical personal holiness and asceticism–at best tolerable, at worst carnal. Hard educational legalism is the PRC, soft educational legalism something like the language of URCNA CO Article 14 (“promote godly schooling”), and in taking up tithes to fund it. So this point about preserving liberty sounds nice, but so much seems to undermine it.
Matt, out of curiosity, what is radical neo-Calvinism? Colson? Keller? Doug Wilson? Neil Plantinga? I’m not sure that modifiers like “radical” and “moderate” help.
Zrim, much of what you describe is largely unique to Dutch neo-Calvinism; the PCA does not have the same history regarding Christian schools and public schools. And even in those circles there is diversity. We need to remember that movements as big as neo-Calvinism are not monolithic.
Darryl, I’ll have more to say about this hopefully soon, but for now I’d check out Jason Lief’s chapter in McIlhenny’s new book. He gives a good sense of the contrast, which to a significant extent, I think, pertains to whether one sees eschatological redemption into Christ is a process that begins already in this age (i.e., Moltmann, liberation theology style) or whether one sees it as tied up in Christ and awaiting his return (this seems to be McIlhenny’s view, and the view of most of my profs at Covenant).
Matt, ok, but the point still stands. And until the postures in a significant neighborhood within neo-Calvinism are addressed, the suggestion about liberty seems a stretch.
Is the audio of this going to be posted anywhere?
Jason, I had heard that it would be, but am not sure when.
Reading Horton’s 2006 essay in Christianity Today, “How the Kingdom Comes”. On page two he says, “This means that there is no difference between Christians and non-Christians with respect to their vocations.” Point six of Tuininga’s report on Horton’s meeting is “Each perspective insists that Scripture has much to say about how Christians should be involved in culture through their vocations.”
I’m no logician, but these statements appear to be direct opposites.
Erik, love your makeover!
Maybe this is one of those consensus statements that both sides can read to their satisfaction. The 2k says we are always bound by God’s law, we do things for God’s glory, and give him thanks. The neos say, I don’t know, that Jeremy Lin should be driving to the hoop in a distinctly Christian way? That I should be thinking epistemologically when I write a brief? I’m not sure since I’ve never understood the idea of Christian plumbing.
Erik, I have studied logic extensively and I in no way see how the statements are opposites.
I understand that radical or caricatured versions of the two kingdoms and neo-Calvinism clash on some of these points. What always surprises me is the insistence by some that these radical positions have to so define everyone that we cannot even have a conversation anymore. Most neo-Calvinists are not as radical as you claim or as unintelligent as you imply, nor do most people who appreciate the two kingdoms doctrine apply it in the odd way that you seem to think they need to.
Matt, well here is Kloosterman’s take on the differences between Neo-Cal’s and 2k:
“For my part, our disagreement begins with the Bible—with the exegesis of the entire biblical story from Genesis through Revelation. It continues with the Confessions—both the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. It moves from there to the application of the truths and principles harvested from these sources to all of Christian living in the world.”
So much for a third way.
I’m told the panel discussion audio will be posted in the next day or so. As the other two audios are already available through iTunes, I would expect you’d be able to listen to the third at: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/gospel-driven-life-romans/id557167467?i=123272472 or click on the appropriate link to open in iTunes.
Thanks Greg!
Darryl, are you suggesting that the only two possible routes for Christian political theology are 1) Nelson Kloosterman and 2) Darryl Hart? I’ve read enough by Kloosterman to know that it is not the two kingdoms perspective per say that he has a problem with, as it is a particular version of it, or particular claims that particular two kingdoms people have made.
I don’t think that tells us much at all about Michael Horton’s view of the two kingdoms perspective, nor does it tell us much about various professors at Covenant and their understanding of the lordship of Christ in the context of neo-Calvinism.
As Kelly Kapic stated at the panel discussion, we’ve got to learn to stop reducing this discussion to flag waving. There are not just two ways nor are there three ways. This conversation is a whole lot more complex than that.
Matt, could you clarify whether the 9 points listed above were authored and presented by Horton himself, or do those 9 points reflect *your* summary interpretation of what you heard from Horton and/or the panelists? I listened to the whole panel discussion in intermittent snippets , and perhaps I missed hearing those points come from Horton.
BTW, I have not forgotten to resume the DVD discussion you on that other thread, but the Lord has not provided me ample opportunity to pick it up yet. Hoping to do so soon.
Hi Mark, good question. No Horton did not present a list of nine points (which I tried to indicate by saying “Among the commonalities he described …). It was much more fluid than that. However, I obviously did not make anything up. He makes the various points throughout his presentation.
Thanks, Matt. I listened for a part where Horton would have made those precise statements, and after not hearing them, suspected that either:
1.these were your best effort at summarizing what he said, or
2. my hearing has diminished further than I thought
Mark, yes, I was writing based on careful note-taking, not direct quotes (didn’t have the audio). I hope you were encouraged by some of what Horton said. What was your take on it?
Matt, my take is a mixed bag. Yes, some of it could be viewed as encouraging, especially considering that one could affirm the 9 points but still reject “two kingdoms” theology, at least as that theology has been presented in its radical forms. Also, it is encouraging in that I thought the questioners’ objections were nearly identical to objections I and others have been raising for years now, so at a minimum, it confirmed that the objections are not based on misreading or misunderstanding (Horton’s opening statement notwithstanding). I appreciated that Horton acknowledged that perhaps the “two kingdoms” folks have the burden to refine their terms,eg. “redemptive”.
The most disappointing part was that this esteeemed panel seemed completly ignorant of Horton’s own writings on the topic, and hence, the questioning was based on their reading of Van Drunen’s writings. They should have been prepared to question Horton on Horton. That left Horton having to answer for Van Drunen, which they even admitted was a little odd. Nonetheless, the discussion was a not a total loss since there probably is little daylight between the two. I may have missed it, but I thought Horton evaded key questions concerning the sufficiency of natural law as norming the so-called common kingdom. Correct me if I missed the answer.
Overall, due to my experience in dealing with shifting meaning of terms, I remain skeptical that this represented any genuine movement toward re-approachment. Nonetheless, if the 9 points “hold”, then this is a positive sign. Also, your comment on the complexity of this (not 1, or 2, or third way) has me tentatively thinking of another way to approach understanding: that the two kingdoms take a more realistic and modest view of their emphases as representing a small subset of a broader theological idea of Christ’s mediatoral kingship–provided the contours of that broader idea could be agreed upon. Just some food for thought.
Mark, wow! You write in more than bumper sticker formats.
Mark, I think that’s a fair analysis. Did you listen to the Q&A period? The very last question asked was by me, and it pertained directly to the point you raise on natural law. I tried to distinguish between natural law as a standard (i.e., the moral law written on the heart and ingrained in creation), which is adequate for all of life, and the epistemology of natural law, which is seriously hampered. I wasn’t entirely satisfied with the answers given, but I think that key distinction would help bring clarity here. I do think Horton said, if I recall correctly, that we need Scripture to shape our understanding of natural law, so I think his stance on that is in line with the distinction I just drew.
I’m curious, did you ever get a chance to read my articles in Reformation 21? I’ll be writing one more, pointing the direction I think Scripture takes us, but I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. I do think the two kingdoms needs to be thought of as just one part of a broader political theological vision that includes fundamental concepts often associated with neo-Calvinism, such as the Lordship of Christ over all of life, common grace, the antithesis, sphere sovereignty, etc… I’ll say more about this in a forthcoming review on the new book Kingdoms Apart, which I generally thought was helpful.
Quick reply: yes, I did read your Ref. 21 pieces. I intend to incorporate some comments on those when I pick up our discussion again on the 27 “DVD” points. Also, are you putting your review of Kingdoms Apart here on this blog? I just finished reading that book and would like to see your take on it.
And yes, I did listent to the Q&Asection with Horton. Will need to listen to it again to see if he really answered your question.
I listened to the Horton confab at Covenant (on the college’s ITunes site). I actually think we have a lot more fruitful back-and-forth online. Imagine going into a setting where most everyone else disagrees with you on a topic and many people aren’t that informed about what it is exactly that you believe. You are dealing with people face-to-face and there are a lot of people watching. You just aren’t going to get as in-depth as you can in an online setting where you are doing a lot of writing. I think Hart, and maybe even little old me, would have taken some of those Covenant folks to the woodshed (or at least challenged them) in ways Horton did not given an online setting. What does one do with the notion that because God said he would bless all people through Abraham “it is the church’s responsibility to be a blessing to the world around us.” Um, I don’t think that is precisely what is being communicated in Genesis. There are a few facts about Christ and his work in between that premise and conclusion. We don’t jump directly from God’s promise to Abraham to the social gospel. The whole thing was kind of frustrating — an ambush of Horton almost.
One very interesting point, though. Critics at Covenant were mostly concerned about 2k leading to the church neglecting “the poor”. No one at all really argued for being culture warriors, in fact everyone seemed to agree they were generally against it — which is pretty much all that the 2k opponents online seem to be concerned about. Keep in mind this is an academic crowd, though, with the usual baggage that goes with that demographic.
You really get nowhere letting an academic make some longwinded statement without asking pointed, practical follow up questions. That is the point that everyone realizes they are mostly full of hot air.
Further Thoughts on Michael Horton’s Mugging Atop Lookout Mountain
I’ve allowed my brain to marinate overnight in the ITunes podcast of Michael Horton’s recent panel discussion on Two Kingdoms Theology with faculty and students at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. Something didn’t sit right with me about the get together, and as I continue to reflect on just what that is I will make a few comments.
What is Covenant College? Their website says “We are a community committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, and everything we do is grounded in our Reformed theology and worldview.”
The site goes on:
“The mission of Covenant College is to explore and express the preeminence of Jesus Christ in all things. We educate Christians to engage culture and cultures, to examine and unfold creation, and to pursue biblical justice and mercy in community. With the student-faculty relationship and strong teaching and scholarship at the foundation, our Christ-centered community seeks to help students mature in three primary areas: (1) Identity in Christ (2) Biblical frame of reference (3) Service that is Christ-like. We offer the world biblically grounded men and women equipped to live out extraordinary callings in ordinary places.”
O.K. That’s a lot of stuff. Let’s unpack it.
First off, as I noted in another post, “Critics at Covenant were mostly concerned about 2k leading to the church neglecting ‘the poor’. No one at all really argued for being culture warriors, in fact everyone seemed to agree they were generally against it — which is pretty much all that the 2k opponents online seem to be concerned about.”
So on one hand we have college faculty and students affiliated with a Presbyterian Church in America school criticizing 2k because they think it is going to hold them back in their mission on earth to help the poor. Call it a vision of the church as a hospital for the sick in the world.
On the other hand we have Neocalvinists & aggressive postmillennialists online, most of whom are interested in the issues that are normally associated with the “culture war” — homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion. Call it a vision of the church as a policeman for the law-breakers of the world.
Both of these groups claim be be rooted in Reformed theology and criticize 2k for trying to limit what the church is meant to be — a refuge for the world’s downtrodden in one case, a transformer or preserver of culture in the other case (I would kind of like to see a panel discussion between these two factions. Maybe Nelson Kloosterman or Doug Wilson can head up Lookout Mountain).
What do both of these groups miss?
Heidelberg Catechism 114 is given at the end of the exposition of the Ten Commandments:
Question: “Can those who are converted to God keep these Commandments perfectly?”
Answer: “No, but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of such obedience, yet so that with earnest purpose they begin to live not only according to some, but according to all the Commandments of God.”
Both of these groups miss the point, how can I put this nicely, that they are just plain not as good of people as they view themselves to be. The church is not a hospital for the sick in the world. The church is not a policeman for the law-breakers of the world. The church is a hospital for the sick and the law-breakers in the church. This is a profound difference.
One of the more influential things I have encountered as a Christian is my pastor preaching through the first five books of the Old Testament. He didn’t go straight through every chapter, but he went through all of Genesis and select parts of the other four books. The number one impression these months of preaching left we with is the notion that God’s covenant people really aren’t any better than those he does not make a gracious covenant with. The only difference is that God is graciously working in their midst. They remain stained with sin throughout their lives and God will often have to work in spite of them, a notion that we see constantly in the lives of the Patriarchs.
Why does 2k stress the humble means of grace — preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, prayer, church discipline — as what the church is primarily about? Because Christians need these things all their lives long. We are not good people who have arrived and are ready to be let loose on the world. We are sick and sinful people in need of constant reminding of who we are and who our God is.
Will there be no good works that have an impact on those outside the church? No, the Heidelberg tells us there will be a small beginning. Let’s just be humble about what that means.
Pingback: Avoiding the possible disingenuousness of as if « Cosmic Eye
Pingback: The Two Kingdoms at Covenant College: toning down the rhetoric
Pingback: 2K-Kuyperian Rapprochement at Covenant College | Heidelblog
Pingback: 121101–George Hach’s Inner Disciplines Journal–Thursday |
Pingback: D.G. Hart “Not So Fast” (An Excellent 2K Primer) « Literate Comments
Pingback: Not So Fast – via Old Life Blog | Pilgrimage to Geneva