Neo-Calvinism and Distinctive Christian Living: A Response to Darryl Hart’s Quibble
Last week at Old Life Darryl Hart graciously ventured his agreement with my basic statement of the two kingdoms doctrine at Reformation 21, though with a qualification. He writes,
My lone quibble with Matt is the sign of lingering neo-Calvinism (which I attribute to his Covenant College education, in part, and which he denies). For instance, he still believes that Christians will look or be different and noticeable when they apply the Bible to their daily lives …
But I also know and I am sure Matt knows, plenty of non-Christians who believe government officials should serve the public, that businessmen should not ruthlessly pursue profits, that husbands should be considerate and loving toward their wives, and that those with resources will share them with those in need. In other words, I see nothing inherently distinctive or biblical in the Christian pursuit of these social and cultural goods. Do different motives exist for Christian businessmen compared to their unbelieving peers? Sure. Can I see those motives? No. And that is the point. The best stuff that Christians produce in public or cultural life is hardly distinct from non-Christian products. Where you do literally see Christianity at work is on Sunday.
Darryl describes my project as an “effort to find a middle way between 2k and neo-Calvinism. This is not how I perceive my own work. Although I do not view myself as a neo-Calvinist any more than I view myself as a representative of some sort of “two kingdoms movement” (I don’t find such flag-waving helpful), I, like David VanDrunen, wholeheartedly affirm neo-Calvinism’s teaching concerning the sovereignty of God over all of life, along with its emphasis on the cultural mandate, the antithesis, sphere sovereignty, and common grace (you will recall that in Natural Law and Two Kingdoms VanDrunen, with qualifications, claims Kuyper and Bavinck for the two kingdoms tradition, distinguishing it from neo-Calvinism’s subsequent evolution). Rightly understood, as David VanDrunen argues in his Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, every one of these principles is fundamentally compatible with, and to a significant extent even presupposes, a two kingdoms perspective.
To be sure, a prominent strand of neo-Calvinism has evolved in a highly problematic, radical direction, in part due to its abandonment of biblical two kingdoms distinctions, and it therefore easily devolves into the worst forms of the social gospel and liberation theology. In between Kuyper, Bavinck, and this radical form of neo-Calvinism there are a plethora of variants and distinctions among self-conscious and unconscious neo-Calvinists, all of which suggest that we should not dismiss the movement as if it is some sort of monolithic beast.
But let me get to the precise quibble about which Darryl is concerned. Yes, I believe that Christians should look different from the world when they work out Christ’s lordship in their daily lives. At the same time, yes, I believe that the same moral law that binds Christians is written on the hearts of nonbelievers as natural law. As Calvin clarified time and again, outwardly nonbelievers often keep the moral law just as well as, if not better, than those who profess the Christian faith. (Once we get into the realm of the “products” of “public and cultural life,” by which I assume Darryl means things like civil laws, party platforms, scientific discoveries, works of art, or manufactured products like homes, clothing, or tools, there is no question that for the most part, the best that Christians do is hardly different from the best work of nonbelievers. But let me focus on the moral question in this essay.)
There are various reasons for this. On the one hand, many who profess the Christian faith are insincere or hypocritical. None attain to the moral standards that they themselves profess. On the other hand, many nonbelievers readily perceive the advantages of maintaining the natural moral order, whether as a result of their own religious convictions or of the influence of the very Christianity which they reject. But as C. S. Lewis points out in Mere Christianity, the relevant question is not whether every Christian is morally superior to every non-Christian. The relevant question is whether a Christian is more sanctified than he or she would be apart from the work of Christ. That’s why when professing Christians act like the worst unbelievers, the church excommunicates them.
But of course, that sanctification may be outwardly imperceptible in some cases, as Darryl rightly insists. This is particularly true when Christians are compared to those nonbelievers or practitioners of other religions who outwardly live moral lives worthy of the highest human praise, for whatever reason. In fact, there are myriad instances in which even the most sanctified Christians have much to learn – even morally - from individuals who deny the Christian faith. We need humility. Here again Darryl and I are agreed.
But Darryl overemphasizes the degree to which either Christians or nonbelievers actually live according to the best moral standards. I would suggest that the main reason why Christians often look no better morally than the world is that Christians are plagued by so much vice rather than that nonbelievers are marked by so much virtue. If Christians actually followed the teaching of Christ they would look profoundly different from the world, just as would nonbelievers if they actually obeyed the natural law. I understand Darryl’s desire to reject the “They will know we are Christians by our t-shirts” variety of Christianity, but that does not mean our Lord was wrong when he told us that they will know we are his disciples by our love for one another.
The fact remains that even in the works that Christians do that look just like the best works of the most morally admirable nonbelievers, the context for the former distinguishes them from the latter. The Apostle Peter gets at this when he calls Christians to act in ways that the world will respect and admire (which would be impossible if the world did not share the same moral awareness to some extent), but then insists that they always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in them. Taken as isolated, individual actions, therefore, what Christians do often looks identical to what is done by nonbelievers, but viewed in the context of a life of Christian witness (expressed most directly in worship, as Darryl emphasizes, but also present in the readiness of Christians to testify to the gospel), the same actions look different. As Ryan McIlhenny helpfully explains in Kingdoms Apart,
The good works done by Christians, although common in the abstract, nonetheless can effectively win over people to the kingdom, as Lord’s Day #32 … of the Heidelberg Catechism tells us (265)
…
In the particulars, Christian activity is similar to that of unbelievers and therefore part of the common, secular realm, but the picture changes when the pieces form a whole (269).
Christianity makes a difference in the life of anyone who is regenerate. When Christians rightly apply the Bible to their lives, following Christ, their actions will look different than they would have if they had not become Christians, a reality the New Testament explicitly associates with the calling of Christian witness. Does Darryl really disagree with this, understood rightly (rather than facilely)? I doubt it.
Posted on December 14, 2012, in Abraham Kuyper, Calvin, Christian Life, Neo-Calvinism, Two Kingdoms, Uncategorized and tagged C.S. Lewis, Covenant College, Darryl Hart, Heidelberg Catechism, Ryan McIlhenny. Bookmark the permalink. 59 Comments.
Actually Matt, while DVD finds neo-calvinism adherents much more problematic than Kuyper himself, he identifies an inherent tension within Kuyper and the system itself that makes the enterprise susceptible and likely to deviate in many of the ways it eventually did. He also sees this same tension and certainly rhetorical proof in Kuyper’s political speech and philosophies being played out in Kuyper’s own life, and because of the organic/institutional distinction of the church, finds in Kuyper, largely, an eclipsing of the institutional by the organic. It’s Kuyper’s development/coining of ‘common grace’ that DVD credits with being of great assistance in 2k understanding and lauds. I think it’s misleading to say that, even with qualifications, DVD drafts Kuyper to the 2k side including affirmation of the cultural mandate and antithesis. NL2K deals specifically with the ‘problems’ inherent in both those developments and DVD ends up aligning himself much more closely with Kline’s developments and BT.
This is one area in which the Anabaptists came in conflict with other reformers. The Anabaptists believed that following Christ would and should make a difference in how one lived. The case of Dirk Willems rescuing his pursuer on the ice is a case in point. It is why excommunication (the ban) was important in the Anabaptist churches.
Interesting post, Matt.
What about when we compare ourselves to Mormons? 9 times out of 10 they will beat us at the family values game. They also avoid caffeine & alcohol while we’re swilling coffee & Guinness. I think we affirm the doctrine of sanctification but we need to keep the focus on the doctrine of justification. It is our faith in Christ & His imputed righteousness that separates us from the world (and those nice Mormons).
Reblogged this on Literate Comments and commented:
What about when we compare ourselves to Mormons? 9 times out of 10 they will beat us at the family values game. They also avoid caffeine & alcohol while we’re swilling coffee & Guinness. I think we affirm the doctrine of sanctification but we need to keep the focus on the doctrine of justification. It is our faith in Christ & His imputed righteousness that separates us from the world (and those nice Mormons).
Sean, you are right, and I understand your point (hence my “with qualifications …”). At the same time, VanDrunen affirms all the key points of neo-Calvinism I identified in this essay, and while he sees the tension you describe in Kuyper, that tension does not amount to an abandonment of the basic two kingdoms perspective. It is impossible to comprehend VanDrunen’s project without viewing it as a continuation of the neo-Calvinist tradition, though in light of corrections from early Reformed political theology. But it is misleading to characterize the debate as two kingdoms vs neo-Calvinism.
Matt,
To the extent we want to describe the neo-cal effort as the conception of common grace I can go with you and agree that DVD strongly hinges 2k to it. But if we’re going to qualify out the organic church and the subsequent triumphal leavening that Kuyper proposes for the organic on all the other spheres, (much less Van til’s antithesis that renders common grace-imago dei ‘wafer thin’), including the institutional church, such that the spheres are not sovereign unto their own right, that’s a pretty far cry from the cult/culture distinction Kline develops and DVD, at least in my reading, most closely aligns himself. Thanks for the response
Erik nailed it in his comments–DVD made the point in his book, and Luther talked about it constantly in his works on vocation (see Gustav Wingren’s book, “Luther on Vocation”), that the difference between the works of Christians and non-Christians is that our works are done “in faith.” Period. We run into real problems when we look for outward differences in the way we conduct ourselves–the non-Christian is expected to adhere to certain (natural law) standards as well.
Erik, I don’t understand your post. Why isn’t swilling coffee and Guinness more sanctified than not?
Brian – My point is, if we want to talk about how being a Christian makes us “look different” (i.e. look morally superior) to the world, you can’t always judge a book by its cover. I debate a lot with a revivalist/Edwardsian on Hart’s site. This guy doesn’t watch movies, read fiction, or drink any alcohol because he thinks they are a waste of time. I watch movies, read fiction, listen to rock music and drink an occasional beer. He looks at these things and draws the conclusion that there may be doubt as to whether “King Jesus is living in my heart”. I would point to my confession of faith, he would point to how I “look”. Now I affirm sanctification and I affirm church discipline for serious sins, but this “looks different” thing can easily get out of hand.
Matt, would you care to explain this further? I mean no offense but whenever ‘context’ is adduced in an argument it raises my clarity hackles:
“The fact remains that even in the works that Christians do that look just like the best works of the most morally admirable nonbelievers, the context for the former distinguishes them from the latter.”
McIlhenney does not, to my mind (and I know you don’t answer for him) bring any more clarity when he says “the picture changes when the pieces form a whole.” So what is not observable about any particular action done by a Christian is observable when we put all those actions together? How does this follow?
Matt,
You come close, but you don’t quite nail the distinctiveness of Christian good works in a fallen world; you state it, but it needs more emphasis. I have come increasingly to believe that it is precisely the love within the body of Christ that is utterly distinctive in the world, and that John 13 is really the key to consistent New Testament ethic of prioritizing love within the body. It is the love for one another — not our love for the world — that the world sees as radically different, and as a witness to a coming kingdom of grace.
For it is here (as VanDrunen points out) that the ethic of the heavenly kingdom actually begins to work itself out by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The nexus is the Lord’s Day, and worship (for we love because he first loved us, and we receive that gracious love by Word and Sacrament), but within the body it works itself outward 24/7 through diaconal word and deed ministry (focused almost entirely in the NT on the church), lack of sword-wielding (no lawsuits with brothers), and mutual submission in love (try applying this universally with Manson, Stalin, or Bin Laden).
The failure of the radical neo-Calvinist is their failure to realize that this Christian law of love is entirely denatured when one attempts to apply it as a universal ethic in a fallen world. That is the end of the antithesis, and the end of Gospel ministry.
John 13:35: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for ONE ANOTHER.”
P.S. And in my humble experience, loving one another in the church is plenty hard enough. How ’bout we nail this as Christians before we try to love the world into the kingdom? Might help with the hypocrisy thing.
Thank you for this, Rev. Lee; this is a good thought on which to meditate.
Thanks Brian.
Hi David, thanks for your question. The appropriate context for any action is often the key difference as to the morality or significance of that action. For instance, Jesus, just like the two thieves, was brutally executed on a Roman cross. For the average, unknowledgeable, observer, his death was no different from that of any other person. It was objectively very similar. To someone who knew who Jesus was, knew his teachings, his death was vastly difference. To those who listened to what Jesus said about what he was doing, there was all the difference in the world.
Let’s get more mundane. If I see a person killing another person without context, I do not know if that action is moral or immoral. I can assume it to be immoral, but then I might find out that the ‘killer’ was actually a civil magistrate, executing justice or protecting those under his care. The same act means entirely different things depending on the context. Or to put it another way, part of the definition of the action being performed is the various elements of the context in which it is performed.
To take an example more relevant to the issue at hand, a Christian or a pagan might each give some of their wealth to provide for the needs of the poor. Objectively, one act is no different from another. But in the context of the Christian’s life, who openly professes his loyalty to Christ’s kingdom, and his service to Christ in all that he does, the two actions take on a significant moral difference. One points observers to the gospel, the other to any number of ultimately selfish or sinful motivations.
Thanks, Matt. Points taken. But as I read your counter-examples, it seems that context is synonymous with motive. This of course is crucial, but isn’t it what has already been granted by DGH and others? The one distinguishable element is the motive, unable to be perceived. At the very end of what you have above, you write “One points observers to the gospel, the other to any number…” This isn’t so unless the motive can be known. Who knew that Christ was suffering for the sins of the elect until by the Spirit the Scriptures explained to us his motives and their consequences? What am I missing?
Thanks Brian, you make a good point. But I wonder if you are overdoing the emphasis. What of Peter’s exhortation in 1 Peter 3? The whole emphasis is on the way believers respond to mistreatment from the world, and part of the significance stated is that the way in which believers conform to the example of Jesus in their suffering (at the hands of those outside the church, of course) provokes unbelievers to ask questions. When Christians explain the meaning of their actions, they proclaim the gospel, winning over unbelievers by their gentleness and respect. Likewise, Peter tells wives that they can win over their unbelieving husbands to the faith based on how they treat them – when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Again, in chapter 2, he calls believers to be subject to unbelieving magistrates, for “by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.” I’m sure we could find more examples …
David, three quick points. First, it doesn’t just all come down to motive. It’s not just the motive of the magistrate that makes his act of killing different from someone else (in fact, his motive may be worse). Second, the meaning of Christian lives, including their motives, are to be public, not secret. That doesn’t mean we’re constantly pestering people evangelistically, but it does mean that we are always ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us. Third, I agree that Darryl out to agree with my basic point, as my last paragraph indicates.
Matt,
Thanks for all your responses. I still struggle tying the 2k emphasis of a pilgrim people and distinct cult with the inherent triumphalism of neo-calvinism. The whole leavening effect of the organic church upon the common grace world such that it raises the culture UP to it’s higher ‘potentialities’ not only smacks of thomism but seems to mitigate against such ethos as ‘mind your own business’ work with your hands, live quietly, pray for the peace of the city to which you’ve been placed, submit to rightful authorities. It seems our ‘fragrance of attraction’ isn’t one of infiltrating and uplifting common culture but centers instead upon the uniquely cultic activities and separateness-sabbath, privileged community, even sectarian ethic-love for one another.
Matt, It seems to me that the thrust of your argument here essentially boils down to that of basic motives. The unbeliever always performs “good works” of social justice etc. out of selfish motives, and believers (ought to) construct their good works on the foundation of the indicatives of the Person and Work of Christ. In other words, one is acting out of selfish motives and one is not. I get that. But doesn’t natural law teach humility, self-abasement, and love for one’s neighbor? Cannot an unbeliever act outwardly out of a motive of selflessness (for example, a soldier throwing himself on a grenade in order to save the lives of his team) which truly is an act of selflessness on the one hand, but ultimately a selfish desire to attain honor and glory? Basically, I think I agree with Hart on this one, that often times, the “best” works of the unregenerate are outwardly indistinguishable from those of believers. The “context” you speak of is not outwardly discernible… Thoughts?
Keith, I would fully agree with what you say here, I think. If we are comparing the best works of believers and the best works of unbelievers the difference will very often simply come down to motives and understood meaning. How discernible the context or meaning is will vary according to circumstances.
I think Hart agrees with this too, which is why I ended my article by saying I don’t think Hart really disagrees with me. He’s the one that raised the quibble, not me.
Do you think that motives speak to substance more than just context? I think you might have been describing something like this, but a fundamental difference between good works of a believer versus those of an unbeliever is that one is pleasing to God because it is done in recognition of and gratitude to Him. That is, whether you reject the idea of this being distinctive or not, there is a very real difference in that one act is pleasing while the other is not, and it may be too easy to make the act somehow neutral.
Neokuyperians talk a lot about the “structure” and “direction” of different things, that is, there is a fundamental Creational order (or natural law) for things along with an orientation which either glorifies God or tends the other way. It speaks to something more than just motive when applied to human action. That is, it’s not just about appealing to natural law in determining how to engage in politics, but also about looking to whether the policy tends to magnify or diminish/obscure the glory of God. That may be a step too far for some, but I find it to be a helpful framework for considering an answer to those who charge that this nonsense about a Christian perspective on things is hogwash at best and a denial of the gospel at worst.
“Darryl describes my project as an “effort to find a middle way between 2k and neo-Calvinism. This is not how I perceive my own work. Although I do not view myself as a neo-Calvinist any more than I view myself as a representative of some sort of “two kingdoms movement”
MT, I’ve been reading you to figure out how to put you in a box, but you don’t seem to like being in a box. I get that. But, concerning the above, do you believe you have synthesized the two positions, that such labels are not helpful, or what? Clearly there are significant differences between, for example, Drs. Hart and Kloosterman; if you aren’t a middle way between the two one wonders if you think the whole debate is somehow on the wrong footing.
Brian – My point is, if we want to talk about how being a Christian makes us “look different” (i.e. look morally superior) to the world, you can’t always judge a book by its cover. I debate a lot with a revivalist/Edwardsian on Hart’s site. This guy doesn’t watch movies, read fiction, or drink any alcohol because he thinks they are a waste of time. I watch movies, read fiction, listen to rock music and drink an occasional beer. He looks at these things and draws the conclusion that there may be doubt as to whether “King Jesus is living in my heart”. I would point to my confession of faith, he would point to how I “look”. Now I affirm sanctification and I affirm church discipline for serious sins, but this “looks different” thing can easily get out of hand.
Matt,
I don’t disagree with this post, though I do believe that talking about the sanctity of believers comes across as self-righteous. You have to do this to explain your point. But I for one don’t like stressing the virtuous qualities of Christians. Let’s let others do it.
But the point of my quibble was not about morality. It was about culture. And you made a point that the Bible had things to say about government, economics, and cultural life. And then you concluded: “About all of these cultural affairs, in which believers engage in common with unbelievers, Scripture has much to say.” Hence, in cultural matters Christians will look different from unbelievers.
I still disagree with this. I don’t think the Bible has much to say about cultural life. It did in the OT but all of that Jewish stuff is so yesterday (thank goodness, I don’t think my stomach could take sacrificing animals). Plus, it seems to me that when Christians make culture they end up making things informed as much by non-biblical teaching as by Scripture itself. Though because evangelicals and Neo-Cals are uncomfortable with truths not found in the Bible, they try to justify Hegelian epistemology or new historicist hermeneutics or GOP public policy on scriptural grounds.
The issue in my mind is the sufficiency of Scripture. I do not deny that the Bible has much to say about a Christian’s obedience. I don’t think it has much to say (short of granting liberty through silence) on Dr. K’s odd notion of “cultural obedience.”
Thanks Darryl, that helps. As I wrote in the post: “Once we get into the realm of the “products” of “public and cultural life,” by which I assume Darryl means things like civil laws, party platforms, scientific discoveries, works of art, or manufactured products like homes, clothing, or tools, there is no question that for the most part, the best that Christians do is hardly different from the best work of nonbelievers.”
So I think in practice we might agree here. After all, I think the Bible has plenty to say about things that we share in common with unbelievers. I also think the Bible can have much to say about various cultural activities (i.e., the household codes in Ephesians 5-6), even while natural revelation has much more to say about the same things does Scripture. (On the other hand, it is by no means clear to me that all neo-Calvinists have the difficulty with natural revelation that you describe; what about the ICS and associated folks?)
One other thing. I wonder if you could clarify your operating definition for the word culture. If you’ve read McIlhenny’s recent book, how does your definition relate to his?
Rather than ” Dr. K’s odd notion of ‘cultural obedience.’” why not just speak in terms of Law & Gospel? I don’t know what is missing from our Reformed Confessions and the notions of Law & Gospel that Neocalvinists think they need to supplement. It’s as if we already have a really healthy diet and they want to come along and sell us some tonic that will give us “complete, comprehensive nutrition”. No, we have enough already.
You get the feeling that Neocalvinists look at P&R ministers who are focused on Word & Sacrament, prayer, catechizing youth, visiting the sick, etc, and then look at the state of the culture and conclude that this type of ministry must not be “getting the job done”. The problem is, maybe the church isn’t supposed to be about getting the job of transforming culture done in the first place. You see this same thinking at play with aggressive postmillennialists, theonomists, social gospel evangelicals, culture warrior evangelicals, and hip urban pastors like Tim Keller & Marc Driscoll. They all share the traits of impatience and failure to recognize that the job of the church is perhaps not to transform anything but to humbly, quietly bear witness and to prepare people to die.
Erik,
Perhaps your suspicion rings true for some, but I don’t see that at all. I’m sure I could be categorized as at least loosely Neocalvinist, at least in that I think this whole Christian education thing is pretty darn important.
For me, all this talk of distinctiveness and Christian perspective has a lot more to do with individual Christians than the institutional church. As a believer, Christ has had a deeply transformative effect on my life (although perhaps this is a false illusion?), and my focus isn’t on how the church can speak to things like being a lawyer or working with the criminal justice system, it’s on how this transformation and orientation within me can be worked out in my vocation. It’s not that the not-yet kingdom is here, but rather that I am already a member of that kingdom and should live as one. Particularly as someone who teaches, I would be robbing my students of something precious if I didn’t push them to explore how their faith and their commitments drive their ethics, particularly if I said, “believing in Jesus is irrelevant to your life outside of church, let’s look to how the world gets this done, they do it about as well as we could hope to.”
My curiosity here is more about whether we’re just speaking past each other, or if there is a feeling that Neocalvinists are doing something wrong when they try to think of living Christianly in any context but Sunday.
The way I’m suspecting we’re talking past one another is this: Neocalvinists (and I speak only of the moderate variety here) speak a lot about things like Christian perspective, a distinctive worldview, and the like, and 2k advocates immediately seem to respond with how this isn’t something to preach from the pulpit or that it goes hand in hand with us believing there is some deficiency in the church’s ministry or that we’re just fooling ourselves. But I think we’re sort of agreeing on most of this: the Sunday pulpit isn’t the place to debate how exactly one lives a thankful life as a banker, but that doesn’t mean that that’s an illegitimate thing to think on for someone who works Monday-Friday as a banker. It’s also not a purely personal determination, and I think it’s not only healthy, but fitting and useful to have that sort of conversation openly among Christians. Add that all together and we have a whole community which speaks openly about the impact that their faith and gratitude has on their daily lives, perhaps something that someone might vulgarly refer to as a Christian culture.
Does that make any sense?
The only remaining debate then is the charge that this culture is not distinctive and that we’re fooling ourselves if we think the Bible gives a rip how we go about being plumbers. But it’s kind of hard to lay that charge at the feet of someone, then in an elder visit ask them if they’re reading Scripture on a daily basis. Why should I daily read something that has nothing to do with my life on any day but Sunday? Particularly if I keep coming under the false impression that this book is speaking to my daily life in ways that you’re also telling me it clearly doesn’t. Essentially, I think one of the reasons 2k advocates often provoke strong reactions from Neocalvinists is that you’re insisting to people that sense a transformative effect that they’re full of it.
Donald, between you, me, Erik and the number, I believe that’s four commenters from Iowa. We also have a considerable Dordt presence in our church in Des Moines.
But I’m interested in what a moderate neo-Cal is. Is that a temperament or is that differing principles than the immoderate neo-Cal?
My question in my comment above wasn’t answered, though, so if you ignore me, too, I’ll just go away and quietly sulk about it.
I’m not sure that there’s any sort of rigid designation for moderate neo-calvinists (or neo-kuyperians, terms which I’m using largely interchangeably, and I’m sure that’s an error somehow).
Defining it only as I mean it, I mean the folks who are strongly committed to things like the importance of Christian education, affirming the sense in ideas like sphere sovereignty, common grace, and worldviews, but finding talk of redeeming the whole of creation or Christians acting as “agents of redemption” to be troubling.
I am not bothered by the idea that the transformation of culture might be an aspirational goal of Christians (notice, not the church, but the people in it). I think we have to be pretty realistic in that the success we will see in this world will be slight at best, but I still bristle a little at the idea that this suddenly makes seeking a perfectly just system somehow foolhardy, or worse, wrong or sinful. I have heard 2k advocates speak of Jeremiah 29:7, saying that we should pray for the cities that we’re in, but this is about all Christians are told to do (mostly because it’s something the church can do). However, if we pray for the best but don’t go out and seek it, we can start to sound like we’re just saying “Go in peace” in the way which is roundly condemned by James 2.
Donald, your wrote: “Why should I daily read something that has nothing to do with my life on any day but Sunday? Particularly if I keep coming under the false impression that this book is speaking to my daily life in ways that you’re also telling me it clearly doesn’t. Essentially, I think one of the reasons 2k advocates often provoke strong reactions from Neocalvinists is that you’re insisting to people that sense a transformative effect that they’re full of it.”
One of the reasons I read the Bible everyday is that it is a means of grace (not part of a vocational manual). The Bible clearly teaches that we should read and meditate on Scripture. It doesn’t say we do it to do our jobs better. The Bible also says that we battle the world, the flesh and the devil. Since that conflict happens daily, perhaps reading the Bible on weekdays is a good idea.
But your point against 2k can just as easily boomerang on neo-Cals. If you tell the plumber that the Bible speaks to all of life and the plumber keeps looking and doesn’t find plumbing addressed in the Bible, is the plumber going to believe you anymore? It happened to me. I used to think the Bible speaks to all of life. Then I considered what it has to say about historical scholarship. Not much. Then neo-Calvinist claims began to tumble.
Dg,
I’m not advocating using the Bible as a vocational manual. Why do you insist on that being the case?
I’m saying that as someone transformed by Christ (assuming you’re on board that that’s possible), I now live a life of gratitude. I don’t just live this life of gratitude by writing a check on Sunday, but, as you rightly say, in battling the flesh on a day to day basis. Part of this transformation is that I am now a citizen of the “not yet” kingdom no longer bound by the law of the flesh, but free in the thankful liberty of the redeemed; however, I still have a fleshly nature which is all too willing to swallow me up in my sin.
Therefore, one thing I wrestle with on a day to day basis is how exactly I’m going to go about living this life of thankfulness. This means I regularly consider how my Christian perspective comes to bear on the things I’m called to on a day to day basis. I ask profane questions like “How can I be a Christian father? How can I be a husband to the glory of God? How can I be a thankful teacher?” etc.
The starting point is not that the Bible is a vocational textbook. The starting point is that I have been made new, wholly new, in Christ, and in fact my whole life is now wrapped up in Him. It’s natural to be in awe of this radical transformation and also look to how this new awareness transforms the way I go about my daily life. So this whole enterprise is not about divining Jesus’ 6 tips for filing an affidavit, it’s about me wrestling with how to be a Christian lawyer, then speaking with others who are doing the same thing, seeking their wise counsel, and perhaps if we’re all speaking about the same things, you start to hear talk of “being a Christian lawyer.”
Notice, at no point have I yet talked about conducting a study of Scripture to divine this answer. Instead, my experience has been to try to always be reading the Word, and, in its gracious provision, I find that what I’m reading speaks remarkably to my circumstance (unless perhaps insight is something grace doesn’t give).
So this awful Neocalvinist method that I’m advocating is more that we hold certain issues in our mind, mulling them over, and as a separate endeavor, we read the Word for its own message, but the fact that we are still thinking of this other issue means that we will sometimes see connections that would otherwise have passed us by.
As a final point, you mentioned that the Bible has virtually nothing to say about historical scholarship, but I would strongly disagree with you. There is a lot to be learned in how Scripture uses history, be it God using what he had done for Israel as a prelude to “you shall have no other god before me,” to the way David uses covenant history as an assurance that God is a faithful deliverer in Psalm 22, to the sheer fact that God’s covenant history in the Old and New Testament is unflinching with regard to the imperfections of heroes of the faith like David, Moses, and Noah. The whole bedrock of the faith is the historical claim that we believe in a risen Savior. What are you looking for then when you say that Scripture is virtually silent on historical study?
Donald, with it being so close to Christmas, my heart has recently grown two sizes, so I’ll just thank you for your explanation and even throw in a little bonus. That is, I have a fellow elder is a Dordt moderate Kuyperian, and we seldom disagree on matters related to governance of the church. Of the times we have disagreed, I don’t remember the source of the disagreement being traceable to a 2k/Kuyperian divergence. It helps that the pulpit has been filled by a SOTC pastor.
When my heart shrinks back to its normal size maybe we can explore our differences.
Matt, culture is a very tricky word. I don’t even find a definition of it in Kingdoms Apart. Here is one dictionary’s opinion:
1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
4. development or improvement of the mind by education or training.
5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
The closest that we get to a Christian culture in there is perhaps a church culture — my congregation now has different ways of doing things than our old congregation. But for Christians to claim anything distinct in this list of definitions is beyond me. I keep bringing up the example of language. It is basic to culture. It is what immigrant groups (like the Dutch) hold on to longest in trying to maintain old world culture.
And yet, Christians don’t come close to having their own language (the Israelites maybe, Christians no). What would it mean to redeem or transform language? Christians don’t have their own rules of grammar, and very few of their own usages.
But Kuyper does talk about a Calvinist civilization that can rival those of Rome, Muslim and other ancient cultures. To my mind, that is a conceit of neo-Calvinism, the thought of a Christian culture. It applies the antithesis where it does not belong, at least in this age.
Too often Christian Culture is to Culture what Stryper is to Led Zeppelin.
Wooden shoes haven’t proven to be that useful in the new world and we have machines to wash the streets.
From the grey Psalter Hymnal of the CRC–Prayer concluding Public Profession of Faith–Form #1–”We thank you that you from the first cast the lot of these your servants in the Christian church and granted them all the many blessings of Christian culture.”
28hidingbehinddigits, that’s the same hymnal that includes songs for Lent. Are you also a proponent of the liturgical calendar?
Mikelmann, I haven’t been ignoring your question, only thinking about it. For more of my thoughts on it, see the post that just went up today. I haven’t followed the Kloosterman/Hart debate nearly enough to comment on it directly. What I can tell you is that I don’t like labels and that I do think that a lot of substantial agreement (as well as the precise points of disagreement) is being obscured by the rhetoric. In that sense I do think that much of the debate (though not all of it) is on the wrong footing. I do seek to make sure that I am synthesizing the genuinely biblical insights of each argument, staying as close to Scriptural language as possible in my own formulations. I am absolutely committed to a two kingdoms paradigm, however, as I think its substance arises directly from the pages of Scripture. I would say the same about concepts like the antithesis, common grace, the sovereignty of God, and the cultural mandate (viewed through the lens of all of Scripture, including the Noahic Covenant). Distinct from all of these, I affirm sphere sovereignty as a sociological concept consistent with Scripture rather than a theological one taught in Scripture.
Thanks, MT. I think the spheres are a useful tools for understanding the academic disciplines – that each one has a core concern, that there is overlap, and that we avoid “isms” by refusing to let one sphere overwhelm others. That’s what I have taken from Dooyeweerd.
I know some 2k’s are alarmed by the mention of his name, but adapting that basic philosophic scheme without bringing every jot and titlle forward is no abandonment of 2k. Ironically some Kuyperians will violate this scheme by theologizing all the spheres.
Donald, you wrote: “Therefore, one thing I wrestle with on a day to day basis is how exactly I’m going to go about living this life of thankfulness. This means I regularly consider how my Christian perspective comes to bear on the things I’m called to on a day to day basis. I ask profane questions like “How can I be a Christian father? How can I be a husband to the glory of God? How can I be a thankful teacher?” etc.”
Beware the introspection. If I am a parent of a child in your classroom, I don’t necessarily care how you’re bringing your Christian perspective to bear on how you’re doing as a teacher. I want someone who is a good teacher. In fact, an introspective teacher could be a bad one. So in the pursuit of being a good teacher, I don’t think you’re going to find help in the Bible (which was one of your original points).
Now you say you are not deriving this from the Bible (beware extra-canonical accounts of being a Christian): “Notice, at no point have I yet talked about conducting a study of Scripture to divine this answer. Instead, my experience has been to try to always be reading the Word, and, in its gracious provision, I find that what I’m reading speaks remarkably to my circumstance (unless perhaps insight is something grace doesn’t give).” But earlier you wrote: “The only remaining debate then is the charge that this culture is not distinctive and that we’re fooling ourselves if we think the Bible gives a rip how we go about being plumbers. But it’s kind of hard to lay that charge at the feet of someone, then in an elder visit ask them if they’re reading Scripture on a daily basis. Why should I daily read something that has nothing to do with my life on any day but Sunday?”
I thought only 2kers were allowed to speak in paradoxes. Neo-Cals don’t admit dualities.
Darryl,
I bring my Christian perspective to bear on my discipline, although yes, I do think about my role as a teacher as well, but that’s not what I’m talking about with students. As to my teaching itself, you’d have to talk to my students about how awful I am.
As to the more important second part:
There is no paradox there. The first statement (about how I read the Bible) is clearly about responsible hermeneutics. The second statement (about daily reading Scripture) is an answer to the idea that the Bible has nothing to say to us apart from Sunday. A harmonizing statement then: The Bible is the Word of God, and in reading it, we hear the Word. Now, as good listeners, our daily reading should be about attending to God’s message, not scouring some technical manual for user tips. However, in listening to God, we should not be surprised when He speaks to us.
Honestly, the paradox I’m seeing is in your perspective here. You say to beware extra-canonical accounts of being a Christian. This seems to suggest that the Bible is the only reliable instruction on how to be a Christian. Yet you also warn against introspection. This sets up the situation where I, who we’ll at least charitably identify as a Christian, should read the Word of God, but I should assume it’s never addressing me. That is, the Bible speaks to how to be a Christian, but unless my Christianity is a tiny, divisible part of who I am, the Bible actually has nothing to say to me. So do I infer from this that I’m not in fact a Christian, or is Christianity just about affirming the historical fact of the resurrection, then I can just go forth and do whatever I want?
Donald, all I am doing is affirming the insufficiency of Scripture — which is the notion that the Bible is sufficient for everything it reveals, but not for setting up a society, writing a poem, establishing a tax code. This isn’t that hard. You may caricature my view about the Bible only binding me on Sunday. But it’s clearly the case the Bible doesn’t mention plumbing. It does speak some about being a father. Where the Bible speaks, I obey.
And with this view goes precisely the idea that I can do whatever I want. Actually, I am bound by love but the basis for Christian liberty in the Reformed tradition is that we have freedom in those matters where the Bible is silent. The fuzzy and inspiring mantra that the Bible speaks to all of life means the Bible is never silent. And so I am ever bound.
Except that Christ’s whole point is that loving our neighbor is actually a whole lot harder than what the Pharisees had turned the second table of the law into. That is, we’re free in Christ, but free in Christ to exceed our pursue a greater thankful law-keeping than we could imagine when the law was a blade hanging over our necks. That’s why I talk about Scripture the way I do, not because I’m looking to it as a technical manual, and certainly not because of some legalistic way to check off my holiness, but in a thankful desire to pursue what is good, what is holy, etc. If I am teaching to the glory of God, I am more attentive than ever to what that might demand. If I am instructing students who will be future cops and tax accountants, I am helping them think about what pursuing their vocation in a joyful, God-honoring way might look like. But I take it this is wrong-headed and dangerous?
Donald, it’s not necessarily wrong headed nor dangerous. But it sounds a lot like Piper. Plus, I’m my kid is in your class, I’d rather have you teach them how to count and read. I’ll take care of the glorification (along with session), thank you very much.
Donald, btw, it is the pursuit of glory and holiness that seems to neglect the natural and ordinary mechanisms of human existence, like parental and ecclesiastical authority, not to mention how plumbing and taxes work. Professional competence may glorify God more than thinking about it all the time.
Donald,
How about you honor God by teaching your kids, period? That is the way you fulfill your vocation, and the way in which you love and serve your neighbor. DGH is right, here–you have a whole lot of needless introspection. As an attorney, I love and serve my neighbor by being faithful to the vocations to which God has called me; in many ways, it’s simple.
Perhaps I should clarify. I’m not teaching reading and counting here. I’m teaching college-level students interested in the fields of Criminal Justice and Business (including Accounting). The students would love it if all I did was give them a set of rules to memorize and let them go along their merry way. However, a key discipline you develop in your college years is critical thinking. One way to develop this (among others) is ethics, which, for Christians, may not just be whatever the bare baseline in their profession is. I remember there being a lot of things in my professional responsibility class in law school that were ethical, but which I’d be mighty uncomfortable doing. Does the level or material make any difference to you?
If I choose to teach my students to be as aggressive of tax accountants as they can be, or if I teach the future cops ways to abuse (legally) the search and seizure rules. Is that God-glorifying? It’s certainly meeting the standard of “teaching them.”
I have never argued here for a neglect of professional competence. If I weren’t working as hard as I could to be a good teacher, I wouldn’t be living up to my calling. Funny thing is, we can often mull things over in the back of our minds, bringing them to the front of our minds at opportune times. That is, I’m usually attending to regular business of life, buy my ears are always open for bits of wisdom from more seasoned professors or Scripture.
Donald, I would contend that students would learn as much critical thinking from watching The Wire as they would from a Christian w-w person (though it is rated R). Sometimes the folks who think they think critically are thinking in a bubble.
Been reading your posts Matthew and finding them very helpful in working through the maze of thinking on Neo-calvinism vs 2K.
There are few non-believers who will believe it is right to love their enemies far less actually do so. Few too who will forgive 70 times seven or believe that it is appropriate to do so. I’m not sure either of these are part of natural law. Loving our brothers in Christ is clearly a peculiarly Christian obligation and characteristic and ought to be love to the point of total self-sacrifice for our brother, again gospel-love rather than simply the love of creational responsibility both in the object and nature of this love.
Are motives absolutely hidden? Are they not at points self-evident in the action. I do not need to be told that a mother who sacrifices herself for her child does so because of the mother/child relationship. Actions often make (moral) sense only in terms of motive.
Appreciate the comment, John, and I think I agree with you. Although the same moral law (natural law) binds unbelievers and believers alike, there is no question that the unique demand of following Christ places additional obligations upon Christians. It’s hard to know the relationship of virtues of forgiveness, or the permissibility of self-defence, to natural law, because natural law is grounded in creation before the fall, not in the sin-dominated world that we know. The outworking of natural law changes in the context of sin (i.e., it permits a sword-bearing state, and self-defense under certain conditions). But in any case, the ultimate obligation of Christians is to follow Christ, and therefore it is crucial that we interpret the demands of natural law through the lens of that calling, as well as, I believe, through the lens of the Scriptural two kingdoms framework.
In that sense the two kingdoms doctrine is a “worldview” that seeks to present Scripture’s teaching on all of life, albeit one that is more flexible (and hopefully humble) than certain versions of neocalvinism or transformationalism, and so it makes little sense (indeed, it is self-destructive) for two kingdoms advocates to criticize the idea of world view, or the authority of Scripture and Christ over all of life.
“In that sense the two kingdoms doctrine is a “worldview” that seeks to present Scripture’s teaching on all of life, albeit one that is more flexible (and hopefully humble) than certain versions of neocalvinism or transformationalism, and so it makes little sense (indeed, it is self-destructive) for two kingdoms advocates to criticize the idea of world view, or the authority of Scripture and Christ over all of life.”
Matt,I would say I have a quibble with this, but it seems that word has already been taken. To wit: when you use “worldview” here, it seems to be according to its broadest, most innocuous level. That is, it seems to indicate merely the idea that there are certain perspectives that tend to have some unifying principles, leading to various positions that “hang together.” But, in another sense, “worldview” is like the solitary hitchhiker who suddenly invites his friends and brings in several suitcases when you pick him up. The friends might include mandatory epistemological self-consciousness, a focus on cultural transformation, and, excepting old school Kuyperians, a lower view of the church vis a vis the stuff we do six days a week.
Mikelmann, the problem is that I think the word ‘worldview’ is used in different ways by different people. If by worldview someone means a dogmatic, detailed Christian perspective on all areas of life (which some neo-Calvinists certainly do mean by the idea), I would agree that we should reject the idea. If it simply refers to a general mental framework through which we approach all of life (another way in which many people, including some neo-Calvinists, use the term), then I think we all have it, we simply need to be aware of it. Like so many of these discussions, then, understanding comes down to how various people are using the word. When some two kingdoms critics criticize the idea of a worldview, hearers think they are criticizing the second definition, not simply the first. And this breaks down understanding, rather than contributes to it.
Are you suggesting the idea of a worldview is something like a Trojan horse? I can understand that, but I think we are better off clarifying concepts and articulating better understandings of them, rather than rejecting terms wholesale in favor of our own rigid definitions. As Calvin liked to say, it is rarely worth fighting dogmatically over terms; it is meaning that matters. Debates that focus too much on terms don’t actually bring clarity; they bring confusion by distracting us from the real issues.
My preferred approach, then, is not to challenge people’s idea that they should interpret all of life in light of its relationship to Christ, but that they should understand what that task means biblically, i.e., as informed by a two kingdoms perspective, including its eschatology, understanding of natural law and reason, emphasis on the virtues of humility and service, and expectation of enduring the cross rather than dominating.
MT, my observation is that there can be a lot of confusion over the term. I know it can seem tedious to police vocabulary, but in Reformed in-house discussion it’s really the second definition that’s at issue. “Two Kingdom Worldview” thus becomes a confusing concept.
I suppose there is always a choice to be made about whether to redeem the terms of a debate or make distinctions, but Christ didn’t die for terms (insert rimshot), so I go for the second.
But your comment is helpful in explaining what you mean by that expression and your expression “interpret all of life in light of its relationship to Christ.”
FWIW, it seems to me that Dr. Hart tends toward vocabulary that distinguishes and you tend more towards reclaiming vocabulary. So one has to make that adjustment in flipping from one blog to the other. Just an observation.
Hi Matthew
I share the 2K perspective, certainly in its more historical sense as you describe it.
I agree that believer and unbeliever alike are responsible to obey ‘natural law’; these laws are instinctive to both (works of law written on hearts). Indeed it is on this basis that I believe Christians may and can persuade non-Christians of such laws. However, opposed to these unbelievers may be (through corrupted consciences) at heart they know these ‘obligations’ to be true and good and we have a foothold in their thinking to persuade unbelievers of the value of these ‘natural laws’. ‘Laws’ in this sense are I think merely the recognition of the obligations that spring from relationships (the recognition of which God has placed in the consciousness of all men).
Christian obligations include natural obligations (and I take your point about pre-fall and post-fall relationships being different) but to my mind go beyond them (ie love for enemies etc) and may even modify (from here on, in particular, I would value your criticisms) natural laws. For example, in an ideal creation Adam would have lived happily with his wife and their marriage fulfilment would have had a proper place in their happiness and blessedness. Believers living in creation as pilgrims and already members of new creation (which I take to be more than old creation merely restored) have no such luxury. They are not living in times of peace but in a war. They live in a time of change and transition and the demands of the new may mean forgoing some of the privileges (not responsibilities) of the old. Thus they who are married will live as if not married and some who are unmarried will forego marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God.
I would add that while I think it is right for Christians to seek to persuade non-Christians of creational ethics it is a different matter to seek to persuade them to adopt new-creational ethics/lifestyle for these are ethics that suppose one to be a member of the new creation, they are obligations that arise out of new creational relationships. Thus there is no point in telling non-believers to sacrifice wealth and status in this life for the sake of the kingdom of God for they do not belong to the kingdom of God. There is no point in telling them to set their focus on Christ above since they have no relationship with Christ above. These new creational obligations belong only to those who are members of the new creation and indeed only meaningful to them. They are the obligations only of the redeemed. This is one reason why I object to neo-calvinistic language of redeeming culture; redemption does not take us either presently or ultimately merely back to creation but brings us into new creation and such obligations can belong only to the redeemed. I may add that neo-calvinistic assumptions that new creation is simply old creation restored are in great part responsible for this mistake.
As I say, I’d appreciate any criticisms of my thought here when you have time.
John
John, thanks for fleshing your thoughts out there. That makes pretty good sense to me, and is about how I see the matter.
Pingback: When is a quibble really a quiddity? « Cosmic Eye
Pingback: What do you mean by ‘Christian’? What do you mean by ‘culture’? « Christian in America