Keeping the Two Kingdoms in Perspective: Calvin on the spirituality of all of life
One of the crucial principles of a biblical two kingdoms doctrine is that the two kingdoms do not correspond to two realms or spheres into which life can be divided. Rather, they correspond to two ages (the present creation and the new creation) and to two governments (the word and Spirit and the sword) that overlap in daily life. Versions of the two kingdoms perspective that improperly emphasize a contrast of the internal and the external, or the soul and the body, run into problems with the New Testament diaconate. Versions of the perspective that place too much emphasis on the contrast between the institutional church and the rest of life find themselves in contradiction with the New Testament’s emphasis on the spiritual significance of all Christian activity.
One of the places in which Calvin makes this point most clearly is in his commentary on Galatians. He is commenting on Galatians 6:8-10, in which Paul writes:
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Calvin notes that Paul’s exhortation demonstrates how Christians are constantly to conduct their lives with an eye to the future, or spiritual, implications of what they are doing. In the process, he makes three points that help clarify the sense in which this is true.
First, he defines sowing to the Spirit in terms of “the spiritual life, to which they are said to sow whose views are directed more to heaven than to earth, and whose life is regulated by the desire of reaching the kingdom of God.” Note here that when Calvin contrasts heaven and earth he is not contrasting the immaterial with the material, but rather the future kingdom with the present evil age. Christians, he emphasizes, are to do everything that they do with the coming kingdom in view.
Second, Calvin notes that actions can be spiritual in terms of their end, even while they are temporal (or secular) in terms of their outward form. He writes,
Those [spiritual] employments are denominated spiritual on account of their end, though in some respects they are external and relate to the body, as in the very case now under consideration of supporting pastors…. Let no man, from a wish to gather the fruit in this life, or before its proper time, deprive himself of the spiritual harvest. The desires of believers must be both supported and restrained by the exercise of hope and patience.
Clearly Calvin rejects any simplistic distinction between spiritual activities and earthly activities, not because he is uncomfortable saying some actions and things are temporal, but because he rejects the notion that Christians should engage these things without any reference to the coming kingdom. For Calvin, like contemporary two kingdoms advocates, treating temporal things as if they are ultimate is idolatry. But for Calvin, unlike some contemporary two kingdoms rhetoric, engaging temporal things as if they have no relation to the future kingdom at all is just as problematic. As Calvin puts it with reference to Christian liberty, many things are indeed indifferent (or adiaphora), but that does not mean Christians should use them indifferently. All Christian activity must be conducted to the glory of God and for the love and edification of one’s neighbor.
Third, Calvin emphasizes that the spiritual significance of our actions is more acute or defined in some instances than in others, but he notes that Paul nevertheless does extend his point to all actions of well-doing towards others.
Well-doing does not simply mean doing our duty, but the performance of acts of kindness, and it has a reference to men. We are instructed not to be weary in assisting our neighbors, in performing good offices, and in exercising generosity…. Since, therefore, God has set apart the whole of the present life for plowing and sowing, let us avail ourselves of the season … Beginning with liberality to ministers of the gospel, Paul now makes a wider application of his doctrine and exhorts us to do good to all men, but recommends to our particular regard the household of faith, or believers, because they belong to the same family with ourselves. This similitude is intended to excite us to that kind of communication which ought to be maintained among the members of one family. There are duties which we owe to all men arising out of a common nature, but the tie of a more sacred relationship, established by God himself, binds us to believers.
Don’t let the emphasis on service to those in the household of faith (one’s ‘immediate family’, so to speak) distract you from the more basic point. Calvin clearly believes that Christians are to conduct all of their affairs with an eye to the coming kingdom of Christ. This means using the things of this age not for one’s own temporary benefit, but for the edification of one’s neighbors. Temporal actions are spiritual for Christians both because they point to the justice of the coming kingdom and because they carry with them eternal rewards.
Getting this balance right is one of the most difficult, yet important tasks of the Christian life. People are constantly tempted to make their families, their jobs, or their politics ultimate; they want to speak of these things as if they are the stuff of the kingdom itself. On the other hand, the temptation to be reactionary, to simply belittle the relevance of the kingdom to these matters, is always present. Look through church history and you will find Christians erring on both sides in dangerous and tragic ways. Our goal should not simply be to avoid the particular mistake of someone else who gets it wrong; our goal should be to get the Christian life right.
Posted on January 4, 2013, in Calvin, Christian liberty, Christian Life, Two Kingdoms. Bookmark the permalink. 26 Comments.
I spent the most of day cleaning a jar of spilled fingerprint powder in the office. I would be interested in how I am to clean fingerprint powder with an eye to the coming kingdom of Christ?
Dear Mike,
You cleaned fingerprint powder IN LOVE for your neighbor. How can that NOT be with an eye to the kingdom of Christ? Your neighbor sees your loving actions and glorifies your heavenly father.
“Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:12).
I don’t see where Peter, Paul, or Calvin are saying anything that requires sanctifying the mundane into the spiritual. Some aspects of life are just temporal and don’t point any further than the immediate need for their accomplishment.
I’m willing to be corrected but it seems a delusion of grandeur to associate cleaning up a mess with the Justice of the Kingdom.
Matt, it strikes me that Calvin’s “The desires of believers must be both supported and restrained by the exercise of hope and patience” is not quite as, for lack of a better word, triumphant, as your “All Christian activity must be conducted to the glory of God and for the love and edification of one’s neighbor.”
There’s a guy in north central Iowa whose job is to cut the eyebrows off hogs all day. The former seems like more apt counsel than the latter. Can he, in fact, do that for the glory of God and love of neighbor? Sure. But is it a requirement that he be self-conscious about doing so for the glory of God? I’m less sure. Maybe it’s enough to give thanks to God for giving him a way to support his family and to refrain from grumbling.
An idea I’m working through, Matt, is a hunch I sometimes have that some of our ideas seem to be more well-suited for academics, professionals, and the well-to-do than the eyebrow cutter or the woman who puts the hog’s head on a hook. If a theory seems to fit one class of people more than another I tend to question the theory.
Here is the rub, I just don’t see where Calvin or Paul are teaching that all Christian temporal affairs are spiritual?
It seems clear that giving or withholding of temporal support is the only temporal action that Paul is concerned with in this passage, not generic temporal affairs. I’m no expert, but I shouldn’t expect to hear any Reformed thinker deny that the giving of tithes and offerings is an act of worship and has a spiritual dimension. I find the spiritual reality in the act of tithes and offerings much easier to grasp than trying to find the spiritual aspect of cleaning fingerprint powder or shaving hog eyes.
Brenden, what happens when neighbors don’t see you cleaning up stuff? Isn’t it possible that sometimes it’s just cleaning up stuff? And what about having mixed motives? And so I have a lot of sympathy for the points Mike makes because they seem to flow from what it’s like to be a creature, even a redeemed creature. I know it sounds good to say that we are to conduct all of our affairs with an eye to the coming kingdom of Christ, but I can’t really say what that means, which makes me wonder if it’s more a sentimental than sober piety. In fact, I derive more comfort from knowing that I don’t have to be conscious of my faith 24/7.
Matt, that said, what are the implications of “Christians are to conduct all of their affairs with an eye to the coming kingdom of Christ” for those Christians whose mental capacities are even more limited than mine?
Brothers, I think Brenden’s answer to your concerns is helpful here. I would also cite the Heidelberg Catechism’s statement that good works are those which are done for the glory of God, in accordance with his law, and out of true faith. Of course, the object of that faith, and the one in whom the God we are to glorify is revealed, is Jesus Christ. To do all things with an eye to the coming kingdom is simply to do all that we do in allegiance to Jesus Christ, seeking first his kingdom, that all these things might be added to us.
Mikelmann, can you please explain to me what is “triumphant” about this? Remember, it usually takes the form of a servant, all the way to the cross. You know I have written about this repeatedly.
Zrim (and Mikelmann), I actually think it likely that these ideas are easier to grasp for those with “limited … mental capacities” than for those enamored with their own intellectual power but caught up with worldly ways of thinking. Jesus simply demands of us the faith of a little child. Speaking for my own son, a three year old, I don’t think he has much trouble thinking of all that we do as being in service to Jesus as our king. Any fellow who fails to see the relevance of Jesus to his day-job cutting the eyes off of hogs should seek greater understanding of the gospel, focusing in particular on passages like 1 Corinthians 7, Romans 8, Colossians 1, and Titus 1.
As Paul writes in Titus 1:15, “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled… They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.”
Matthew,
Thank you for the time you took to respond but what I don’t see in the command to be honorable among the gentiles is the turning of every temporal act of a Christian into the spiritual whereas in the Gal 6 passage the temporal act of giving is specifically shown to have spiritual significance.
Work is a good thing, but it has been made troublesome – “cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread.” This is reflected in Ecclesiastes: “22 What has a man from all the toil and striving of heart with which he toils beneath the sun? 23 For all his days are full of sorrow, and his work is a vexation.”
I wasn’t speaking of intelligence. My point is that there are some kinds of work – in medicine, academia, etc., in which it is easier to see how it is, e.g., loving one’s neighbor to do such work. In many other kinds of work there is exploitation, drudgery, an aching body and tedium. If you want to tell people in those fields that they need to meditate on how they must see those occupations as loving their neighbor, have at it. But the scriptural counsel that comes to my mind about such occupations is more along the line of patience, diligence, and the realization that God has providentially arranged that way of supporting oneself. That counsel is more in line with the realities of the Genesis and Ecclesiastes passages.
Matt, you commend Brenden’s response. But my point isn’t that all that we do isn’t in service to Jesus as our king. Rather, it’s that even as it’s done under the Lordship of Christ, sometimes cleaning up a mess is just cleaning up a mess. My worry is that the language being used can sometimes sound like the Calvinist version of the hyper-spirituality very often heard in broad evangelicalism, which is itself informed less by the Protestant Reformation than the radical Reformation where the Holy Spirit was said to have been swallowed feathers and all.
Gentlemen,
I think one of the categories that gets under-evaluated in these discussions is the “third use” of the law. If anything we do (according to the law), in true faith, and directed toward God’s glory is a good work, then it is safe to say that there is simply NO SUCH THING as truly non-spiritual work—”just cleaning up a mess.”
Luther had no such conception when he advised fathers to clean baby diapers, women to be milkmaids, and cobblers to make good shoes and sell them at a fair price. To plant a tree[!]—is there anything that could possibly be less “spiritual”? But that was Luther’s point (or at least part of it).
Nothing for the Christian is NOT spiritual. That doesn’t mean that everything is corporate worship, sacred, or in the sphere of redemption. Surely not.
But the proper Reformed 2K distinction between cult and culture seems of late to morph into a dichotomy between Christian and non-Christian, or [worse] spiritual and non-spiritual. This seems more a reaction to the “hyper-spirituality” of evangelicalism than a nuanced Reformational response. For one, no Reformational cosmology would have understood it.
Matthew:
Excellent answer here, brother. You are simplying plugging in all the exhortations of our Lord and Paul as to how we are to live the Christian life, living in profound gratitude for the unspeakable gift that has been given to us in the person and work of Christ.
Paul tells us in Ephesians and Colossians to do all of our work as “serving the Lord.” He also tells us in Thessalonians to “rejoice evermore” and to “pray without ceasing.” If we do that, whether seen by others or not (Pharisees do what they do only to be seen–Matt. 6), we will glorify Him and enjoy rich communion with Him. That’s the real reward.
Sometimes, however, we are seen, in some fashion, in a way that arrests others and prompts them to ask a reason for the hope that is within us. Then as always we can point to Christ and testify that what He has done for us is what actuates us and that He is the only true hope for anyone anywhere.
If that all sounds “unreformed” to some, it’s simply evidence of how far we’ve gone away from the true spirituality of our heritage, wrongly focusing on what we call “liberty.” The primary focus of true liberty is that we are free to serve Him, freed from the commandments of men that would ensnare us and sin that would enslave us. I don’t mean that we don’t mightily struggle against sin. I do mean that we now realize that sin is not the liberty that we once thought, but that, in fact, sin is slavery, and we are ever called away from it, in everything, to walk with Christ.
There are so many things that I could say here, Matthew, including how amazed I am that you’re having to defend what you’re having to defend here, but thanks for doing so. What you’re defending has nothing to do with neo-Calvinism but is historic garden-variety Protestant piety.
Alan,
It seems you are misunderstanding my question. Nobody, I think, is disputing that we are to obey our earthly masters with a sincere heart fearing the Lord or the exhortations to live in the light of the person and work of Christ. The question I have is simply, where in these various exhortations is the message that all of our temporal acts are spiritual.
It is clear that giving is a temporal act with a spiritual aspect, no one would argue that prayer without ceasing is a spiritual act, corporate worship is undoubtedly a spiritual act. What I am trying to understand is where does scripture describe the mundane work of my day to day job is distinctively spiritual. Repeating exhortations to glorify God seems to miss the point.
No, Mike, I am not misunderstanding your question. We may disagree. Consider these things–
Human beings, being made imago dei, are sealed at the heart of their being with spirituality. P.E. Hughes helpfully elucidates, in his True Image, six things that mark all humans as being in imago dei, in the broader sense, as opposed to the narrower sense (which pertains only to believers as restored in the image of God): personality, spirituality, rationality, morality, authority, and creativity. This is, if I recall, chapter 5 or 6 of his book, and he shows how that all humans, whether unrenewed or renewed, evince these qualities.
With respect to spirituality, then, we are all worshipping creatures, responding to God either in rebellion or adoration, worshipping either false gods or the true God. Because of remaining sin, believers have many false gods (idols) with which to contend and to which we are ever called to die. But our base orientation is to worship the true and living God, albeit with much imperfection.
All this is to say that we are inescapably spiritual beings. Hughes has a very eloquent section on this, contrasting unbelieving and believing spirituality. So everything I am and do involves spirituality because I am an essentially spiritual being, and I exercise that spirituality in the service of Christ or of the enemy, but I cannot escape spirituality being involved with all of my actions.
Allan,
It seems your six things constituting the imago dei would demand a distinction between the temporal (things that will pass) and the spiritual (things eternal) be maintained rather than blurred.
Mike
The six things are ontological: they are who we are by virtue of creation, marred here by the fall, bettered by renewal, brought to perfection in the new heavens and earth. Our ontology does not change in the next world; rather we are made to be most fully who we truly are. we are not made to be something different but to enjoy the full flowering of our humanity in Christ.
I agree that there are proper distinctions and temporal and eternal is one of them. A piece of chocolate is temporal. I eat it and it is gone. But I am not temporal. I have “eternity in my heart” as Qohelet says. Further, while we make all sorts of distinctions: there has to be an integration point. If we mix, for instance, the two natures of Christ, we end up as monophysites. If we sunder them (having no integration), we end up Nestorians.
You seem good at making distinctions but not at seeing how things must be integrated. I do not deny that we can distinguish the ephemeral from the eternal, but that does not mean that we can whittle our life up into non-contiguous compartments of the “temporal” and the “eternal.”
Alan,
If we can recognize the distinction between the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the Church, if we can recognize the distinction between the spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of the State, if we can recognize the distinction between spiritual and temporal penalties, if we can recognize the distinction between spiritual and temporal blessings, if we can recognize the distinction between spiritual and temporal gifts, why would we deny there can be any distinction between spiritual and temporal actions?
Brenden, I agree that we as Christians are always spiritual. What I am questioning is whether everything we do is always spiritual. The suggestion that it is strikes me as a variant of “everything is grace.” But if everything is grace then nothing is. In the same way, if everything we do as Christians is spiritual then where does that leave any room for our provisional lives? Can we say that in our provisional lives we are spiritual without having to spiritualize our provisional tasks? That to me is the real danger.
And what does Calvin’s own view of this life in relation to the future have to say about the Christian life?
“1. Whatever be the kind of tribulation with which we are afflicted, we should always consider the end of it to be, that we may be trained to despise the present, and thereby stimulated to aspire to the future life. For since God well knows how strongly we are inclined by nature to a slavish love of this world, in order to prevent us from clinging too strongly to it, he employs the fittest reason for calling us back, and shaking off our lethargy. Every one of us, indeed, would be thought to aspire and aim at heavenly immortality during the whole course of his life. For we would be ashamed in no respect to excel the lower animals; whose condition would not be at all inferior to ours, had we not a hope of immortality beyond the grave. But when you attend to the plans, wishes, and actions of each, you see nothing in them but the earth. Hence our stupidity; our minds being dazzled with the glare of wealth, power, and honours, that they can see no farther. The heart also, engrossed with avarice, ambition, and lust, is weighed down and cannot rise above them. In short, the whole soul, ensnared by the allurements of the flesh, seeks its happiness on the earth. To meet this disease, the Lord makes his people sensible of the vanity of the present life, by a constant proof of its miseries. Thus, that they may not promise themselves deep and lasting peace in it, he often allows them to be assailed by war, tumult, or rapine, or to be disturbed by other injuries. That they may not long with too much eagerness after fleeting and fading riches, or rest in those which they already possess, he reduces them to want, or, at least, restricts them to a moderate allowance, at one time by exile, at another by sterility, at another by fire, or by other means. That they may not indulge too complacently in the advantages of married life, he either vexes them by the misconduct of their partners, or humbles them by the wickedness of their children, or afflicts them by bereavement. But if in all these he is indulgent to them, lest they should either swell with vain-glory, or be elated with confidence, by diseases and dangers he sets palpably before them how unstable and evanescent are all the advantages competent to mortals. We duly profit by the discipline of the cross, when we learn that this life, estimated in itself, is restless, troubled, in numberless ways wretched, and plainly in no respect happy; that what are estimated its blessings are uncertain, fleeting, vain, and vitiated by a great admixture of evil. From this we conclude, that all we have to seek or hope for here is contest; that when we think of the crown we must raise our eyes to heaven. For we must hold, that our mind never rises seriously to desire and aspire after the future, until it has learned to despise the present life.
“2. For there is no medium between the two things: the earth must either be worthless in our estimation, or keep us enslaved by an intemperate love of it. Therefore, if we have any regard to eternity, we must carefully strive to disencumber ourselves of these fetters. Moreover, since the present life has many enticements to allure us, and great semblance of delight, grace, and sweetness to soothe us, it is of great consequence to us to be now and then called off from its fascinations. For what, pray, would happen, if we here enjoyed an uninterrupted course of honour and felicity, when even the constant stimulus of affliction cannot arouse us to a due sense of our misery? That human life is like smoke or a shadow, is not only known to the learned; there is not a more trite proverb among the vulgar. Considering it a fact most useful to be known, they have recommended it in many well-known expressions. Still there is no fact which we ponder less carefully, or less frequently remember. For we form all our plans just as if we had fixed our immortality on the earth. If we see a funeral, or walk among graves, as the image of death is then present to the eye, I admit we philosophise
admirably on the vanity of life. We do not indeed always do so, for those things often have no effect upon us at all. But, at the best, our philosophy is momentary. It vanishes as soon as we turn our back, and leaves not the vestige of remembrance behind; in short, it passes away, just like the applause of a theatre at some pleasant spectacle. Forgetful not only of death, but also of mortality itself, as if no rumour of it had ever reached us, we indulge in supine security as expecting a terrestrial immortality. Meanwhile, if any one breaks in with the proverb, that man is the creature of a day, we indeed acknowledge its truth, but, so far from giving heed to it, the thought of perpetuity still keeps hold of our minds. Who then can deny that it is of the highest importance to us all, I say not, to be admonished by words, but convinced by all possible experience of the miserable condition of our earthly life; since even when convinced we scarcely cease to gaze upon it with vicious, stupid admiration, as if it contained within itself the sum of all that is good? But if God finds it necessary so to train us, it must be our duty to listen to him when he calls, and shakes us from our torpor, that we may hasten to despise the world, and aspire with our whole heart to the future life.” (Calvin, Institutes, III.9)
It strikes me that 2kers are willing to affirm passages like this, its critics aren’t. I guess that’s why they call it neo-Calvinism.
How rereshing to hear ICR 3.9 as an expression of deep Christian spirituality, in which the Christian is told how that meditating on the future life relativizes everything in this life and puts it in proper perspective. Calvin exhorts us to use the life to come to inculcate and foster a right spiritual perspective that does not take the dainties of this world as ultimate; we ought not to long for this world and its passing fancies over the kind of unfettered communion that we will enjoy with our God in the age to come.
Calvin then continues in ICR 3.10–”How to Use the Present Life,and the Comforts of It”–to urge us both how to use spiritual meditations on the future for the sake of the present and how even to have a right understanding of the present. Calvin understands as well as any that we are prone to take God’s good gifts and turn them into idols.
One cannot live the way that Calvin exhorts here without an eyes-wide-open spirituality. In fact, this whole section is in his third book, in which he sets forth life in the Holy Spirit, and affirms that Christ does us no good while he remains outside of us. It is the Spirit who brings us to Christ and brings Christ to us. Calvin is telling us in all this part of Book III (which is on sanctifcation, preceding his discussion of justification in 3.11 ff.) how to live the true Christian life, all entirely in keeping with what Matt, Brenden, and others are maintaining here.
mikelmann said:
” My point is that there are some kinds of work – in medicine, academia, etc., in which it is easier to see how it is, e.g., loving one’s neighbor to do such work.”
MM, I think this is perhaps the crux of the difference… what is loving your neighbor? Why are the works in medicine or the academy easier to see as more loving towards ones neighbors? Because one has skills in medicine does that automatically make her more loving towards her neighbor? Is there different levels of loving a neighbor? If the eyebrow cutter and the doctor both perform their jobs honestly are they not both equally loving?
Perhaps people in the military, policeman, and fireman could be said to be more loving because they are willing to put their own lives on the line in order to save others, but what if their motives for performing those acts is for their own self-glorification?
I can easily see how the eyebrow cutter performing his job honestly because of the grace he received from God is loving towards his neighbor.
Alan and igasx, thanks for your helpful comments. Alan, I think you explain Calvin’s perspective (highlighted in Darryl’s quote) just right. No one is denying, Mike Mihok and Zrim, that there is an important distinction between the spiritual and the temporal. Calvin’s own statement clarifies this point:
“Those [spiritual] employments are denominated spiritual on account of their end, though in some respects they are external and relate to the body, as in the very case now under consideration of supporting pastors.”
A thing or an action can be objectively temporal or secular (i.e., passing) while at the same time a Christian’s engagement with that thing or action can have a spiritual dimension. The very recognition a Christian has that something such as politics or farming is secular implies a consideration of that thing in light of spiritual realities. Thus the exercise of the virtues of service, patience, or hope stems directly from fellowship with Christ through the Holy Spirit, which is what makes the action spiritual.
Alan is right that this has nothing to do with neo-Calvinism. This is Calvinism – indeed I would say it is simply New Testament Christianity – 101.
Alan, do you think that Calvin’s view of the Christian life in this world leads necessarily (Kuyper’s “holy duty”) to forming Christian political parties, labor unions, and schools? Or does this “eyes-wide open” approach lead to genuine caution about identifying Christ’s kingdom with political parties, labor unions, and schools?
Matt may want to say this is basic to the NT, but we Calvinists are living in a world where Kuyper comes between Calvin and us. So some of us are wondering about where Dutch Calvinism and its influences in N. America fits with the original and early Reformed outlook. And of course I am assuming that they are not identical. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I am following Calvin 100 percent — no one is. But admitting the differences between Calvin and Kuyper might help to resolve the differences between 2k and 2k’s (overwhelmingly) Dutch critics, so that it might be possible to disagree with neo-Calvinism and still be a Calvinist (a real one).
Matt,
I may be totally confused but saying “temporal actions are spiritual” seems quite different than saying temporal actions can have a spiritual dimension.
I’m honestly not trying to be nitpicky or prove a point. I’m just trying to figure out why all of the temporal is spiritual for the Christian. If something can be objectively temporal why not just leave it there? Christ is Lord over the temporal and spiritual after all. Why can’t we just be thankful to the Lord for our temporal blessings without needing to turn our mundane employment into a spiritual enterprise? Take my word for it, it seems a bit naive to think military service is spiritual.
I’m having difficulty understanding why subsuming all temporal aspects of a Christian’s life as spiritual because of imago dei or love of neighbor is helpful. Maybe I’m just dense but if everything is spiritual because ontologically spirituality is sealed at the heart and nature of a Christian or a tangential connection can me made to loving our neighbor then the temporal is spiritual, end of discussion, no distinctions can be made.
The problem them is that we do make distinctions. Practically speaking If everything temporal is spiritual then why do Presbyterian churches distinguish between spiritual and temporal jurisdiction of church courts or church discipline?
Mike, again, no one is suggesting a collapse of the distinction between the temporal and the spiritual. However, distinction does not entail complete separation.
Ultimately the reason for emphasizing the spiritual significance of Christian action is not because we find it helpful but because Scripture clearly teaches it. As one example, take a look at Ephesians 5-6. On the one hand, Paul emphasizes that believers are to responsibly carry out their secular, temporal functions, including those of the master-slave relationship. These functions are passing, temporal; they are not eternal. On the other hand, even in these functions Paul says believers are to do everything as unto the Lord, or in the Lord, something that they can only do through the Holy Spirit (hence, the term spiritual).
If there was ever an example of the mundane being redirected towards the spiritual in Scripture this is it. A slave who is mistreated by his or her master is nevertheless not to consider his work as if it is only done for human beings, but to remember that he ultimately serves a master who is in heaven, and that his service is ultimately a conformity to the image and example of Jesus. Again, this presupposes union with Christ, the bond of which union is the Spirit.
Pingback: Now this moves the ball downfield! « Cosmic Eye