Over the past month, I had a "aha movement" in several conversations across the country. There are lots of Anglican, Presbyterian and "Reformed" types (both mainline and conservative) who do not have a Reformed worldview--the kind you read about in Al Wolter's book Creation Regained, William Edgar's book Truth in All It's Glory, and Henry Van Til's book The Calvinist Concept of Culture.
There are many folks with Calvinist views of sin and salvation (T.U.L.I.P--God-sin-Christ-faith) but are void of a Reformed view of creation and culture (creation-fall-redemption-consumation)--Keller article. It was a huge "aha moment" that explains a lot. The confessional, doctrinalist, and highly pietist old southern denominational tradition with its emphasis on the church as an alternative community and an escape from culture (Dabney, Thornwell, Turretin) may explain why missionally minded Reformed folks do not find a reference point in those circles. So Edgar, Wolters, and Van Til don't even mention these guys. I wonder why that is? You're just not going to get creation-fall-redemption-restoration from Thornwell, Danbey, Edwards, and the other pietists some are beginning to argue. Does this sound right?
Maybe this explains the absence of an emphasis on the Kingdom or the conflating of the Kingdom with the church?
NOTE: I'm NOT saying that faith and repentance should not be a major emphasis. It should (Eph 2:8-9). But conversion is not an end as we see in Eph 2:10. I dunno...just thinking out loud.
Why fight against slavery, racism, etc. when what really matters, at the end of the day, are your reflections on your own piety. HIV/AIDS, who cares? Keep your kids away from non-Christians at all times.
The slave owning Puritans, like Jonathan Edwards, and the many Puritan slave ship chaplains weren't really burdened by redeeming creation either, I guess. Calvinistic pietism but far from Bavinck or Kuyper. You get piety from Edwards but not redeeming the whole creation, cultural mandate, etc. Right?
Why are some mainline and conservative denominations Calvinistic and not Reformed. I dunno? You can fully embrace T.U.L.I.P and reduce Christianity to individualistic personal piety, withdrawal from culture with a false sacred/secular distinction, confuse the Kingdom with the church, be void of a doctrine of creation, etc. Wow.
This may explain, in part, why so many of my Calvinistic friends read Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, Henry Van Til, Al Wolters, and others and reject it.
Maybe this explains why many Calvinists have no interest in justice issues, being incarnational in culture, seeing that all of life is spiritual, etc. Somebody oughta do a book on this!!
Thoughts?
I think "both/and" rather than "either/or" applies here. You don't throw out Dabney, Thornwell and (certainly not) Edwards, you supplement them with Bavinck, Kuyper and Van Til - or vice versa.
YOU oughta do a book on this!!
What you have described is, as I understand it, part of the reason why the 2-semester "Covenant Theology" course was instituted at Covenant. And man, I appreciate it. I went through most of my (southern) PCA life without hearing of Newbigin, Wolters, Chris Wright, etc. I appreciate Sproul, Gerstner, and the Old-School guys you mentioned but they do not give the complete picture
I have been pondering the same issue more or less. How can you preach such a powerful message that has no reforming value on your life. This seems a bit ambigious to me.
Another possible reason:
This "resurgence" of Calvinism owes a lot to guys like Piper and Sproul who talk a lot about the soteriology of Calvinism and not as much about a reformed worldview (at least not as prominently). I'm not slamming these men (who have had a profound influence on me) I am just saying that the people becoming "Calvinists" under their teaching are thinking that reformed theology is just Calvinist soteriology. That's what I thought when I first started looking at it and imagine I am not the only one.
Bingo. There are a TON of folks out there who are Calvinistic but not Reformed. It took me a few years to catch on, as my introduction to Calvinism came hand in hand with a Reformed worldview (through RUF).
This answers the question for me as to why I had a hard time growing up in the Christian Reformed Church. All of their official doctrine appears Calvinistic, but everyone in the church seems to practice otherwise. That whole Christian Education thing seems rather unCalvinist to me.
Anthony, thanks for hitting on this. I have had this conversation with lots of people, especially those who haven't been introduced to such a robust creational hermeneutic that we get at Covenant. But I also find that most Calvinists, soteriologically speaking, are also quite anemic when it comes to the church and sacraments. A recovery here would certainly propel the type of thinking you're advocating, especially when considered through a missional lens. Get a class on the docket for next Semester--I need an extra elective!
yeah, I meant to say "Reformed" instead of "Calvinist" up there. Smooth.
Dave,
I would agree with you on that perspective. I owe a lot to those gys as well for their teachings.
Anthony; Amen. We are called upon to be salt and light. Harry
nick, me? Yeah, I'm sure I'd make lots of new "friends" that way.
I can see it now...a book tour at all the Reformed seminary bookstores...
...start out here at CTS, then on to RTS Jackson, then Greenville, then RTS Orlando, then Knox, then...
...well, maybe you're right!
I think this is a helpful if overly stated dichotomy. The creation mandate and development of the worldview is inherent in the doctrines of grace but some folks have a hard time moving past the love of ideas/doctrine into praxis. I don't think that Sproul, Edwards and Gerstner are opposed to a Calvin-following reformational approach to culture but simply never get past the theology discussion.
Some who propose the alternative community have co-opted the dispensational-fundamentalist worldview of that followed the writings of The Fundamentals ca 1910-15.
I've been wrestling with how the urbanization of the world must force us to change this -- to get past the point where (in the classic suburban model) we can't handle being in the same proximity to others who disagree with us or don't look like us.
You know the old joke "In the middle of the sahara an Arminian looks a lot like a Christian". . . . those who linger forever in the world of the mind, or live in the alternative community church, don't know what to do with a statement like that. Too often they don't know how to engage the culture (or other believers of different hues) for the glory of Christ.
Just a few notes on the history of all this:
1) Most who are aware of it, label people like Al Wolters neo-calvinists. The restorative view of eschatology also falls under this category, somewhat. Of coure, being Neo, means implies new. You find it in Kuyper and Bavink, but not as much before then. So, for instance, Vos (who is Dutch, nevertheless) would not have a restorative view of eschatology, and a friend of mine who went to Westminster (east) said that they got a critique of Wolters (e.g., not eschalogical enough). And yes, you won't see it in American puritans, but neither will you see it in English puritans or Scottish Presbyterians. I am not saying that neo-calvinism is wrong; i am one. I am just saying that it is not quite as 'mainsteam' as we are led to believe at Covenant.
2) It is not just(some) pietists who are not down with the whole neo-calvinist thing. For instance, Darryl Hart will argue that neither pietism nor neo-calvinism are traditionally 'Reformed' because neither of these shows up in the Reformed confessions. He thinks we need to abandon both! Again that these things don't appear in the confessions is an argument that it is somewhat 'new'; or at least not necessarily inherent within the Reformed tradition. I believe, however, that it is a logical outworking of reformed theology and, more importantly, fits the biblical picture.
3) N.B.: The Scottish Covenanters, who were not restorationists and into culture, still rejected slavery and cared about politics.
And yes, a book should be written chronicling the development of Neo-calvinist ideas from Calvin (presuming it is there) onwards.
yeah I didn't realize how absent this part of Calvinistic society was until I read "Creation Regained." My world was completely changed after that book. It was like I was interpreting the whole Biblical story in a limited scope before I read that book.
Anthony,
You raise a good question that divides the large reformed community and our denomination.
One reason has to do with theological minimizing (TULIP only) while another reason stems from one's eschatology. The first issue is dealt with well by Dr. Richard Muller in his paper "How Many Points?"(Google it or go to http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points). Dr. Riddlebarger has also done a good job with eschatology. On his blog he has critiqued John MacArthur's dispensationalism and written extensively on amillenialism. He has also critiqued post-millenial theology.
One interesting thing to note in this discussion is how some reformed folk like Dr. Mike Horton, Riddlebarger and probably Westminster Seminary in California sidestep Kuyper altogether. Part of the reason must stem from their experience in the CRC where Kuyper and his model of cultural transformation are probably held in greater esteem than the CRC's own creeds and confessions.
Horton, et. al., maintain that 'redeeming culture' and being 'incarnational' are done through one's vocation as a doctor, a politician, an engineer, homemaker, etc. This is sometimes called Two Kingdom Theology: the Christian is simultaneously a member of the City of God and the City of Man (Augustine). In this model the church is charged with preaching the Word and administering the sacraments while cultural engagement is left to the individual and whatever non-ecclesiastical societies he or she may join.
I share your concern that some in the reformed community show little interest in the culture -- seems odd to me. But by the same token I am concerned to see people in our circles more concerned about mission and exegeting culture than theology and theological subscription. Both must be held in tension.
I'm a long way from having this all figured out. If I'd have to choose who is correct in this debate (Kuyper vs. Augustine) I'd say that I'm leaning towards Augustine.
For a true Calvinist, it is not enough just to embrace TULIP and no more. Calvinism is a Biblical world and life view. Jesus is prophet, priest, and king. Calvinism brings the crown rights of King Jesus to bear in every area of life which of course means in the culture, in economics, in civil government, etc. Christ is King over the nations. There is such a thing as sphere sovereignty and Christianity is to have an impact in each of the spheres.
The article below sheds light on issues raised in this post.
From Theocracy to Spirituality: The Southern Presbyterian Reversal on Church and State by Jack P. Maddox
http://www.counselofchalcedon.org/includes/pdfs/Feb1986.pdf
I think that some Calvinists who are not of the Kuyperian "redeeming-the-culture" school of thought simply want to protect the message that Paul said was "of *first* importance" (my emphasis there, to emphasize Paul's point):
"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures..." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, NASB)
Given that Paul writes that this message is "of first importance," I can understand why some Christians, and churches, overreact by not being involved in social justice issues. These churches do not want to become "Social Gospel" churches that do good works but no longer preach the Gospel. That *can* happen to a church, if the good works that are *implications* of the Gospel begin to be emphasized more than the Gospel itself. We must be very careful about what we emphasize most.
Having said that, I do think it is an *overreaction* for Bible-believing churches (Reformed, Calvinistic, or otherwise) to not be involved in social justice issues at all. Such involvement is *not* the Gospel; it is an *implication* of the Gospel, but it is an implication which is described in strong terms in both the Old and New Testaments (such as in what characterizes "pure religion"-- taking care of orphans and widows, etc.).
About the Puritans, if one reads the book, "Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were," one will find that they were more involved in "redeeming the culture" than is commonly thought. The backwards stance of Puritans on slavery was a terrible, lamentable blind spot, as far as "redeeming the culture" goes.
The article, as well as many of the comments following, has both overestimated the culture/piety interest ratio in Calvin and underestimated the "subdue the creation for Christ" interest in the ones identified as "pietists." It is true, we all have our sense of the more urgent and different perspectives on the role of the preacher and the role of the hearer, but these kinds of articles, in my opinion, miss the mark, especially in engendering the new glossary of "Calvinist" vs. "Reformed." In my reading, which has been very extensive in this field over the last 30 years, the Reformers, though promoting the transformation of the culture (what else are Christians to do in the world, huh?) were, in their writings and sermons, much more "Calvinist" than "Reformed" as this article chooses to define those terms.
Having just finished reading Van Til's Culture this is an interesting observation to me. I'll have to stew on this for a bit.
It does raise the issue of eschatology. Does a consistent Reformed worldview demand a specific eschatology? Edwards was Postmill, as were many/most of the Puritans. Just a thought.
I think I mispoke a little about previous comments, so just a word of clarification. Point #1: I think most of the comments following the article are right in modifying it, arguing for a both/and emphasis. The reason this is true is because the two, piety and practical obedience that goes agains the evil in the world, are inextricably bound together. That you cannot have one without the other is clear biblical and Calvinist/Reformed teaching and it would be erroneous to call religion Calvinist or Reformed that failed to make this point. Point #2: When we see professing Christians uninterested in practicing the commands of Christ it isn't necessarily because the preacher hasn't issued them. Point #3: I also find it really hard to see why Sproul and Piper would be placed in a category of persons not sufficiently emphatic concerning social justice.
"Now some have argued that cultural transformation is the work of Christian individuals, but not of the local church. They argue that the latter should be limited to the area of the �spiritual,� the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. But the spiritual/secular distinction is not biblical."
John Frame On The Role Of The Local Church In Cultural Transformation
http://www.newcitypres.com/blog/?p=349
For me personally, This is one of the main reasons Covenant has been such a great experience. It has pulled back the curtains and revealed to me my self-righteous 'reformed' ways. Thanks for continuing to point out this truth.
Useful background on this distinction can be found in George Marsden's introduction (entitled "Reformed and American") to David Wells's Reformed Theology in America (Eerdmans, 1985). Marsden lays out three strains within the Reformed tradition--doctrinalism, pietism, and culturalism--and identifies the tendencies of various Reformed communities in American history to emphasize one of those strains over the others. It is interesting to note that the Puritans get high marks for embracing all three strains (they certainly thought they were creating a godly society, though one might criticize their execution), and not surprising to see that southern Presbyterians get high marks for emphasis on doctrine and piety, but not for cultural engagement (which probably didn't seem necessary given superficial marks of Christianity in traditional southern culture).
...RTS-O would accept this book wholeheartedly, at least inasmuch as Pratt still holds sway despite not teaching there anymore, I can guarantee that.