O’Donovan’s take on the American Social Gospel (in which the RPCNA almost completely lost itself prior to WWI) is intriguing: he faults the late 19th century social activism and eschatological optimism of Protestantism for “failing to identify the false horizon”. In other words, there was no clear understanding that the empire could never become identical with the kingdom, and that attempts to do so would result in a devilish and not an angelic society. But were the activities of most mainline churches, which included widespread missions and poor relief, devilish?

Tim Chester in “Good News to the Poor” points out that most Western Christians *have already* bought into a Social Gospel - the gospel of Western capitalist materialism.

But I suspect Kurt’s comment has more to do with corporate forms of sanctification and here I get really squeamish because I have this history of American Protestantism in my head which has the social gospel drowning word and sacrament as the chief task of the church. Perhaps someone on this blog can decipher what corporate sanctification might mean. In the case of the corporate church we used to call that ‘reformation,’ as in a church being reformed in its preaching, sacraments, and discipline. Is that sanctification? Well, maybe but we also call it reform. But if we can’t speak of the sanctification of the corporate church without creating bemusement, how much more confusing would it be to talk about the sanctification of corporate society or the state?

One more comment concerning the “city on a hill” heritage of the United States: I for one believe that the founding of the United States in 1776 was a long way from John Winthrop’s vision of Massachusett’s Bay Colony back in 1629. Lots of historians and political theorists have debated how far 1776 departed from 1629. But it’s pretty clear that Jefferson and Winthrop were not on the same page. It would be good for Christians in America to recognize this because then they would not try to call us back to our Christian roots, at least as the U.S.’s constitutional roots took shape in 1776 or 1789.

An even bigger question is whether the society the less than orthodox founders of the United States created is more conducive to genuine Christianity than was Winthrop’s godly commonwealth. Don’t get me wrong. There is much to admire in the Puritans and their courage and insight could be great. But if you want an example of communism finding a place in the free world, Massachusetts Bay Colony may be one of your best examples. (Look at the kind of sharing of personal property Winthrop outlines in his “Model of Christian Charity.”) I personally enjoy my liberties even if I also recognize their down side, having to witness and endure the popularity of both Michael Moore and Rick Warren. That said, Christians today enjoy way more liberties for worship than they would have in Winthrop’s colony, unless of course, they were Congregationalists.

Since coming into the reformed faith recently (although having been a Christian for 20+ years), I’ve noticed not a small number of RP’ers, including too many preaching elders who appear to confuse salvation with sanctification.

You question whether “Christ and the apostles died so that we could have healthy communities or a Christian civilization.” First of all, there needs to be a distinction made between Christ’s death and the apostles’ deaths. The main purpose of Christ’s death was for our salvation. The apostles’ deaths came about under trying political and religious circumstances while standing up for the Gospel, conditions which few Western Christians even coming close to living under.

The question is how are Christians supposed to be living today under the freedom perpetuated through the Godly obedience of our Pilgrim, Puritan, and Scottish Covenanter forefathers in this country? Are we not to build on their vision of “A City on a Hill?” What is our society supposed to look like with faithful Christians taking every thought captive to Christ and living in faith in every area of our lives - dare I say a reflection of the sanctification process?

This is where the rubber meets the road and where RP’ers are struggling as much as their Arminian brothers (from whence I came)- once you are “saved” what then? Our preaching elders frankly seem to have too little to offer in this area. What does/should the sanctification process look like in our day to day living?