RSSRE: A Protestant Choice… Or Christian Plumbing? …
RE: A Protestant Choice… Or Christian Plumbing?
W.H. Chellis
Ok fair enough. I was just being cheeky with Brent. I also think that the point is worthy of consideration.
First, let me say that the impact of Christianity will be different upon the trades or other occupations than it will be on the professions. The same is true in the Academy where humanities are impacted more deeply than the hard sciences.
Now, back to the question. Brent asked:
“So what does it mean to “reform” a profession? How does one “plumb” Christianly? Is he a Christian plumber or a Christian who is a plumber, or both?”
The answer depends on context. In a society in which Christians are simply individuals professing the faith within the context of a pluralistic setting the professing plumber will be a plumber who is a Christian rather than a Christian plumber. Now this is not to be despised. It will have an impact on the quality of the work and does and how he views its ultimate purpose (to glorify God). It will affect how he pays and treats his employees (providing if able a living wage). It will affect how he treats his customers fairly never over charging or doing shoddy work.
Can a trade become a Christian trade so that those doing it may be Christian plumbers? I think the answer is yes. I mistrust philosophy so I will not argue from abstract first principles but will point out how it worked in the history of Christendom. The answer was found in the guilds. The guilds provided communities that gave expression to the moral and Christian foundations of the trade and professional communities.
I am not sure that guilds are the only answer to question of how to make the trades Christ honoring, but it seems to me they are the place to begin to look for answers. At the least they had a pretty impressive track record.
How does this relate to the magistrate? Well, a Christian ruler in a pagan setting (like Daniel in Babylon or Joseph in Egypt) will be Christians who are magistrates. In a nation that confesses Christ as part of their organic constitutional law, such a magistrate will be bound to defend the faith and rule according to Christian norms as part of his objective duties. Such a ruler is a Christian magistrate.
Richard C. Gamble
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Dear Bill,
Are you saying that the guild concept is “Christian” or that there is something more christian in western medieval guilds than japanese medieval guilds?
W.H. Chellis
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Hi Rick,
Well, you got me on medieval Japanese guilds. Nor am I saying that the guild concept is necessarily “Christian.” What I am saying is that Christian vocations must be lived out in a communitarian context. The guilds provided such a context and thus provided the answer to the question of Christian trades in a way similar to which a Christian civil polity allows for a magistrate to be explicitly Christian.
Brent England
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
To be equally cheeky, I would think that most lawyers know the difference between A-ffect and E-ffect.
Love ya, Bill!
Brent England
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Oops, meant to comment on the last post: can magistrates and plumbers both be explicitly Christian in the same manner? Should we make a distinction between the two?
W.H. Chellis
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
John Fielding is a lawyer also… he probably knows his vowels.
W.H. Chellis
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:52 pm
“E” “A” whatever… I have always considered one vowel as good as another!
Actually, only smart lawyers like Caleb know such things.
Richard C. Gamble
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:39 pm
To demonstrate my own high level of vowel understanding-
I just finished watching the soon to be classic movie “Nanny McFee” with my 12 year old daughter.
The wretched Aunt, Lady Sedgwick, did not anyone to “drop their vowels”. Certainly the highlight of the movie.
So please keep an eye on them in further posts.
Richard C. Gamble
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Oops. Should have previewed my post. Don’t know how to do that yet. Missed the word “want” after “not” and before “anyone”.
D Hart
June 24th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
For what it’s worth, plumbing is a common activity that Christians and non-Christians pursue. Its norms come from the created order, and are conditioned by such things as metric versus US standard measurements. Not to sound biblicistic again, but I don’t see plumbing norms revealed in holy writ, which is where we find Christ revealed, not in the created order. So plumbing is a common as opposed to a holy activity. It will for the Christian produce sanctification and allow him or her to love God and neighbor. But I see no reason to call the actual work of plumbing Christian. For that reason, I don’t go to the Christian yellow pages to look for someone to fix my toilet.
The stakes may be higher for the magistrate or statesman, since the work of human justice is a foretaste of eschatological justice. But I still think the same logic applies in that the norms for the state come from creation rather than special revelation. Is Christ lord of each realm? Of course. Is his Lordship executed differently in each sphere? I answer yes. No fair appealing to Israel to answer that question. The rules governing the sphere of redemption have changed since the coming of Christ. The closer parallel for the magistrate today is not Irael but Babylon where created order norms governed political life, or should have, not the book of special revelation.
W.H. Chellis
June 24th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Darryl,
Are you serious? It is to much to say that Israel is absolutely off limits. Israel certainly had typological aspects that are not relevent to new covenant nations, but it also had moral aspects that made it a light to the nations around it (even in the old covenant).
As for Babylon, funny I did not understand their rulers presumptious rebellion against the Almighty to be a part of the creation mandate but a perversion of it. The creation order includes the first commandemt: You shall have no other God. A universal command for all men at all times… an intrinsic part of the natural/moral law.
If Christ is Lord of both the sacred and secular (which you seem willing to grant) how does the secular realm get a pass on the first commandment? How do they get to ignor Christ and His law?
So plumbing is common to all men and part of the creation mandate. So what? So is gravity and all the rest of the laws of nature. Christ upholds the whole universe by His Kingly reign. All the creation ordiances are under his dominion are are subservient to His glory.
D Hart
June 24th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Israel gets a pass because the church, her redemptive historical equivalent, does not bear the sword. Israel is the one Christian nation in the history of the world. But if you appeal to Israel as a model, then how do you sort out the cult and the culture without becoming a Judaizer? Even worse, how do you differ from a theonomist?
I will concede that I misunderstand a lot about the Old Testament, but Israel did not have a commission to invade China because the ancient Chinese denied the first commandment. And yet, Christ was Lord over ancient China, right?
If you appeal to the first commandment as part of the created order, which is easier to assert before than after the fall, then there is no room for Mormons or Roman Catholics in a nation in which Christ is Lord? Where’s the love? Where’s the pluralism? But if we tolerate blasphemers and idolaters, aren’t we violating the third commandment?
Tom
June 25th, 2006 at 1:45 am
Just as seeking perfection in our sanctification, where the Bible says we will not have it in this world, can be dangerous for the individual, I wonder if the same is true for nations?
One concern I have with appealing to the sword of the magistrate for enforcing the 10 commandments is that it seems to make light of the powers of the church.
As a Christian, shouldn’t I fear being barred from the table, more than I fear imprisonment? Shouldn’t I fear excommunication, much much more than execution?
Sphere sovereignty needs to be maintained. Baptising a whole nation because its ruler converts over rules the prerogatives of the heads of families. If the state were to punish ministers who (in the state’s mind!) are unfaithful in their preaching, that would violate the powers and priviledges of the Church.
Israel IS a special case. Church, State, AND Family were one. In my view from the pew, I don’t see that in the NT for the Church today.
Also, I wonder how much of Isaiah 49:23 was fulfilled in the return of the exiles from their captivity?
Richard C. Gamble
June 25th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Dear D.Hart,
Proably don’t understand blog genre. Judaisers are condemned in the Word. “Even worse” are theonomists?
Katsu
June 25th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Dr. Hart questioned:
If you appeal to the first commandment as part of the created order, which is easier to assert before than after the fall, then there is no room for Mormons or Roman Catholics in a nation in which Christ is Lord? …
This is where we see the genius
of Christ’s MEDIATORIAL kingship,
that is “slow to anger”.
If Christ executed his ORIGINAL
kingship now, all the infidels as
well as far-from-impeccable RPers like us would have to evaporate
coram Deo!
We need to be thankful for Christ’s
mediatorial kingship; no hope for
evangelism without it.
D Hart
June 25th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Katsu said something to the effect that by the state’s not punishing blasphemers or idolators, we see the merciful side of the kingship of Christ. But now I’m having real trouble seeing what difference the kingship makes. We could have Christ as king but not have any of the solutions that it apparently would bring, such as uniformity in cultural standards, the end of relativism, a check upon secularism (the very things mentioned in Bill’s original post). Instead, kingship on the one hand gives us truth and order, and on the other gives us what we already have.
But it gets more complicated because we would never tolerate such a gracious kingship in the church where I would expect a church honoring Christ’s kingship would excommunicate someone who poped or smithed. In other words, kingship in the church signfies a church rightly ordered in its marks, preaching, sacraments in discipline. But in the culture it means toleration for idolatry and blasphemy? Sorry, but I don’t understand.
Maybe if I knew the RP handshake it would all become clear. Someone please enlighten me.
Katsu
June 25th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Dr. Hart,
> But in the culture it means
> toleration for idolatry and
> blasphemy? Sorry, but I don’t
> understand.
It is sad indeed.
But if Christ were to execute
his ORIGINAL kingship as the
eternal Son to the world,
there would be no point of OPC sending missionaries to Uganda
(or, this pagan land of Japan, where OPC’s GA seems to be rather indifferent nowadays, if I’m correct.)
Likewise, if Christ were to
execute his ORIGINAL kingship
alone to the church, how can
“half-baked” Christians like us survive in the face of the holy
God?
No hope for sanctification!
Katsu
June 26th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Addendum:
Dr. Hart (church historian, OPC),
When I visited with Mrs. J.G. Vos
at RP Home in Pittsburgh a couple
of years ago, she confirmed that late Dr. J.G. Vos was a good friend of late Rev. Bruce Hunt.
Rev. Hunt led “covenanting movement” among Korean Christians
during Japanese occupation in
Manchuria.
F.Y.I.
Katsunori
MarkPele
June 28th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Maybe I’m too picky, but I certainly don’t see any Biblical evidence for the emphasis on community in general vocation. While the rulers are blessed in having many advisors, I don’t see any emphasis on occupational communalism. Bezalel was gifted by name, David was sought for his musicianship, and even David’s mighty men of valor were only mentioned based on their solitary acts of heroism.
I agree that the church is to live as a community, and that we are called to be neighbors in the truest sense of the word, but I wouldn’t make that an argument that every aspect of our lives can only be understood within the confines of a community.