John Williamson Nevin on the World Significance of Christianity
I have been following Darryl and Caleb’s interaction under Caleb’s Protestant Ethics post with much interest. Caleb poses a challenge we Protestants must wrestle with honestly. This long quotation by John Nevin is offered as an alternative to the view that the Gospel is somehow insignificant for—or incompatible with—the life of the world as now constituted. I believe that Jesus Christ is the substance and fulfillment of all that is good, true, and beautiful in the world.
________________________________________________________
Christianity is not simply a divine doctrine. It does not consist in this, that a certain system of truths, made known by extraordinary revelation, has come to be embraced and professed openly by a body of people styling themselves the Church, who are at the same time more or less influenced by such faith in their character and life. The religion of Christ does indeed include doctrines, vast and momentous as eternity itself, such as the world has had no knowledge of under any other form of revelation; but these, after all, do not constitute its primary character. It is deeper than all doctrine.
Christianity again is not simply a divine law. It does not consist in this, that by means of the gospel, a body of people styling themselves the Church, have come to a clearer apprehension than the world ever had before, of the moral relation in which men stand to one another and to God, and of the duties that grow properly out of these relations. The religion of Christ is indeed a perfect system of ethics in this view; but this is not in the end its fundamental distinction. It is broader and deeper than any conception of this kind.
Christianity is not mere doctrine for the understanding, or mere law for the will, but a power which is formed to lay hold of the inmost consciousness of the world as the principle of a new creation. In this view, it comes to us in the character, not of a theory or rule, but primarily of a divine FACT. It is something which has taken place in the constitution of the world…
Christianity, as a Fact, is not to be confounded with the idea of a mere Event. In this case, it must be considered the produce simply of such natural and spiritual forces as were at work in the world before its appearance. It would be a mere historical occurrence, of the same nature of the building of Rome or the destruction of Jerusalem; grand and stupendous, of course, and worthy to constitute the grandest epoch in the onward flow of time, but still one only, at last, among ten thousand other events that have taken place and continue to be followed still with important consequences, in the general movement of our human life. The rise of Mohammedanism may be fully resolved, in this way, into the action of resources and powers which were previously at hand in the process of history. But to conceive of the rise of Christianity, as a parallel product of the world’s earlier life, a mere reformation of Judaism, or a simple evolution of what was comprised in causes previously at work, is to overthrow its true nature altogether. It challenges our faith as a strictly supernatural fact.
On the other hand, however, Christianity must not be confounded, in this view, with the idea of a mere passing Miracle. It is not the supernatural, as brought to reveal itself in the way of outward, startling phenomena simply, the presence of the invisible forced abruptly, for a short season, on the sense of the visible world, and then withdrawn again into its own awful retirement. The miraculous, in such form, cannot be said to add any thing to the real contents of history. It falls over, at last, to the character of a naked occurrence, and can be felt at best only as an outward occasion, in its influence on the course of life. But Christianity, as already said, is the principle of a new creation in the life of the world. It is the supernatural, then, brought into real, organic, abiding union with the natural, raising it into its own sphere, and filling it thus with powers it never possessed before. It forms no contradiction, in this way, to the constitution of the world, as it stood previously, but accomplishes rather its inmost meaning, by revealing itself, in the “fullness of time,†as the great mystery of humanity, which had been the desire of nations through all preceding ages; while it becomes, from the period of its revelation onward, the central force of history itself, which may be said to comprehend and rule as such all other forces embraced in the process. It challenges our faith as a strictly historical fact.
As distinguished thus from a mere event, on the one hand, and a transient miracle on the other, Christianity must be regarded as a WORLD-FACT, in the broadest sense of the term. Thus to transcend the constitution of nature, and at the same time to fall in with it harmoniously and complete its sense, is necessarily to be more deep and comprehensive than this from the beginning. Christianity is not part of the world as it stood before, but for this very reason, more than the whole of it, as now exalted, through Christ, into a new and higher order of existence. The New Testament rests not upon the Old as its basis, but on the contrary, the Old Testament could never come to any true and solid reality till it was made to rest finally upon the New. We have a right to say, accordingly, that the second creation is more universal or catholic than the first. [emphasis added] It must be so, in the very nature of the case, to unite with this organically, without being the continuation simply of the same life. To suppose it less comprehensive, less world-embracing in its own inward meaning and power, is either to rob it of its supernatural character altogether, or else to thrust it out from the actual course of history, as the magical action simply of forces that come to no real union with our general life whatever. Christianity is the broadest and deepest form of humanity. As a world-fact, it is parallel with the creation of man in the beginning, only going beyond it in the depth, and compass, and far-reaching significance of its contents.
Christianity in the sense now described, is, of course, a single Fact. Innumerable particulars are indeed comprehended in its evolution, reaching as this does from the first and second advent of the divine Savior; but all make up, in the end, the power of one and the same glorious life, the process and completion of the new creation in Christ Jesus.
All begins in the mystery of the incarnation. The whole Gospel is enunciated in that overwhelming declaration, The Word became flesh. The declaration is not, itself, however, the Gospel. This meets us primarily in the living person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, in which is comprehended, for all time, the actual reality of the great mystery now named. He stood among men not as the proclaimer simply of truth and life, but as the very principle of both in his own person. He was not the prophetical organ only of the evangelical revelation, but the sum and substance of this revelation itself. As the constitution of the world, in its first form, served not merely to herald the name of God, but was itself an act of self-revelation, by which he came, to a certain extent, into actual view, so also the mystery of the incarnation is to be regarded, not simply as the medium of divine grace in its highest character, but as the very form under which this grace was brought to light. The person of Christ forms the last and most perfect act of self-revelation on the part of God, by which the process of all revelation became complete, and the deepest idea of the universe passed over from shadow to reality, in the actual inward and full union of the divine nature with the human, as one and the same life. The life of God, in the person of the incarnate Word, incorporated itself with the life of the human race, and became, in this way, the principle and fountain of the new creation for the world at large. This act itself brought righteousness and salvation, life and immortality, into the sphere of our fallen humanity; for it was not possible that the divine element, thus “made flesh,†should not in the end triumph over sin and hell, and thus accomplish all the grand and glorious results that are comprehended in the idea of the Gospel. Christianity, the whole vast mystery of the Church, the new heavens and the new earth replete with righteousness, all rest originally included as a single fact in the mystery of the incarnation. Christ is himself the light and life of the world. The last ground of its salvation is his person, not his work. All resolves itself into what he is, and not simply what he does. The great truths of the Gospel hold only in the new order of life, which is constituted and unfolded by the fact of the incarnation itself, and beyond this they have no reality whatever. The resurrection and immortality which Christ proclaims spring forth directly from the power of his own life. The atonement finds all its value in the theanthropic mystery with which it is supported from behind. The ultimate, specific distinction of Christianity, as compared with all other systems of religion, is neither the doctrine nor the work of Christ, but the economy of his person, as the indispensable basis of both. It is constituted here, once forever, by the perfect everlasting union of the human nature with the divine. This fact, apprehended and appropriated in the way of faith, (which in such case is the consciousness of a true life-union with the Savior himself), carries along with it, to the end of time, the whole force and value of the Christian redemption.
–John W. Nevin, Antichrist; or the Spirit of Sect and Schism (1848), Augustine Thompson, O.P., Ed. Wipf and Stock (Eugene, OR: 2000). pp. 17-20.
stevez
June 13th, 2007 at 11:50 am
“I believe that Jesus Christ is the substance and fulfillment of all that is good, true, and beautiful in the world.”
i do, too. but what still stumps me is how this translates into worldviewism/theonomy/transformationism/neo-calvinism, or whatever you choose to call it.
the more i listen to the other side of the table the more i wonder if part of the difference lies in just how the “good and true” sentiment is defined: by the spirit or by the flesh?
again, darryl keeps bringing up the theologies of the Cross and glory. i can’t help but think that worldviewism comports neatly under that of glory in how it seems to constantly seek to fit the Christ-narrative and its implications into the things that dazzle the flesh and help it in its natural impulses to fulfill the CoW and present to God reason to render a cosmic cap and gown for having graduated from the probationary period. i know that will be protested right quick, but that is my intuition when listening.
z
W.H. Chellis
June 14th, 2007 at 7:57 am
I read a really good biography of John Williamson Nevin. Could that have been by our own DGH?
Andrew Matthews
June 14th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I am incapable of arguing against your irresistable intuition, zrim. You have chosen to characterize transformationalists as trying to fulfill the CoW through natural strength, relying on their own works, not on Christ. Nothing will dissuade you from this view, which denies that Christ overcomes the world through the faithful obedience of his people (who are empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so). You have chosen to believe that God expects only faith & not obedience from his people. In this you are greatly mistaken.
For you, there can be no progress in history: all is characterized by Adamic failure. This is essentially the error of dispensationalism which fails to understand that Christ broke the pattern of Adamic failure that was recapitulated over and over again in Israel’s history prior to the first advent. The Church is not doomed to follow Israel’s example.
I unapologetically embrace a theology of cross and glory. First suffering, then glory. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. And indeed, we have historically seen how faithful witness can produce much fruit. This is the true import of the Nicene church’s success, not the slander that Constantine cynically used Christianity to buttress his power. In reality, Constantine put everything he had to gain at risk when he committed himself to the Lord’s protection.
The seed of the woman contends with the seed of the serpent over the fate of this world. The heavenly session of Christ guarantees the perserverance & ultimate success of our striving. There is a crown for everyone who overcomes. If you can’t lend a helping hand, get out of the way. Be not faithless, but believing!
stevez
June 15th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“I am incapable of arguing against your irresistable intuition, zrim.â€
Zrim: You have my sympathies.
“You have chosen to characterize transformationalists as trying to fulfill the CoW through natural strength, relying on their own works, not on Christ.â€
Zrim: I sense the implication that I have refused to hear the arguments out and have simply chosen to refuse that which doesn’t “jib with me.†First, I wonder if it helps to know that I once did quite embrace transformationist views. But as the Gospel has opened up over the years none of it seemed to really comport very well at all. I will even admit that relinquishing those views and embracing those more sympathetic to more what might be called Hartian-Hortian-Clarkian-VanDrunian views was not easy. I think this has to do with the fact that transformationism is quite natural to the flesh and man comes to it very easily. But it seems to me the Gospel, rightly ascertained, will really have none of it. Second, one has to come to a conclusion about an argument and render it as “saying something,†right? So, yes, I have chosen to characterize transformationism in that way because that is how I conclude about it.
“Nothing will dissuade you from this view, which denies that Christ overcomes the world through the faithful obedience of his people (who are empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so). You have chosen to believe that God expects only faith & not obedience from his people. In this you are greatly mistaken.â€
Zrim: No, it won’t because I have spent enough time in and around it to know what I deliberately have both rejected and embraced. But…I do have categories for obedience; I am no Evangelical. This is something else that befuddles me when listening to the arguments of transformationism. Isn’t this always the charge against those who embrace the ‘solas’ in a strict sense? There is such a thing called imperatives, but they are grounded in indicatives, which is why I fail to understand Christian charges to pagans for any ethic. That is, are they us? If no, then what right or duty do we have to either, in nastier forms, charge them with obedience, or, in more graceful ways, try and sell them on the idea that we are simply helping everyone make the world a better place? Every charge has to have grounds. On what grounds or indicatives are we to stand when charging pagans? That they “have been bought by Christ� How can you tell those who have not been bought by Christ that they have? Is this subtle universalism?
I am still not persuaded, you are correct. I do deny this idea that Christ overcomes via His people. Christ overcomes in His own strength, by His own work. God certainly is a mediatorial God and works in and through His people—but for what purpose? To change the world or to effect the Gospel? Of course, I say the latter. Liberals and conservative transformationists can have each other to rip apart as the Gospel sits unattended, even neglected and denied. But I continue to be perplexed by this idea that such a view summarily deletes any category for obedience, etc. For my part, I never had a clear category for obedience until embracing CRO. Saying my view has no category for obedience just seems as odd as calling Horton an Arminian (ahem). In my grasp of confessionally Reformed orthodoxy I have a category for obedience, summed up quite nicely in the HC; guilt, grace, gratitude, or traditionally understood as the third use of the Law. The only ground I stand on for any measure of any obedience is the finished work of Christ alone, in thanks, in gratitude, etc. The pagan down the street doesn’t have that. The only deal on the table for him is the CoW, and his ground is the one naturally programmed for him, namely that he must stand as perfectly righteous before God by his own doing. And that is what pagans are doing by nature. And if we can’t say they have the grounds found in the CoG (how could we?), then they are only left with the grounds which will eternally condemn them. Therefore, charging pagans with the imperatives found in both natural and special revelation only helps them increase their sin and condemnation. How can that be loving?
“For you, there can be no progress in history: all is characterized by Adamic failure. This is essentially the error of dispensationalism which fails to understand that Christ broke the pattern of Adamic failure that was recapitulated over and over again in Israel’s history prior to the first advent. The Church is not doomed to follow Israel’s example.â€
Zrim: While I am loathe to be associated with such a horrible eschateology as that, I would agree in my grasp of the implications of the amillenialism I embrace, that as time either progresses or retreats nothing changes much except in appearances or in relative to asn observer in any given point in time and/or place. Someone once said there is nothing new under the sun; man is the same sinful beast he was from the beginning and always will be until the consummation. No, I wouldn’t want to go back in time and/or place, but only because it’s not mine, not because it was worse. I think we flirt with a good dose of arrogance to think other times or places as not good enough. Little wonder such views come out of western and American cradles, if you ask me. The transformationists in my circles, where it is quite thick, seem to think all the answers will flow out of, surprise—surprise, American forms of applied Christianity. Is it any wonder when third world liberationists dive into scripture and emerge with biblical sanction for their worldview, or when white, male American Republicans do the same and surface with the same sanction? My question always seems to be: if all this “transformationist-Gospel manifestation†stuff is true, whose program are we supposed to embrace, because it always seems to mirror very narrow bands of political-moral-social-cultural expressions. And why has the world always looked the same an dnothing ever really changes? Why can’t the transformationists get this program going and solve the world? Like Lennon crooned, ‘you say you’ve got a real solution? We’d all love to see the plan.’ So where is it? Is it caught up in endless and predictable disagreement about how these things ought to be effected? Or could it be that that it, in point of fact, simply rests in the foolishness of word and sacrament?
z
Caleb Stegall
June 15th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Good to see Steve picking up the fundamentalist baton where DH dropped it. Capital letters and all!
D Hart
June 16th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Andrew, this might be a good case for your understanding of Christ and progress: is the internal combustion engine a sign of progress or decline? Or is it neutral from the perspective of the fact of Christ? You see, in addition to being sympathetic to Luther’s theology of the cross, I am also someone quite affected by Wendell Berry and his version of agrarianism and localism. And I can’t help but think that many of the things that we industrial moderns see as progress — even more food and improved health — is not as progressive if it involves living a “bad” life for 90 years. I also wonder what Jesus would do about fossil fuel. If Caleb via Voegelin thinks it significant that Christ came at the time of the Roman Empire, isn’t it also significant that Christ came almost two millenia before the car?
I am not saying that Andrew is associating historical progress of a Christian kind with industrialization, democracy, capitalism, and all the other forces that shape modern life. But I do wonder if progress conformed more to the created order, as in one that did not create vast piles of waste (e.g. emissions and land fill), what would Christian civilization look like?
Andrew Matthews
June 17th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Zrim taunts: “And why has the world always looked the same and nothing ever really changes? Why can’t the transformationists get this program going and solve the world? Like Lennon crooned, ‘you say you’ve got a real solution? We’d all love to see the plan.’ So where is it? Is it caught up in endless and predictable disagreement about how these things ought to be effected? Or could it be that that it, in point of fact, simply rests in the foolishness of word and sacrament?â€
The thought has occurred to me Zrim, why do you bother writing here? Maybe it’s merely to back up the W2K program of deriding Evangelicals & transformationalists. The issue of how Christ relates to culture? No problem—there isn’t any relation.
I’m glad you mentioned word and sacrament. Of course, in your view these are confined within the four walls of private Christian assembly. They have been provided solely as means to elicit and strengthen the faith of the elect, i.e., your society of elite sectarians.
You affirm that the world outside is good. What you mean by this is something quite different from what I mean. When you call it good, you mean that creation retains an autonomous integrity, a good of existence, without respect to how it is cultivated, how it is used. It is a neutral medium (like a theater stage) upon which the grand ‘drama of redemption’ unfolds. Creation will then be discarded after the final act, its usefulness complete.
Hear the words of Scripture: “God created [marriage, food] to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer†(1 Tim. 4:3-5).
Why do we consecrate anything if every creature of God is good? Yet, we are enjoined by the apostle to do so. When I call creation good, I mean that it was originally created to be glorified in God, but that Adam’s rebellion subjected it to the futility of corruption and death (Rom.8). By the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, all things may be sanctified, through the agency of the Church’s proclamation and prayer. The raison d’etre of the Church’s ministry of reconciliation is nothing less than to restore creation to its original purpose.
This is the master plan, Zrim. And this is what motivates every transformationalist worth his salt. Evidently, you have suppressed the wholesome desire of cosmic restoration in yourself, and can only regard it as vanity in others. You call it “natural to the flesh.†This is a gnostic misappropriation of the biblical metaphor. The natural man hates the law of God and does not wish to submit to it. The “flesh†refers to body without spirit, that is, spiritually dead human beings. To deny culture the vivification derived from Christ’s body and blood (“The bread that I will give is my body, which I give for the life of the world.â€) is the epitome of fleshly mindedness in the biblical sense.
Zrim, I’m sorry that the transformationalists you’ve encountered seem to have lost focus on the essence of their mission & have wasted energy on arguing over the best strategy for effecting their goals. (Short-sightedness and personal pride have no doubt played a part in this.) So far, here on DRC I have devoted my time to arguing for Christian culture and against W2K nay-saying in general because I think transformationalists need to come together and work in cooperation with one another. It’s time to leave the old animosities behind and hasten toward the coming Day when we will have to give an account for what we’ve done with what we’ve been given.
Finally, to conclude with a few miscellaneous points.
Zrim, I noticed that you didn’t really comment on the quotation from Nevin. I took a long time to type it out (I type slow), and am interested to hear your reaction in light of your forenso-monist soteriology (It’s all about imputation, baby!).
I had previously written, “You have chosen to believe that God expects only faith & not obedience from his people.†To clear up some confusion, I have and do recognize you have categories for personal obedience (guilt, grace, gratitude). However, what you lack is any sense at all of the corporate dimension of obedience. On the macro level you are, for all practical purposes, antinomian.
Zrim, responding to my point about the correspondence between amillenialism and dispensationalsim (on the principle of the inevitability of Adamic failure), you wrote, “While I am loathe to be associated with such a horrible eschateology as that, I would agree in my grasp of the implications of the amillenialism I embrace, that as time either progresses or retreats nothing changes much except in appearances or in relative to asn observer in any given point in time and/or place. Someone once said there is nothing new under the sun; man is the same sinful beast he was from the beginning and always will be until the consummation.â€
I want to press you on this point, Zrim. What covenant order was established by Christ at his first advent? And why, according to OT prophetic expectation, was this covenant given?
I eagerly await your reply.
D Hart
June 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I won’t speak for Steve (zrim) but I’ll be glad to say, even after having written a sympathetic and positive biography of Nevin the German Reformed theologian’s Hegelianism could get the better of him. There are other places, by the way, where Nevin doesn’t sound so Kuyperian.
But Andrew, you ask why we consecrate things already good. You ask in order to expose zrim’s (and implicitly my) understanding of the goodness of creation as somehow autonomous from the santified view of goodness you propose. Maybe I’m a broken record on this, but have you ever considered marriage? We consecrate marriage (but it is no sacrament). We don’t regard marriage between unbelievers as bad because they don’t consecrate it. The reason why it is good is because God created and ordained it so, not because he needs us to consecrate his good things. Our consecration of God’s good gifts is an appropriate response of belief and faithfulness. Still, God’s good gifts retain a goodness apart from our response because God created them good.
And while I’m at it, Andrew, you engage in a sleight of hand by switching from consecration to sanctification in the paragraph above. Not that I am Mr. Webster, but to consecrate something is not the same thing as to sanctify it. To consecrate something is to use it to serve God (as in the Protestant view of marriage). To sanctify or make something holy is to set it apart (as in marriage as a sacrament). I think equation of these two acts proves zrim’s point that fundamentalists and neo-Calvinists do not have a category of goodness that is separate from holiness or redemption, which is why neo-Calvinists can actually talk about “redeeming television.” Surely Christ didn’t die to purchase NBC or HBO.
Andrew Matthews
June 18th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Hi Darryl,
The ideal of agrarianism is worthwhile, indeed important, but I am a city a dweller. I look forward to a time when there can be a mutually beneficial relation between rural and urban life. I see things like the internal combustion engine, the telephone and the internet as being instrumental supports for rural living in these later (post-industrial) times. (I found it interesting that you don’t like cell phones.) The automobile certainly has had its environmental costs, but nothing that can’t be remediated as environmental technologies develop.
I view the historical context in which these modern technological advances have been made with much misgiving. To my understanding, the whole modern age has been animated by a desire to push human progress forward without reliance upon God, and is really a premature grasping of the fruit of knowledge in rebellion against God. This recapitulation of the fall followed upon 1000 years of the reign of the saints, and climaxed in the revelation of the Man of Sin (the various totalitarian dictators). There has been more shedding of innocent blood in the last century than all the other previous centuries combined. The world has never seen evil on such a massive scale.
On the other hand, it is true that many scientific discoveries have been made by God-fearing men, who saw no conflict between their faith and work. I guess the problem is how technologies are applied on the macro scale. Automobiles can be turned into tanks; pesticides can be turned into poisonous gas for the purpose of exterminating whole populations. Ironically, we have seen that the environmentalist inspired ban on DDT led to the starvation of millions in the third world.
As to the distinction you made between consecration and sanctification, I could find no support for it in either the online dictionaries I consulted or Bauer’s lexicon. The word AGIAZW, that the NIV translates “consecrated” and the KJV “sanctified” in 1 Tim 4:5, is used to refer to the consecration of objects for ritual use (Matt. 23:20), the sanctification of believers in holy baptism (1 Cor. 6:11), and to denote the sacredness of God’s name (Matt. 6:9). I’m no language scholar, but it appears you are making a conceptual, rather than biblically supported, grammatical distinction.
I certainly see how your political views require a differentiation between the two words, but I see no theologically compelling reason for me to accept it. Christian marriage is not the same as pagan marriage; it is marriage that has been raised to a higher level: it participates in the mystery of Christ and his Church. Likewise, meals that Christians share take on greater significance since they are anticipatory of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
While acknowledging the chief place of the two “Gospel Sacraments,” Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, I have a category for lesser “sacramentals” that flow from these. This makes possible an anticipatory redemption of the natural order, and does justice to the broader biblical teaching, in my view. I do not view the de-sacralization and consequent disenchantment of life that characterizes modern secularism as a good thing at all–quite the opposite, in fact.
To paraphrase John Jillions, a translator of Alexander Schmemann, I view the battle with secularism as no less intense than that against militant atheism. Schmemann “defined secularism not as the negation of God, but the negation of worship. ‘A modern secularist,’ [he wrote,] ‘quite often accepts the idea of God. What, however, he emphatically negates is precisely the sacramentality of man and world.’ In other words, secularism denies ‘that the world is an ‘epiphany’ of God, a means of his revelation, presence, and power.’ Secularism is a world view and consequently a way of life in which the basic aspects of human existence–such as family, education, science, profession, art, etc.–not only are not rooted in or related to religious faith, but in which the very necessity or possibility of such a connection is denied… The charcteristic feature of the American culture and ‘way of life’ is that it simultaneously accepts religion as something essential to man and denies it as an integrated world view shaping the totality of human existence…” -Schmemann, Celebration of Faith: Sermons, Vol.2, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press (Crestwood, NY: 1994), pp. 8-9.
To the man of faith, the whole earth is already full of God’s glory. The righteous acts of the saints (which I take to be sanctifying acts) are the white garments with which the Bride readies herself for the Bridegroom (Rev. 19:7-8). When our Lord returns, his glory will shine through, revealing the true nature of these garments to the world. This is the revelation of the sons of God for which the agonized creation labors in expectation.
stevez
June 19th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Hello again, Andrew.
I post here because I find it interesting, and I like to put my ideas up against others to better understand theirs and my own. I am not “taunting†so much as honestly asking questions I have for transformationists. But very likely my motives are mixed; maybe I have both noble and ignoble reasons for engaging you. But I certainly hope one is not to deride you or your views.
I would like to reply to as much as I can. However both time and ability seem to get in my way. You ask some things on which I simply must plead ignorance. Sorry. Nevin, for example, is a figure who intrigues yet baffles me. I have read Darryl’s biography. My interest in him seems to be that he might serve as one of Hart’s breadcrumbs to help recover a better confessional piety, etc. So while you might type slowly, I am a bit more deliberate myself in my thinking to grasp what is actually going on with him. Short answer: I don’t know yet.
I would agree, however, that your views of creation do hit me as left-of-center. I tend to smell the ingredients of the latent Liberalism in which I was reared where the holy and unholy seem to get collapsed together. The Fundamentalism I came into in later years sees creation as wicked and radically separates the two; but I find the neo-Calvinism as something of an overcompensation, seeing creation not just as good but somehow sacred. If all things are sacred then nothing is. I appreciate the ingredient in neo-Calvinism/trans’ism that holds to the goodness of creation contra what one finds in your garden variety Fundamentalism. But I guess I have views that zig when one or the other of these zag. It seems to me that most of American piety has a hard time tolerating such zagging. But when I consider the stuff of Liberalism, Fundamentalism or neo-Calvinism I think of Luther’s drunkard trying to mount a horse. Yes, you are right that I see creation at once good yet passing. But just because I hold that it is passing doesn’t mean it’s to be dismissed somehow. Again, I am no Dispensationalist (which is why I, despite its neo-Calvinist trans’ism, gravitate to what I call the south Beltline piety—i.e. Calvin College—and resist greatly the north Beltline piety—i.e. Cornerstone College). When I engage the transformers around me I seem to have to remind them of this as well: my grasp of the best of confessional Reformed orthodoxy allows me, in my affirmation of creation, to honestly rejoice in good times, lament in bad ones and be bored in the in-betweens, while also, in Calvin’s words “not be too tied to this world†either way; it really engenders a subtle yet profound nuance. I think a key to this view is how it trumpets that thing called hope. Most seem to talk about hope in bad times. That makes sense. But when do we ever hear about hope in the midst of favor? Not often, at best. That is because we are too tied to this world.
Whether it’s the rather unsophisticated pieties that teach us to “discern the will of God for our lives in six steps” or the rather more sophisticated versions found in such phenomenon as transformationism, it always strikes me that both seem to be a function of what I call “creature-comfort” syndrome, a phenomenon that occurs not when the Church sees herself as militant or at war but has moved to make peace with the powers that be. But the Gospel is antithetical to absolutely everything man devises.
I think in your first response to me you suggested that if such views cannot lend a hand we ought to get out of the way. If someone would please pass the bread and wine, I will more than happy to oblige that call to pilgrimage over against crusade.
z
stevez
June 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“You affirm that the world outside is good. What you mean by this is something quite different from what I mean. When you call it good, you mean that creation retains an autonomous integrity, a good of existence, without respect to how it is cultivated, how it is used. It is a neutral medium (like a theater stage) upon which the grand ‘drama of redemption’ unfolds. Creation will then be discarded after the final act, its usefulness complete… had previously written, “You have chosen to believe that God expects only faith & not obedience from his people.†To clear up some confusion, I have and do recognize you have categories for personal obedience (guilt, grace, gratitude). However, what you lack is any sense at all of the corporate dimension of obedience. On the macro level you are, for all practical purposes, antinomian.â€
One thing I do find interesting is that you charge a penchant for neutrality in the common sphere and antinomianism in the cultic. I understand, I think, your charges. But I wouldn’t characterize the results of my views that way.
In my own grasp of 2k/natural law this idea of neutrality seems a misnomer.
I wouldn’t say neutrality is the best word at all. After all, I myself am not really neutral on any given issue; most people I know have views, to greater or lesser degrees, on any given common issue. Furthermore, I have views on things and feel quite persuaded in them enough to consider others wrong and me right; I use words like dis/agree and right/wrong and good/bad. It seems to me that’s hardly the language of “neutrality.†If I were neutral I’d use words like different or orientation or preference or dis/like.
It always sounds to me that transformationists are saying that if one isn’t, as I refer to it, reaching for the God-lever, going beyond simply saying “I am right and you are wrong†in order to give my own perspective more clout or power that he is really “being neutral.†But how can one be neutral if he has the audacity to actually say someone else is wrong? Christian secularists do have some thing sin common with cultural leftists, I will concede. But the stuff of neutrality really comports under the latter, not the former.
The go-to charge of antinomianism seems odd. I know you make these micro- macro-distinctions but, to be honest, I find them sort of manufactured since it should go without saying that the categories for obedience to which I refer are both individual and corporate; the HB was written for both the individual believer and the church proper. But therein seems to lie our difference—I see these forms culled from scripture to mean how the church may and ought to govern herself and her members. Perhaps predictably, I am a stickler for that pesky taxonomy of indicative/imperative. If pagans are not included in the indicative you can’t charge them with the imperatives. And if you ask me, one of the most lamentable conditions of the Church today is the relative absence of discipline. It gives those of us with high views of grace a black eye and ammunition for pagans to charge hypocrisy. In my own church (which, keep in mind, is quite transformationist) I think I am consider something of a curmudgeon in light of a particular situation that has chaffed me for two years which I think should be handled with resolute discipline. Antinomian? I still don’t get it.
I have another set of questions to which I wonder if you might respond (remember, I am asking genuinely, not tauntingly):
I wonder what one does with scripture when it no longer serves the immediate and contemporary purposes of those who want to specifically apply it? I think of the anti-abortionists who cite the psalm about being knit together in mother’s womb as biblical evidence that the public policies of the religious right are what God intends. What happens in times and places where the socio-political scene more or less comports with how certain transformers would want to see the public policy shake out (i.e. it is thoroughly suppressed)? What does being knit in mother’s womb mean then?
Same question for those with different applications. What happens to scripture which supposedly calls for debt relief or the eradication of poverty, the end of war/promotion of peace, etc. in prosperous environs?
What happens when the “grim and destitute” are not so paltry anymore?
zrim
D Hart
June 20th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Andrew writes: “I certainly see how your political views require a differentiation between the two words, but I see no theologically compelling reason for me to accept it. Christian marriage is not the same as pagan marriage; it is marriage that has been raised to a higher level: it participates in the mystery of Christ and his Church. Likewise, meals that Christians share take on greater significance since they are anticipatory of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.”
I can certainly see why Andrew doesn’t see any theologically compelling reasons to accept the two kingdsoms. I’ve been fairly fulsome in my expression and nothing has yet to hit the mark. If only Andrew could be neutral.
Maybe the apostle Paul will help. He wrote: “God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God” (1 Cor. 1:27ff). If the Bible, nay God, is our model, why would we choose the wise, the strong, and the high and reputable (say Christendom) for our cultural model if God chooses to use the opposite in his work? Well, maybe we could choose the wise, strong and high and reputable if two ways are at work, the way of redemption and the way of creation-providence.
As for marriage, I’ve never said that pagan and Christian marriage are the same. Christians use the institution to glorify God, pagans don’t. But it is an institution that is available to both, and it is an institution that won’t be around in the new heavens and new earth. Andrew’s reasons for claiming Christian marriage is different run in the direction of Rome and turning it into a sacrament. Maybe I’m beginning to understand the appeal of Christendom.
And then there is eating: before saying that Christian meals point in the direction of the Marriage supper of the Lamb, I wonder if Andrew should consider that pagan meals do as well — but in the pagan case to their own destruction. Both meals are indicative of the image of God in man, and both point back to creation. Since these meals are common, I’d say they have more significance as part of the created order, not as the redemptive one. But if all meals point in the direction of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, then doesn’t that make the Lord’s Supper chopped liver? Again, the transformationist view leads to a sacramental view of everything.
By the way, one of the best books on the significance of eating is Leon Kass’ The Hungry Soul. Not only does he do a remarkable job of pointing out the image-of-God-in-man significance of the way humans eat, but his insights suggest that non-Christians are as wise if not wiser than Christians about the good things of God’s creation.
Andrew Matthews
June 21st, 2007 at 2:26 am
Hi Steve (Is your last name Zrim?),
_________________________________________________________________________
Note: The following paragraphs were written today before I had internet access, so I’ve not yet had an opportunity to read your most recent comment. I’ll look at it tonight and get a response to you tomorrow when I have an opportunity.
_________________________________________________________________________
I, too, enjoy the interaction on DRC, and have found many opportunities to refine my thinking on various aspects of the Christ-culture relation. I don’t worry so much about personal motives as I do the destructiveness of certain theories and practices. In the face of your criticisms, there are only so many times I can affirm the penultimacy of the present order of things in different ways without it becoming an exercise in futility. Also, one either accepts there is a cultural aspect to redemption or one doesn’t. A mere reading of the NT, without reference to OT expectation or historical development of Christianity, can only prove inconclusive on the subject. I could be wrong, but DRC seems to be primarily a forum for those who think Christianity and culture have some proper relation.
While not having the advantage of reading Darryl’s biography on Nevin, I’ve had the opportunity of reading some of his writings. In dong so, I’ve found numerous correspondences between his thought and the Christological thought of the Church Fathers. Nominal familiarity with the thought world of the Fathers would seem to provide a context in which to appreciate Nevin’s sentiments. My sense is that many Christians today, even educated ones such as yourself, have little appreciation for the Trinitarian and Christological insights of the first several centuries of Christian thought. What place does the Trinity or even the hypostatic unity of Christ’s natures have in the kind of “confessional piety†and worship you advocate?
As far as any latent liberal tendencies I might possibly have, to argue for the imperative of sanctifying cultural institutions and artifacts is not indicative of a de-supernaturalizing or rationalizing impulse characteristic of Liberalism. Rather, I insist on the present relevance of Christ for all of human life, indeed, all of creation. I believe it is the Church’s mission to apply the redemption of Christ in a comprehensive way that instrumentally effects continuity between the old and new creations. Like the crimson cord that saved not only Rahab and her family, but her house as well, the ministry of the Church works (like salt) to preserve and sanctify things of this world for the next. The Church is quite literally, In the words of the celebrated phrase, “the Ark of Salvation.”
If neo-calvinism implies that creation is somehow sacred, I must plead guilty to agreeing with the neo-calvinists. I believe the world was polluted by sin (not just in a metaphorical or legal way, but in a real way), and that Christ, through his Church in the power of the Holy Spirit, works to purify and redeem the world. Again, I affirm the goodness of the world as destined for glory (after a purgation of fire), but W2K affirms a “goodness†that has no respect to ultimate ends. In my understanding, the transcendence of the new creation in Christ is the source of all creaturely value. Christ is the Logos, after all.
There is more than one way in which someone can be “too tied to the world.†One may consider the particular forms of our present earthly life as ultimate, so that his only thought is of the practical imperatives of order, security, and prosperity. It is certainly possible to confuse the interests of a parochial group with God’s ultimate purposes, whether it be a clan, a nation, or even… a denomination. However, there is another kind of attachment to the world that involves willful complicity in keeping the whole of human society enslaved to the tyranny of sin and spiritual darkness. This compromise with the “world†is direct insubordination to Christ’s command in the Great Commission, and is (to my thinking) the most unattractive aspect of W2K theology by far.
Finally, I see no conflict between the Crusader and Pilgrim metaphors. I do not wish to oppose them to each other, since, as I’ve mentioned before, the NT attributes a “militant†aspect to Christian witness. Why can’t we be Pilgrim-Crusaders who through faith conquer kingdoms, administer justice, gain promises, rout armies, and endure torture, jeers, flogging, and imprisonment, for whom this present evil age remains unworthy? (Heb. 11:33-37) Unlike the OT saints, we have received the promised Kingdom (v. 39); why should we think our election is some kind of escape capsule (like the Rapture) that delivers us from humanity’s collective cultural responsibility?
Instead of a one-sided defeatist “theology of the cross,†I propose a theology of cross and glory. The era of inevitable Adamic failure is over; we are now living under the terms and in the power of a New Covenant. Let us humbly serve our fellow man by developing Christian culture, and perchance the Holy Spirit will draw sinners who see their need of it. Let us humbly obey the Lord the best we are able, and patiently wait for him to exalt us in the time he so chooses.
stevez
June 21st, 2007 at 10:30 am
andrew,
well, if DRC is for those who see that link between Christ and culture maybe darryl needs to turn in his piece and badge (little good-natured levity, that).
this is what can confuse me: “Why can’t we be Pilgrim-Crusaders who through faith conquer kingdoms, administer justice, gain promises, rout armies, and endure torture, jeers, flogging, and imprisonment, for whom this present evil age remains unworthy? (Heb. 11:33-37.”
perhaps i am slavish to a plain and simple reading of any text, but how in the world (so to speak) can one be at once a pilgrim and a crusader? i know all you say is an effort to answer that question, but th eonly way i apprehend it is to re-write the rules and definitions of both phrases. an dperhaps i am just too old-fashioned, but i much prefer playing by rules. but here is what further confounds me: “…through faith conquer kingdoms (etc.)…” i hope i am not so naive enough as to not by this point understand our essential differences, andrew. but to my mind, this is to violate paul’s own dichotomy between the eye of faith and the eye of the flesh. we have faith in what is not seen, etc. the biblical category of faith transcends what is presently grasped–that seems the very point. further, i don’t, as i read scripture and in my own grasp of primitive church history, see *any* model that tells us to take up arms; rather, i see calls to sheath the sword (per Christ’s instruction to peter). paul–and all NT figures for that matter–seem quite uninterested in converting the emperor or changing the world around them in any way. i see nothing but absolute silence.
you say things like the “church is the ark of salvation” or “Christ is the fulfillment of all things good, true and beautiful,” and i find myself nodding. but i think we mean vastly different things. like darryl points out and i have already said (if all things are sacred then nothing is), there is this strange conflation between the common and sacred which i just don’t see. given the choice of two pieties, on the one hand that piety which sees creation as essentially wicked (i.e. fundamentalism, or better, pietism) and that which begins with an opposite assumption, namely that it is essentially good, but then keeps going and elevates it to sacred (i.e. neo-calvinism), i am inclined to opt for the latter but with great reservation; it is far better to start with a creation-good category. i contend that the former stuff of pietism is worse, but not by a heck of a lot.
maybe it’s the latent pagan in me having been reared in secularism, but perhaps the pagans can actually teach us something (after all, even satan is God’s servant, yes?). in my pagan and secular rearing the world, of course, wasn’t bad at all. yet, i also never had any sense that it was eternal or salvific either. of course, in the end, paganism has to find hope in this world since it’s the only deal on thr table per the naturally programmed CoW. this is where i perceive i veer sharply as a christian and where, in point of fact, i see the subtle yet crucial difference that makes the difference. and i said it before: hope. where is your hope? is it in this world or the next, and if in the next, on what grounds? i perceive paul’s hope to be in the next and on the grounds of justification through Christ alone, etc.
zrim (yes…well, close. my last name is zrimec. i readily admit it to be quite pathetic but ‘zrim’ is my mother’s nickname for my father, for whom i have profound respect and admiration…so i stole it, since i have no nickname, something i always wanted. i look forward to exchanging even that name, with as much temporal value as it might have for me, for a better one in the next world.)
Andrew Matthews
June 21st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Steve writes, “One thing I do find interesting is that you charge a penchant for neutrality in the common sphere and antinomianism in the cultic.”
This isn’t quite right. I do not recognize a dichotomy between cultic and common spheres as you do. I recognize an institutional difference between the Church and other institutions only. Christians as members of the Church inhabit the common space of society along with unbelievers. All institutions, including the Church, are subject to the authority of the state in matters of public order and security. Likewise, all institutions are subject (whether they recognize it or not) to the spiritual authority of the Church. In my view, the state should willingly submit itself to the spiritual authority and order society to protect the Church & facilitate her salvific mission. From the last comment I posted, you can see that I think the Church’s mission is to sanctify all of life, indeed all creation, through means of the word and prayer. In concert with this cultic sanctification, Christians should work to cultivate the possibilities inherent in nature in anticipation of the Lord’s coming.
My complaint against W2K is that it views the present creation itself as an enclosed system, closed off from the in-breaking new creation, and existing merely as a space where the respective destinies of human individuals play themselves out. In this, W2K men implicitly deny either: that the first creation was meant to be glorified after Adam completed his probation under the CoW, or, that after the fall creation retained this purpose. It is in this sense—not in an absolutely morally relativistic sense—that W2K attributes neutrality to the created order and futility to the cultural task.
W2K attributes an intrinsic good to creation that has no respect to its orientation toward the transcendent, which should be identified, specifically, as the future glorification of God in Christ. In the words of St. Paul: “From him, and through him, and to him are all things†(Rom. 11:36; Cf. Col. 1:15-20). An insensitivity to the cosmic scope of salvation allows W2K men to feel free to mute the Church’s public proclamation.
The Church’s witness announces the Lordship of Christ to every man in whatever station, including ruling authorities. Paul was sent not only to the Gentiles, but their kings as well (Acts 9:15). All are responsible to submit to Christ’s authority and order their affairs in light of his coming judgment. Since the Father has committed all authority to the Son for the purpose of salvation (John 17:2; Cf. Matt. 28:18, Lk. 10:22, Jn. 3:35, 5:26-27), Christ’s office is a royal-redemptive unity. His single office is that of sacerdotal kingship, or, royal priesthood (Heb. 8:1-2). Because it is impossible to separate the law from the Lawgiver, it is improper—to say the least—for Christians to teach that God is indifferent on whether corporate society acknowledges Christ’s redemptive reign as long as it follows some moral precepts derived from natural law.
Ultimately, antinomianism is not the absence of law. Antinomianism is the practice of autonomy, of being a law unto one’s self, of choosing which laws will be obeyed on the basis of one’s reason. Antinomianism is ultimately the rejection of Christ’s authority, for whoever does not receive the Son, receives not the Father (I Jn. 2:23). All of the lesser commandments derive their justification and force from the greatest, which is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.â€
Since the first Christmas morning, faithful witnesses have identified Jesus as both the original Archetype of humanity as well as the locus of worship toward which natural revelation points. Thus, natural revelation was never given to stand alone. After creating Adam with the inherent capacity to know righteousness, God immediately gave verbal instruction. Besides the fact that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, natural revelation finds its completion only in the explicit revelation unfolded in the writings of the inspired prophets.
Besides the law’s list of prohibitions, there are positive commands. The most fundamental is the “greatest commandment.†Man was to fulfill this commandment by means of cultivating creation for God’s glory. This original CoW was transformed by the event of Christ’s first advent. The Church is no longer under it, for it has been given the joyous task of cooperating with the triumphant Christ in his royal-sacerdotal work of cosmic redemption. This is the true import of the third use of the law. The cycle of Adamic failure has ended, and a new world approaches. My hope lies not in the potentialities of the powers of this age, rather, my hope is in the appearance of my beloved King Jesus. My strength derives from the royal anointing which we received at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is here now, and, as on the first day of the old creation, broods over it in order to transform it into a new creation to be filled with the glory of God.
Steve, I’ll address the micro/macro, imperative/indicative issues as well as other points you’ve made, as soon as I can.
Andrew Matthews
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 am
I took the liberty to cut & paste Steve’s most recent comment and place it here under the appropriate discussion.
stevez
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
“In my view, the state should willingly submit itself to the spiritual authority and order society to protect the Church & facilitate her salvific mission.â€
SZ: So what do you do with the reality that it doesn’t? There are a lot of things that “should happen†but never seem to. I hear this all the time from transformers and wonder how they find any ease with this constant tension between what they think ought to be and what is. But to even back up to the claim that this should even happen in the first place, let’s take the Jesus and Peter encounter in which Peter stands in front of Jesus to keep Him from facing crucifixion. You know the rest. Was Jesus wrong to be as audacious as to call such a devoted disciple ‘Satan’ and demand he get out of His way? (This demand to get out of the way seems ironic in light of your call to get out of the way.) And then with Pilate: instead of silence, where is the charge to protect Jesus and make it all go away with further charges to protect the disciples and heed both Him and His followers? It seems to me that were the transformationist set of assumptions to come to pass we actually end up with Peter (and to up the stakes, Satan) getting his way and stopping the purchase of sinners and thereby eradicating the very program of God—which is why I find transformationism to be not a little antithetical to the Christian religion.
“The Church’s witness announces the Lordship of Christ to every man in whatever station, including ruling authorities. Paul was sent not only to the Gentiles, but their kings as well (Acts 9:15). All are responsible to submit to Christ’s authority and order their affairs in light of his coming judgment. Since the Father has committed all authority to the Son for the purpose of salvation (John 17:2; Cf. Matt. 28:18, Lk. 10:22, Jn. 3:35, 5:26-27), Christ’s office is a royal-redemptive unity. His single office is that of sacerdotal kingship, or, royal priesthood (Heb. 8:1-2).â€
SZ: Again, we may agree on certain assertions but have different meanings behind them I agree, of course, that “Paul’s mission was to not only the Gentiles but to their kings.†The Gospel is held out to all men, no matter their station. And we see this mirrored also in Jesus. But are we really to interpret the dimension of the Gospel being held to earthly offices of power to mean that the Gospel comes to change them in the here and now? When we see Jesus come to Pilate He actually stands silent before him. Wouldn’t we expect Him to open His mouth and with one hand’s finger point to the Torah in the other, telling Pilate “if you can’t lend a hand then get out of the way, because we are here to make this a better place� Why the silence? Why a life of obscurity and sorrows, only to be crushed and hanged high? And why the same fate for all the Apostles, and why the rejoicing at the same such treatment? Wouldn’t those who truly expect that “the state should willingly submit itself to the spiritual authority and order society to protect the Church & facilitate her salvific mission†be more embittered by persecution than to actually rejoice over it? I find all these NT narratives painful and counter-intuitive to these notions that the Church exists to shape things up. And what about the Church’s own history as it runs concurrently with the world? Why have things never really been changed; why is the world no better off than it ever was even in the light of this blessed thing called the Church in its midst?
“Because it is impossible to separate the law from the Lawgiver, it is improper—to say the least—for Christians to teach that God is indifferent on whether corporate society acknowledges Christ’s redemptive reign as long as it follows some moral precepts derived from natural law.â€
SZ: The charge of indifference is as befuddling as that of neutrality (I know you dismiss the assertion that you do the latter, but I only used your literal words that said as much). I agree that God is not so indifferent. God is not indifferent when natural man naturally labors under the natural CoW. Natural man does this in order to claim his own justification—he was made for as much. Natural law is not arbitrary or just a way to keep man in line for a temporal spell. It serves that purpose, to restrain evil and promote that which is good. But as grounds for justification or probationary graduation is to man’s demise. He can’t stand on that ground and expect reward but only punishment. That is what natural man does: he points to his own execution of the CoW and mistakenly believes he’s captured it. And God howls. Howling is not the language of indifference. The only ground to stand on is the CoG. And so what would you suggest here, that man be forced somehow to bend the knee in some sort of Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python, anyone?)?
steve
D Hart
June 24th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Andrew, I’d like to believe that creation is meant to be glorified as it was before the fall but I’d like to have someone’s word with more authority than yours. Paul’s view of the relationship between the wisdom of this world and the folly of the gospel, or between the visible and temporal things and the invisible and eternal ones, leaves me wondering how exactly to view this creation and what will come with the consummation. It’s a free country and all that, but if you could give some indication of how you fit Pauline theology into our 1K world view, it might help this conversation move forward.
stevez
June 24th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
thanks for correcting that.
andrew, i wonder if you might give me your transformationist perspective on something.
tonight we had a guest preacher, dr. stob from calvin college. he now resides in florida and apparently was at some point a headmaster in a presbyterian school there. he made reference to the fact that at this school only 15% of the parents were church goers. he lamented this, of course, and went on to politely shake his finger at parents who “farm their kids out to nurture the faith.” but it made me wonder, once again, how transformationists can really expect anything less than this. in my view, this thing called “christian education” only ever seems to amount to christian enviornment in which parents seem to have this (to me, very) odd notion that something will be picked up along the way and somehow instilled in their kids.
15%? that really seems to help make the case for those who resist trasnformationist views that this linking up the faith to cultural endeavor (i.e. education, for example) is at least equal to the task of the ordained church. if they aren’t going to church, it must be safe to assume that no family worship or catechatical instruction is taking place. isn’t the christian family a close second to the nurture of the church proper from a truly covenantal POV? i found myself befuddled at dr. stob’s finger rattling about “farming the kids out” when everything that props up the very pedagogy seems to engender this: “what incentive do i have to nurture any dimension of faith when, 7-8 hours a dat for 6 days a week it is being presumably done for me?” are you really that surprised at the 15% stat? in my view, nothing takes the place of a parent’s ordained role of nurturing his covenant child’s faith. transformationists always seem to nod when they hear a sentiment like that because it sounds so awfully pious. but then their jaw drops when they hear the 15% thing. maybe i should append my sentiment to say “privately, at home, within the broader framework of the local church; and there is not one single teacher or administrator that can take the place of my ordained authority which my child is created to internalize–why so many act as if that is untrue, i do not know”? i don’t know, maybe. but it does seem to me that it is a quite natural expectation that when you begin with this idea that the world must conform to redemptive paradigm and program of God’s Christ you will end up with the farming out mentality–it’s a natural course.
the congregation, expectedly, was aghast. i felt like saying, exactly, folks. christian education ought not take the place of the home (nor the local church) to nuture the faith, and if you really believe that you might take another look at your philosophy of education. i don’t begrudge anyone’s personal choice in how to educate their children. but some meta-cognition might be in order to make some sense out of such a dismal reality.
i did feel quite at ease and exempt from the castigating (although in all fairness he was most gracious about it) as we are probably the only family in our transformationist church that has a completely different tack when it comes to how our children will be educated and nurtured in the faith. and i always find it not a little ironic that whenever i am pegged as deacon to pray for the offering it usually is for one form or another of helping the cause for “christian education.”
steve z
Andrew Matthews
June 26th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Darryl: I’ll endeavor to meet your challenge. As John Gerstener once said, the only one who can make something true by mere assertion is God.
Steve: A further response is still forthcoming, but it turned into a multi-part piece. I’m posting part one tonight. Thanks for the continuing dialogue.
Andrew Matthews
June 30th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
So, Steve, to address your last comment here, it is ludicrous to suggest that Christian education somehow encourages parents to feel relieved of responsibility to catechize their children. Perhaps your real problem is compulsory education that takes children away from home 7-8 hours a day. Perhaps home schooling is the answer.
Christian schools are businesses. It costs a lot of money to keep them going. Maybe some schools admit only Christian kids, but I attended two Christian high schools that accepted non-Christians. In fact, I am aware of a few kids who “gave their hearts to Jesus” as a result of the Bible teaching and loving environment they found themselves in.
All in all, if parents have fallen down in the duty to raise their children properly, I’m glad Christian schools are out there to provide supplementary catechesis. I profited a great deal spiritually, intellectually and socially by attending Christian schools. I will always be thankful for the influence certain teachers and students had on my life.