RSSIn Defense of a Theology of Cross and Glory: Part 1
“To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations…just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star…To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.†(Rev. 2:26,28; 3:21)
“I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father…It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of the world now stands condemned.†(John 14:12; 16:7-11)
“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.†(2 Cor. 10:4-6)
To begin with, I’m going to request Darryl’s forbearance for this budding “theologian of glory†(2 Cor. 3:9-11, 18), especially for some of the excessive statements made about his version of Westminster Two Kingdoms (W2K) theology. Plainly, it is improper to claim W2K “positively attributes evil to creation.†And so, I apologize for this uncharitable exaggeration. Darryl and other representatives of the W2K school repeatedly affirm the goodness of creation as originally created, whatever the unintended consequences of their views.
For the purpose of easily referencing all viewpoints broadly characterized as transformationalist or “theocratic,†I designate the letter “T,†without meaning to imply all such views are adequately represented by my arguments. There are two objectives I hope to accomplish in this post and subsequent postings. First, I purpose to meet Darryl’s challenge in a way that provides a general defense of all T views. Second, my specific agenda is to defend historic Christendom as a viable model for future T efforts. Once the majority view, Christendom has fallen out of favor even with most T proponents. Yet, Christendom is the only T program that has been tried. It lasted for over 1500 years, demonstrating significant—even extraordinary—stability, and perhaps is not completely beyond resuscitation. I feel honored to advocate for the venerable tradition of Christendom on this forum.
W2K Critiques T
As far as I can ascertain, Darryl offers the following arguments against theologically motivated culture transformation (T): 1) T breaks down the providential division between cult & culture, thereby compromising the Church and undermining political order; 2) T is impossible because natural and Christian ethics are incommensurate; 3) T represents a premature effort to “immanentize†the Kingdom of God; 4) T inadvertently subverts Justification in an attempt to save the world through works; 5) The NT nowhere indicates that Christianity is supposed to take over society, but precisely the opposite; 6) T implies persecution of other religions and has historically done so.
Darryl’s first four points represent a chain of argumentation, first formulated this way by Meredith Kline, which goes like this: The economy of the original Covenant of Works (CoW) was the first theocracy. Theocracy (the full integration of cult & culture) was the social order through which humanity was to render “personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience†in order to merit consummated eternal life (beatitude) under the terms of the CoW.
This original theocracy was ended by the fall when humanity split into two groups, elect and reprobate. As a result, a new common grace order was established by God (point 1 above). This new order was established so that elect and reprobate could cooperate together to a certain extent in order to build a peaceful society. While the elect are motivated by an ethic of gratitude (for the anticipated redemption of Christ), the reprobate retain the old CoW ethic of merit (human works will earn the state of beatitude). These ethics are incommensurate with one another (point 2), though there is some overlap because natural law forms the basis for each.
Kline would argue that any attempt to restore theocracy (T) by the elect ipso facto involves a regression back under the CoW, a rejection of the Covenant of Grace (CoG), which is an unconditional covenant whereby God has undertaken the sole responsibility of establishing man in beatitude. All human activity is excluded from this enterprise. Therefore, for Kline (and W2K in general) the elect no longer have a cultural mandate (Gen. 1:28). Kline would hold to a common mandate (common to elect & reprobate), and therefore circumscribed in principle by natural law shorn of its original orientation toward consummated beatitude.
A revived theocracy would constitute an attempt to prematurely establish God’s Kingdom through natural effort (point 3). Justification is incompatible with T (point 4). Natural effort, comprised of human works, characterizes fallen man’s pursuit of beatitude. Since the CoG is received and perpetuated by faith alone, human works represent “unlawful†impositions upon God’s prerogative to establish beatitude through his own provision. Sola Fide is here framed in a radically monergistic way, such that the faithful have no responsibility to advance godly culture. Any cooperation between Christ and his Church in the outworking of redemption is excluded.
Responding to Kline-W2K
Allow me to address a preliminary response to this Klinean-W2K critique. The whole line of argumentation depends on T being equivalent to the Adamic theocracy, complete with its works principle. I am unaware that Darryl or any other representatives of W2K have established this necessary connection. Why couldn’t God have graciously perpetuated the cultural mandate as part of the duty gratitude enjoins? What evidence is there that God’s elect are absolved of the original command to produce offspring, subdue, and cultivate the earth?
As I have already argued fairly extensively (I apologize for the repetition), there doesn’t seem to be a necessary conflict between carrying on with the construction of Megapolis (the cultivation of creation as a garden-city) in anticipation of Metapolis (the beatifying work only God is able to perform).
Theocracy doesn’t necessitate conceiving the present order of things as ultimate. Rather, theocracy, if valid, would be God’s way of maintaining teleological continuity between the old and new creations. Present work would therefore be a profound expression of faith in God’s work of cosmic regeneration. Rather than despairing of the significance of his activity, the man of faith expects that the results of his labor will be gloriously transformed on the day of his Lord’s reckoning. Ten minas will be transmuted into ten cities (Luke 19:17), and so forth—so to speak. The regenerating fire of the final judgment will consume the wood, hay, and stubble, but leave behind (and reveal!) the gold, silver, and costly stones (1 Cor. 3:12).
In succeeding portions of this essay I intend to develop an argument that the original cultural mandate retains viability in the redemptive post-fall economy drawn from the following scriptural evidence: the promises made to Abraham and his seed, the OT prophetic anticipation of the new covenant era, the Melchizedekian ministry of Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I hope to show that the cultural mandate has been assimilated into the covenants of promise, and that creation’s preservation and ultimate deliverance is inextricably linked to the Church’s own destiny. Indeed, there is an ontological relation between the world’s birthing pangs and the Church’s suffering (Rom. 8:22-25, Cf. John 16:20-25). Finally, there is eschatological continuity between the world and the Church. In the final pages of inscripturated revelation, St. John unveils the mystery of the world, its consummate identity. The new heaven and new earth are revealed as the New Jerusalem (= the glorified body of Christ) that descends out of heaven from God (Rev. 21:1-2).
Anthony Cowley
June 26th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Excellent!
stevez
June 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Popular Reformed transformer Tim Keller wrote a brief proposal called “The Missional Church.†There is much to be lauded in it, I must admit. He takes to task this thing called Christendom, which I am all for. Yet, I still find these odd presuppositions fixed in transformationists minds, namely that Christians somehow transcend common humanity. If only people were “born again†or regenerated by the Holy Spirit, only then will things begin to look up.
“Though people were ‘Christianized’ by the culture they were not regenerated or converted with the Gospel…the disadvantage [of Christendom] was that Christian-morality without Gospel-changed hearts often led to cruelty and hypocrisy.â€
The implication here seems to be that, a-ha, if we just get folks converted and place them into the varied cultural slots we will have transformed the world. Much as it is commendable that Keller in his tract castigates forms of arrogance that are inherent in the tenets of Christendom, what he gives with one hand he takes away with the other; simply replacing the presuppositions of objectivistic, hard-law Christendom in which all we have to do is get the world to play externally by the rules with more subjectivist, soft-edged and palatable dictums that sell well to a burned-over populace weary of the former is only different play on the same kingdom collapsing theme. And what is still bothersome is this idea that all we have to do is become Christians and “infiltrate culture.†The assumption seems to not only be that the world is to be redeemed by the hand of man, but also that “Gospel-changed hearts†are somehow magic and are the antidote to a fallen world. What Keller is trying to sell is this yet arrogant idea that we Christians know how to order society, etc. better than anyone else by plain virtue of being Christian. Somehow we transcend our own humanity in ways unbelievers do not. Want to know how to best educate children, decide labor laws, thread a needle, make a business plan, execute a project, punish criminals, improve transportation, do math, raise children, care for the elderly, program television, change a headlight? Ask the Christian. Huh? I would love to believe it to be true (especially during grade 9 in Mrs. Post’s Algebra class), but if this were I wonder why neither I nor any other Christian I know ever has transcended in any common endeavor enough to actually “do earth†any better. I consider myself to have been born form above by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. But how that translates into transcending my humanity in the here and now—versus the age to come—simply boggles me. Seems like we should all be confounded to be called “a royal priesthood†in light of honest self-reflection. The latent connections of transformationalism to health and wealth gospels are not a little discomforting either. Maybe I couldn’t grasp Algebra better than the pagan sitting next to me because I wasn’t “thinking Christianly†enough about numbers…speaking of which, Keller again…
“…in a missional church, the laity needs theological education to ‘think Christianly’ about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness…renewing and transforming the culture through distinctively Christian vocation [lifting] up as real ‘kingdom work’ and ministry along with traditional ministry of the Word.â€
zrim
Andrew Matthews
June 30th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I absolutely argue for the Church’s, not individual Christians’, competence in social matters. To cite some examples: We preserved (and humanized) Roman law, we invented just war theory, we invented the University, we preserved the remnants of ancient culture in our monastic libraries, we gave the world a weekly day of rest. The list goes on and on.
The Church as an institutional-social body has existed for a long time. Along the way it has developed an accumulated tradition, a collective wisdom, that continues to bless the world. The world would be much worse off if the Church was socially isolated & only private Christian individuals exercised social responsibility.
Get outta town with your stupid “Christians can’t do better math than pagans” argument. It is beneath your dignity to keep raising it.
D Hart
June 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Who is this “we,” white Calvinist man (read: Andrew)? Could it be that the we is Roman Catholicism? And could it be that all those good things in Rome came with the cost of missing what was most important — how we are saved and how we respond to God in worship?
Phil
July 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Regarding “Mrs. Post’s Algebra class,” the problem here is that algebra is usually regarded as procedures or virtual artifacts. But mathematics is much more than that. It also involves social practices (human practices in need of sanctification) and even ideals (or thoughts about the ultimate, hence religious thoughts).
We miss that point when we do not distinguish instrumental/procedural aspects of culture from social practices and cultural ideals. Limiting our vision to the instrumentalities seems to be a problem with individualists and Baptists.
Phil
July 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Poythress wrote this about teaching “Mrs. Post’s Algebra class”:
“Pedagogically, then, I am in favor of the reintroduction of the writhing dirty masses of applications into mathematical explanation. One can still keep the abstract generalizations with their Apollonian beauty. But the particular examples are not to be ‘reduced’ to the generality. We ought to revive our wonder for the fact that the generality actually holds for this case, and for that case, and for this other case. Each discovery of a new application can he seen as a development of mathematical truth, the writing of a new line to the poem” (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 35(4), December 1983, pp. 65–71).
Note how unlike most is his view of mathematics: instead of a mass of disconnected procedures, mathematics is “poetry.”
The significance of this is that W2K folks tend to think of mathematics as those disconnected procedures (or occasionally as the Apollonian structures). But it’s more useful to think of it as a human endeavor, as models of God’s good creation. But then these models, this human endeavor, is susceptible to sin and the Fall, and the W2K approach begins to deteriorate.
stevez
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 am
bear with my stupidity a bit longer, andrew; i don’t want to leave town quite yet.
the church is made up of individuals. if “i” can’t do algebra better than “the pagan” sitting next to me, how can “we” order society any better than than “them”? what exactly happens in the translation from individual member to corporate existence that isn’t magic? if i can’t do math any better than joe unbeliever, it becomes folly and arrogance to suggest that 3.4 billion of me know how to order society than 73 billion of him.
let’s save some time and i will now deny that i am an individualistic evangelical who sees the “church as merely a group of individuals.” that is part fo what i deliberately rejected about my past evangelicalism. what i say above has no one-to-one correspondance to how i view the organic corporateness of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. that’s another question altogether.
phil, i am not talking about mathematics and poetry strictly speaking. i am only making a point by locating mathematics in the temporal and common sphere. to continue my weird penchant to make mathematical analogies: in my mind, i actually see things working a lot like a venn diagram. in my line of work (standardized student assessments) the Venn has been something i recently had to grapple with. as you may or may not know, the classic venn is two intersecting circles. one circle contains things only proper to one group, the other only proper to another; in the middle, where they converge, is common ground. in the left circle we could say exists unbelievers and all the things proper to them eternally speaking is contained therein (judgment, and all the related properties) and in the right circle the same for us (redemption and all the related properties); but in the middle is where we all exist under natural law and its related properties.
zrim
stevez
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
To continue the Venn analogy, when we find ourselves in the middle sphere with hordes of those with whom we likely take considerable issue, which is to say, those with whom we may vigorously disagree (again, Andrew, the charge of being neutral hits me as left-of-center, since I can find plenty to disagree with, and that at times quite vigorously, as I skate around in the middle sphere). bear with me, I have a question at the end.
I will bring to light a little more my own vocation, standardized student assessments. Part of my work is to convene and conduct what are called rangefinding sessions. Basically, we have a committee made up mainly of teachers and content specialists from around the given state under contract. The domain may be any variety of subjects from math to science to language arts to social studies. As well, this may be a group of elementary to secondary teachers and content specialists. This can be one of the most interesting aspects of my job for various reasons. One of them is the variance: you get, for example, all of these grade 11 science teachers from one state, and you’d think they’d all teach more or less the same way or at least approach their state-directed benchmarks, etc. in a similar way. And there is a lot of that. But as often as not there are considerable differences in views. And committees can get down-right mean in how they think Johnny should be evaluated; how they understand a given concept; how it should be taught; how it should be understood; and how things should be interpreted at the moment, etc. I have witnessed crying jags between two colleagues who simply couldn’t believe the other saw things so radically different, wondering if they both even taught the same subject (Nicaea or Trent have nothing on a group of grade 8 social studies teachers and content specialists, some even preferring their beards getting plucked in an Athanatian manner!). Beyond having to turn in my gun and badge if I did so, instead of appealing to my experience in this general process, imagine the profound stupidity of raising my hand amidst all the back and forth, announcing that I am a Christian and I think Joe over there is right about the scientific nomenclature at hand and the scoring of all your state’s fifth graders ought to be such. Maybe I even pull out my Bible and begin proof-texting things to make my case and Joe’s.
It is not as if these temporal matters do not, as it were, matter. The committees with whom I work and help to navigate through these sometimes head-spinning issues all believe the work around which we are gathered matters greatly and for various reasons. Otherwise they wouldn’t be there, nor would I.
Yet…it is one thing to profoundly dis/agree over common matters. It is quite another to appeal to one’s eternal belief system to justify those particular beliefs, lend weight to them, in the temporal sphere. You don’t have to lend divine sanction to a temporal belief in order to give it significance. What my eternal beliefs have to do directly with the temporal matters at hand is nothing. That may sound impious to some, but then they’d also have to agree that my hand-raising scenario/comment is not so odd and would likely be a good thing to do. Here is my question: if my hand-raising image is silly, why is Christendom venerable?