RSSResponse to Darryl Hart: The Gracious Cultural Mandate
Darryl Hart writes: “by this point in the blog, surely you can see ‘how I get around the fact that the cultural mandate was reaffirmed as part of the redemptive promises…’ I don’t know how I could be clearer. You disagree, of course. But really, you don’t see how I separate the cultural mandate from redemption?â€
Of course, I see what you are doing. I just don’t see how it can be sustained from Scripture. At some point W2K theologians are going to have to admit there are laws operative within the economy of grace. The third use of the law, including the cultural mandate, flows from, and is determined by, the new covenant established by Christ. We are not obeying the terms of the CoW (we are no longer in that position), we are obeying laws that have been transferred over into the CoG. As Q.44 of the Shorter Catechism states, we are to obey God’s commandments because “God is the Lord, and our God, and Redeemer.â€
Darryl writes: “the Westminster Divines do not regard the cultural mandate as part of redemption. Questions 21 to 38 of the Shorter Catechism teach about Christ’s work and the application of it by the Holy Spirit. There the cover effectual calling, justification, adoption, etc. I look in vain for anything that approximates the cultural mandate or its subsidiaries.â€
I have two questions in response: First, did Christ fulfill the cultural mandate or not? Second, why would duties of Christians be included under questions relating to Christ and the Holy Spirit? Shouldn’t they be included in the questions relating to our moral duty (Q.39-Q.81)?
Darryl writes: “Why would the Divines be silent? It could be they ran out of time or room. It could also be that they saw how to distinguish between the perishable and imperishable.â€
The cultural mandate was not a question the Westminster Divines were concerned with. They assumed the possibility of Christian culture: it was all around them. It is only in recent times, due to pervasive secularization, that the cultural mandate has become an urgent question.
However, there are questions that touch upon aspects of the cultural mandate:
Q.49: God shows disfavor unto the third and fourth generations of those that hate him & shows mercy unto thousands (of generations?) of those that love him and keep his commandments. Doesn’t W2K deny that this is how God still works?
Q.59: The Divines affirm the perpetuity of the Sabbath ordinance, thus implying that all work carried out in the week should be done for God’s glory in anticipation of the Sabbath rest (the eighth day). The Sabbath was moved to the first day of the week to show that we now pursue our vocations on the basis of gratitude for redemption & the power of Christ’s life. We do all things (not just cultic activity) by Christ who strengthens us. (Of course, many take exception to the Confession on this point because they have been allowed to. Nevertheless, Sabbath observance is confessional while non-observance isn’t.)
Q.66: The Divines affirm that the keeping of the Fifth commandment is attended with the blessings of “long life and prosperity†with the qualification: “as far as it shall serve for God’s glory and their own good.†St. Paul affirms this in Eph. 6:1-3. I happen to know that W2K people don’t believe this either in the sense it was intended by the Divines.
Q.102: The Divines affirm that we pray for the coming of God’s kingdom, the destruction of Satan’s, and for the “hastening of the kingdom of glory.†W2K men transgress the spirit of this petition when they deny we should endeavor to take every thought captive to Christ.
Q.103: The Divines affirm that we pray for God’s kingdom to be “on earth as it is in heaven.†W2K men transgress the spirit of this petition when they work to keep the city of man oriented toward the love of self for self’s sake.
W2K is not true Augustinianism because St. Augustine spoke of two cities with two loves, while W2K speaks of two cities without reference to the driving motivation of each. As soon as it is admitted that there are only two loves, the question becomes how (and not whether) Christians are to influence the earthly city for a higher purpose. Since Darryl likes to refer to St. Augustine so much, here’s a quotation:
“[A] good and honest life is not produced in any other way than by loving, in the manner in which they should be loved, the proper objects of our love, namely, God and our neighbour… Here also is security for the welfare and renown of a commonwealth; for no state is perfectly established and preserved otherwise than on the foundation and by the bond of faith and of firm concord, when the highest and truest common good, namely, God, is loved by all, and men love each other in Him without dissimulation, because they love one another for His sake from whom they cannot disguise the real character of their love†(Letter 137, 5.17).
Finally, I deny that the Christian’s obedience is perishable. Our labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58).
Darryl writes: “If you think the Divines were wrong, Andrew, what revised questions do you propose adding to the Shorter Catechism?â€
I don’t favor revising any historic confession, which seems to be the (to my mind unfortunate) practice of American denominational Christianity. Rather, a new document should be drafted which addresses this particular issue.
D Hart
July 18th, 2007 at 4:34 am
So if we need a new document, I guess the Divines were wrong.
My point about the benefits of redemption, WSC 21-38, was that you don’t see anything there about culture. The benefits we receive from Christ are spiritual. After 38 comes the law. And yes, the Decalogue prescribes Christian activities. But I don’t see much in the Decalogue about painting, cuisine, language, state craft, athletics, monetary policy.
Andrew, if you are right then I am in sin. If I am right, you are merely wrong. Those are the stakes here and should warn you against devising doctrines and commandments of men where God’s word grants liberty of conscience. You really should have a biblical warrant for all the Christian culture that you want. And your prescriptions have almost no tolerance for the sort of Christian liberty that Paul extended all over the place to Gentile Christians who did not know what to do about all of the duties of Judaism. Israel was Christendom. First-century Rome was not and Peter (sometimes kicking and screaming) and Paul lived with it.
stevez
July 18th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“Andrew, if you are right then I am in sin. If I am right, you are merely wrong.”
That may be so. But I do truly wonder if Andrew’s wrongness does even more than deny the sort of liberty Paul allowed for. It seems like one thing to deny liberty, but it seems another to do so at the cost of the Gospel. In other words, can one really destroy Christian liberty and *not* attack the Gospel at the same time? Something tells me they go hand in hand…sort of like to confess a Creed postively is to also deny every statement that might contradict it. What’s that about the two-edged sword of orthodoxy?
Steve
Andrew Matthews
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Darryl, you write: “So if we need a new document, I guess the Divines were wrong.”
So, by this logic, Guido de Bres was wrong because the Dutch Reformed needed to convene the Synod of Dort.
“My point about the benefits of redemption, WSC 21-38, was that you don’t see anything there about culture. The benefits we receive from Christ are spiritual.”
Again, did Jesus fulfill the cultural mandate or not? And, why would cultural matters be included in questions covering the original accomplishment of redemption & the Spirit’s personal application of it? I should point out that neither the fourth chapter of the Confession, nor questions 10 & 12 of the Shorter Catechism lay out a comprehensive description of unfallen man’s positive duty (i.e., perfect personal and perpetual obedience to do what?).
What do you mean by “spiritual”? Invisible? Nonphysical? Is the resurrection spiritual?
“After 38 comes the law.”
So, the law isn’t part of the economy of redemption?
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
“And yes, the Decalogue prescribes Christian activities. But I don’t see much in the Decalogue about painting, cuisine, language, state craft, athletics, monetary policy.”
Okay, so you don’t want to address the issues of generational curses & blessings, Sabbath keeping, and earthly prosperity for keeping the 5th Commandment.
Okay, I’ll run down your list:
1) painting: I’m not an iconoclast, but I presume you are. You apply the 4th commandment to artistic representations of Jesus.
2) cuisine: Blood-eating is still forbidden. And, I assume you agree cannibalism is as well (even the eating of humans who died from natural causes). The fifth (involving a dishonorable use of God’s creation), seventh (defilement), & eighth (taking of what isn’t meant for our use) commandments could all apply here.
3) language: The third (swearing falsely, cursing) and ninth (swearing falsely) commandments apply. Phil. 4:8 would indicate ways speech should be positively used.
4) state craft: The fifth commandment applies. The Shorter Catechism states, “The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor, and performing the duties, belonging to everyone in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals” (Q. 64).
5) athletics: The fourth (for obvious reasons), fifth (you mustn’t intend harm), and eighth (no cheating) commandments all apply.
So, the Shorter Catechism doesn’t outline Christianity’s cultural program. So what? Christian culture is necessarily implied by the comprehensive ethical system that has been carried over under the new covenant.
Darryl, you write: “Andrew, if you are right then I am in sin. If I am right, you are merely wrong.”
I was at first taken aback by this, Darryl, but have concluded that your position must entail that it is actually I who am in sin. After all, you think I am trying to impose man-made laws upon the rest of my brethren. Steve thinks I am guilty of the Galatian heresy.
You write: “…And your prescriptions have almost no tolerance for the sort of Christian liberty that Paul extended all over the place to Gentile Christians who did not know what to do about all of the duties of Judaism. Israel was Christendom. First-century Rome was not…etc.”
I believe the kind of liberty Paul advocated was the freedom of Gentile congregations to develop their own Christian culture & practices free from Jewish regulation. The kind of liberty you espouse is so broad that it can be construed to exclude all sorts of legitimate ecclesiastical activities: e.g., set days and times of worship, disciplinary decrees (i.e., the Jerusalem council), even the imposition of confessional documents and hymnals (!).
D Hart
July 24th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Does not.
That is in response to Andrew’s assertion: “The kind of liberty you espouse is so broad that it can be construed to exclude all sorts of legitimate ecclesiastical activities: e.g., set days and times of worship, disciplinary decrees (i.e., the Jerusalem council), even the imposition of confessional documents and hymnals (!).”
With Andrew it is all or nothing. Either we have Christian sports and a Christian sabbath, or Darryl’s a rank liberal. But Andrews all-full/completely-empty approach won’t fly with the Christian liberty that Paul taught and that the Divines confessed. It really is possible to believe that Sunday’s must be kept holy, even to the point of not going through the drive-through on the Lord’s Day, while also holding that McDonald’s is an inferior form of cuisine that some Christians will avoid on principle. (I actually think Andrew is a bigger liberal than I since he has a much more expansive view of Christian imperatives that he must swallow daily.)
What I found interesting was that the Christian culture Andrew derives from the first table of Decalogue could also be found among the Muslims. But I also find that confusion about culture usually leads to confusion about religion.
Speaking of Christian food, am I sinning, Andrew, to have my steak rare?
I do believe that Christ has fulfilled the cultural mandate and the entire covenant of works, though I am open to instruction from the Klineans that Andrew also anathematizes. But in the Reformed tradition, just because Christ fulfilled something doesn’t mean that thing has no more significance. So Christ kept the law, but that doesn’t mean the Reformed have not held to the third use of the law. Likewise, just because Christ fulfilled the cultural mandate, doesn’t mean Christians don’t have cultural responsibilities. It is just that those duties will not save. The norms for those responsibilities come from creation not redemption (that’s not an assertion of secularity because I do believe God created all things).
But we have strayed a long way from the original point of W2K. It is the relation between church and state. Israel had the keys to the kingdom AND bore the sword. Christ came. The church has the keys to the kingdom BUT not the sword. Object as Andrew might, the difference between Israel and the church means that no nation today is holy, nor that every nation is holy. Only the church is holy and it exists (at least theoretically) in every nation. I have trouble understanding why that point is so objectionable, unless of course, to borrow Calvin’s phrase, some are still committed to “Judaic folly.”