Comments on: Scott Clark saving the baby http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/ The Reign of Christ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:58:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1404 D Hart Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:12:51 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1404 Baus, it is also way stale to imply that questioning transformationalism is the equivalent of denying the Lordship of Christ. That one has been going around for at least three decades. By comparison, the spirituality of the church looks fresh. Baus, it is also way stale to imply that questioning transformationalism is the equivalent of denying the Lordship of Christ. That one has been going around for at least three decades. By comparison, the spirituality of the church looks fresh.

]]> By: Baus http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1315 Baus Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:27:57 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1315 Phil has the right idea. And frankly it's as much about Christian charity as it is about intellectual rigor. But, let me add to his call for a greater and more appropriate degree of distinction. Not all conceptions and implementations of Christendom are equivalent in principle or in practice, and not all approaches that go by the name "transformational" are the same. The neocalvinism I represent may be fairly called a transformationalism, but it is not to be confused with the barely whitewashed new-leftism of so many GrandRapids and Toronto pseudo-Kuyperians who abandoned an orthodox reformed confessional stance a generation ago. If Bob Godfrey, for one, can read Kuyper and tell the difference between those faithfully in his line and those who have betrayed that heritage (as he has), we are comfortable holding his colleagues to the same standard of precision. The transformationalism of neocalvinism is simply not a golden-age'ism (or even a semi-gold vision). Sweeping generalizations against non-secularist-two-kingdom views as theocratic are really getting stale. Phil has the right idea. And frankly it’s as much about Christian charity as it is about intellectual rigor. But, let me add to his call for a greater and more appropriate degree of distinction. Not all conceptions and implementations of Christendom are equivalent in principle or in practice, and not all approaches that go by the name “transformational” are the same.

The neocalvinism I represent may be fairly called a transformationalism, but it is not to be confused with the barely whitewashed new-leftism of so many GrandRapids and Toronto pseudo-Kuyperians who abandoned an orthodox reformed confessional stance a generation ago. If Bob Godfrey, for one, can read Kuyper and tell the difference between those faithfully in his line and those who have betrayed that heritage (as he has), we are comfortable holding his colleagues to the same standard of precision.

The transformationalism of neocalvinism is simply not a golden-age’ism (or even a semi-gold vision). Sweeping generalizations against non-secularist-two-kingdom views as theocratic are really getting stale.

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1314 Phil Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:29:21 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1314 In our conversations, we should consider distinguishing “Christendom” from “transformation.” A number of Anabaptist scholars have embraced transformation while rejecting Christendom (by which they especially mean the use of the sword). Even those who hate Christ’s kingdom might have something to learn in this distinction. In our conversations, we should consider distinguishing “Christendom” from “transformation.” A number of Anabaptist scholars have embraced transformation while rejecting Christendom (by which they especially mean the use of the sword). Even those who hate Christ’s kingdom might have something to learn in this distinction.

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1313 stevez Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:39:51 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/03/scott-clark-saving-the-baby/#comment-1313 Predictably, I prefer the stronger drink Scott prepares, but good comments, Bill. I wonder, though, as I get to your last paragraph (really? Only 1800 years? Didn't Abraham come upon citadels that "feared God"?)...when I get metaphorically thumped in the chest by the high-octane Kuperian transformers here in its American cradle (Grand Rapids) for not properly appreciating Christendom and how wonderful our time and place is as a result, I get asked, "Are you seriously telling me you think we are not better off than in Jesus' time and place, that you'd *not* prefer our time and place?" I render the answer that I do in fact prefer our time and place...but not for the same arrogant reasons. I prefer it because *it's mine*, not because it's better, which seems to be the strong implication of the very question itself. To suggest it's "better" reveals an arrogant superiority tutored, I think, more by mere modernism than by biblical ethics (I hesitate to use that over-used power phrase, but I think it actually works here). Seems that if we listen to this tutoring we may judge those in other times and/or other places as not just inferior but inferior with eternal stakes attached--or worse, judging brethren. It is one thing to judge something superior/inferior (I do it all the time), but another to say, "And God thinks so as well." We can do that, and with vigor (observe the white heat of the FV controversy, as an example; again, Scott shows how to mix up a nice Dordtian cocktail). But I think I will stick with Dt. 29:29. Steve Predictably, I prefer the stronger drink Scott prepares, but good comments, Bill.

I wonder, though, as I get to your last paragraph (really? Only 1800 years? Didn’t Abraham come upon citadels that “feared God”?)…when I get metaphorically thumped in the chest by the high-octane Kuperian transformers here in its American cradle (Grand Rapids) for not properly appreciating Christendom and how wonderful our time and place is as a result, I get asked, “Are you seriously telling me you think we are not better off than in Jesus’ time and place, that you’d *not* prefer our time and place?” I render the answer that I do in fact prefer our time and place…but not for the same arrogant reasons. I prefer it because *it’s mine*, not because it’s better, which seems to be the strong implication of the very question itself. To suggest it’s “better” reveals an arrogant superiority tutored, I think, more by mere modernism than by biblical ethics (I hesitate to use that over-used power phrase, but I think it actually works here). Seems that if we listen to this tutoring we may judge those in other times and/or other places as not just inferior but inferior with eternal stakes attached–or worse, judging brethren. It is one thing to judge something superior/inferior (I do it all the time), but another to say, “And God thinks so as well.” We can do that, and with vigor (observe the white heat of the FV controversy, as an example; again, Scott shows how to mix up a nice Dordtian cocktail). But I think I will stick with Dt. 29:29.

Steve

]]>