What is Christendom?

32 Responses to “What is Christendom?”

1. Phil

   August 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

   Discussing “the state [as] a redemptive institution” requires great care. Note:

   Signe Sandsmark, a Norwegian teacher educator and an evangelical Lutheran, asked, “Is faith the purpose of Christian education?” In her twofold answer, she first affirmed the necessity of “any school to have Christian teachers who transmit a Christian view of reality,” whether in state schools or in Christian schools (1997, p. 25). But on the other hand, education “is for this world, to make life here better, . . . to give us a better society.” Schooling “is not a means for salvation” and hence cannot advance Christ’s kingdom since “we cannot create faith, nor maintain it,” even though it should be guided by “biblical ethics” (p. 26); similarly, the Gospel minister or the institutional church cannot create faith, so in this sense, neither kingdom is redemptive. She promoted Luther’s model of the two governments, “an interpretation of the New Testament [which] presents the relationship between God as Creator and as Saviour,” a view that sees God’s two roles not in the difference between state and church: either can be used of God to deliver the Word, yet neither can regenerate a man (pp. 26–27). State “schools should . . . teach Christianity, the Bible” because schools can “help them [the students] to listen to God’s word . . . so they can hear God’s voice and respond to him,” but salvation is of the Lord (p. 28). Following Luther, Christian education happens “even when the teachers are not Christians,” yet “we try to argue for an education, also in common [or Norwegian public] schools, that is substantially as Christian as possible” (p. 30). In such an education, any topic from society should be considered, including “occultism,” although “the criteria for judging it will be found in Christianity” (p. 31).

   My guess is that plenty of transformationalists would be pretty happy with Sandsmark’s characterization of public education.

   Note that she celebrates Luther’s Two Kingdoms, but she advocates a redemptive aspect of state education, and thus God uses means from both Kingdoms to advance redemption.

   It’s almost enough to make me convert to Lutheranism!

2. Phil

   August 4th, 2007 at 7:13 pm

   Here’s a Lutheran advocacy of “transformation” from Angus Menuge, an associate professor of science and philosophy at Concordia University Wisconsin. The following notes are from his essay in the text for which he served as general editor, Christ and Culture in Dialogue (Concordia Academic Press, 1999).

   He wrote that Lutherans in their churches cannot become part of the Religious Right, although Lutheranism “prepares the laity with the Word which then shapes and TRANSFORMS the way in which secular work is accomplished” (p. 47). Furthermore, as “the Word is preached in truth and faithfulness, God will TRANSFORM the world for the better through individual laity. This hope is far more realistic than the legalistic hedges of Calvinism. . . (p. 50). Finally, by its focus on “Word, not Sword, the Lutheran church (and those sympathetic with its paradoxical vision) can more easily avoid the temptation to corruption by the quest for temporal power. At the same time, it can equip its members with the means to effect TRANSFORMATION of society, through their costly witness and protest and willingness to accept their appointed cross” (pp. 50–51).

   Gene Veith, another Lutheran (MS), has similar views. He even approves of the Sword to enforce the Third Use of the Law in society.

   I conclude that with a few tweaks, this transformationalist would be happy with Lutheran visions like Menuge’s. Like the Anabaptists, he opposes the heavy handed use of the Sword to advance Christ’s kingdom; also like them, he advocates the bottom-up transformation of society. What transformationalist wouldn’t like that?

   This is so interesting: of Niebuhr’s groups, Lutherans and Anabaptists and Calvinists, today if not historically, are/were transformational, but liberals, Thomists, and W2K are/were not. One of the best ways to see this is to ask, Who sees structural sin in the Left Hand Kingdom? Liberals, Thomists, and W2K (such as Scott Clark) do not; all others do.

3. Phil

   August 4th, 2007 at 9:17 pm

   Here’s more on a Lutheran view of transformation by Robert Kolb, professor of systematic theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, from the same volume edited by Menuge:

   “First, Christians begin their thinking about mission with the confession that Jesus is Lord, Lord of all. . . . Religion sets the warp and woof of culture. Its colors and designs may remain even as the Christian faith makes its presence felt in the midst of a culture. More importantly the faith will reweave the material of life as it resets the basis of human interaction in the values of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

   “Second, . . . cultures and every gift which God provides through the agency of each culture are not only penultimate. They are also evil and perverted in some ways. . . . As they assess any cultures, believers will recognize that some horizontal evils are institutionalized. . . .

   “Third, believers also recognize the extent to which moral but idolatrous values command cultural expressions of every kind. . . . Some idolatrous cultural practices can be altered; others must be destroyed and replaced. . .” (pp. 118–120).

   So here we have a Lutheran theologian, Dr. Kolb, affirming what any good transformational Calvinist could say. But W2K cannot. In particular, prominent W2K advocates well-known to this blog deny each of the three affirmations above.

   Again, Lutheranism and transformational Calvinism have more in common with each other—at this point—than with W2K.

4. stevez

   August 6th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

   “One of the best ways to see this is to ask, Who sees structural sin in the Left Hand Kingdom? Liberals, Thomists, and W2K (such as Scott Clark) do not; all others do.”

   First, I am not so sure W2K doesn’t see structural sin in the left hand kingdom. It always has seemed to me they say it necessarily exists, but believe that the devil is in the details.

   Second, I always wonder is this to imply that the right hand kingdom is that much less vulnerable to sin. Why all the hub-bub over where the outside world is sinning? Has anyone actually read 1 Cor. 5? Why can my (high-handed neo-Calvinist, Kuyperian happy, transformationalist) Reformed church at once baptize a woman’s third child out of wedlock (and in the process, upon my chaffed and rather infuriated pursuit, offer up sad and sorry excuses that give those of us with high views of grace two black eyes) and also sign an obnoxious petition against a strip joint going up downtown? Talk about *not* “minding your own business.” In my opinion, we could use more church discipline and less turning over of the right hand kingdom to find easy devils and handily declaring ourselves fit.

   Steve

5. GAS

   August 6th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

   Steve asked,
   “Why can my high-handed neo-Calvinist, Kuyperian happy, transformationalist Reformed church at once baptize a woman’s third child out of wedlock [and] offer up sad and sorry excuses that give those of us with high views of grace two black eyes?”

   Because what is happening in the CRC is a bent toward post-modern neo-liberalism and not high-hand neo-calvinist, kuyperian transformationalism.

   I realize that doesn’t fit with your anachronistic paradigm but if we actually consider Kuyper’s own conversion from Liberalism we see that the broad-brush loses it’s coverage.

6. Phil

   August 7th, 2007 at 6:38 am

   Steve, if W2K advocates acknowledge structural sin in the Left Hand Kingdom, please show me how. Please be specific.

   The reason I doubt that W2K advocates can acknowledge structural sin in the LHK is because, unlike 2K Lutherans, W2K needs to keep the Messiah out of the LHK; the Son of God may rule there, but not the Messiah. (Now that’s bizarre!) W2K acknowledges that Jesus, as Christ, rules in the institutional Church, the RHK. But if they admit that the Messiah rules in the LHK, they turn into quasi-Kuyperians. Thus they deny that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, contra Peter in Acts 10:36, contra John in Rev. 1:5, and contra Paul in Eph. 1:21.

   Kindly correct me if I am mistaken.

   We all acknowledge many problems in the RHK or the Visible Church. This is not related to my question about the LHK.

7. Phil

   August 7th, 2007 at 6:55 am

   I know that W2K isn’t dispensationalism (D), certainly sociologically, but do we have a core connection between them, given that W2K builds a wall between Israel and the Church, just like D? Both W2K and D acknowledge links between the Church and the Age of Abraham.

   Please note this from Charles Ryrie: “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. . . . This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist . . . the one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.”

   “. . . and one who does will.” Does that apply to W2K?

   On this basic test of dispensationalism, how is D theologically distinct from W2K?

8. stevez

   August 7th, 2007 at 10:27 am

   GAS, that wasn’t quite my question. You forgot the latter half of my “at once” phrase, which to say, why can they turn a blind eye to sin in our midst AND AT THE SAME TIME obnoxiously shake a boney finger at the flesh industry in our midst? And, you are right, ya coulda fooled me. I hear charges of Liberalism against our CRC all the time. Seems to me this is just loaded L-word rhetoric. I am no fan of my own denomination(!), but it sure isn’t the Liberalism I was raised with, I can tell you that. BTW, my question was more rhetorical an dnot so much literal. I wasn’t looking for an answer, not really, I was making a statement.

   Phil, if it’s assurance about the all too often two-dimensional conservative Christian morality that will appease you, Scott Clark and others have repeatedly made it clear that we have all we need in natural law to argue against gay marriage and abortion. But not only these headliner issues but any array of cultural endeavor. The difference seems to be that they don’t tie eternal stakes to them, which is to say, if “we” lose in these cultural endeavors deal with it. Sometimes, believe it or not, you lose (you might even be wrong in your formulations as to how natural law ought to be interpreted–I know that scrapes the ears of those in a post-Christendom age, to be told we don’t are not in fact right all the time about all things by virtue of possessing faith). God is not going to burn down the US or any other kingdom because certain moralities are not kept. He’s going to judge all nations no matter how “Christian” they are–that is why all is vanity. That goes for every side of every cultural isle. I would like to correct you if you are wrong, but maybe I read W2K wrong myself. But I don’t see where it is forced to say the Messiah doesn’t rule in the LHK. But admitting as much doesn’t seem to have to admit a “redeeming of culture.” He is everyone’s Lord and Savior. There. That didn’t hurt so much–come on, other W2Kers, say it with me. One day both shall be acknowledged by all flesh, to the joy of some and shame of others. Still I feel no sting. What’s the problem again? Maybe it’s because it is the eschateological fulcrum that causes the stumbling (here and now versus the age to come or already/not yet)?

   To your D question…as one who holds to a conventional covenant theology, the Church is Israel. At least, that’s what I was always taught. So, the Ryrie bifurcation still hits me quite left-of-center. His own definition leads me to be affirmed in my covenant theology and breath a sigh of relief that I cannot be counted as a Dispy per his own formulation (thanks, Charles, I don’t have to return to the endless and myopic charts). To charge W2K with D seems as skewed as calling the CRC Liberal (and not neo-Calvinist/Kuyperian). I can see why these mistakes are made, but quartz still isn’t diamond no matter how many similar properties are perceived.

   (Also, Phil, Liberals found no structural sin? Which Liberals are you talking about, the ones who were behind Prohibition at Machen’s lament or the ones who said “the world sets the Church’s agenda” and worked to promote democracy and stomp out illiteracy, poverty, etc. because their antitheses were seen as sinful? Or maybe it’s that their cultural version of sin doesn’t comport with more conservative purviews—you know, the same way certain “social gospels” are attacked simply because they aren’t the right [sorry, correct] ones?)

   Steve

9. stevez

   August 7th, 2007 at 11:05 am

   For my part as a member of the CRC, I am just never satisfied in the diagnoses of her ills to be that of Liberalism. I like Clark’s diagnoses much, much better: “On a trajectory toward broad Evangelicalism.” I was reared in classic Liberalism and moved into broad Evangelicalism. I have deliberately rejected both for Reformation Christianity. Having spent enough time trying to grasp two phenomenon that insist they are very different, I found Thomas Oden’s diagnoses in “After Modernity, What?” to hit the nail on the head in saying, “Fundamentalism and Liberalism have more in common than either would be willing or comfortable to admit.”

   (I think this is pertinent to these discussions because what I think he meant was that both agree on the same operating principle that the Gospel has something direct and obvious to say to temporary life…they just apply that rule very differently; they are both essentially wrong. Those two -ism categories are broad and sweeping, I will admit. But I find it doesn’t matter if it’s neo-Calvinism or Kuperianism or whatever the heck Baus is talking about [and finds these categories and exchanges stale], the same principle remains: the Gospel is is not just good to prepare souls for the life to come but also fo this life. Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism and Liberalism all agree. And I think they are all wrong. The Gospel prepares for the life to come and that’s it.)

   Some, like Horton and Clark, call Fundamentalists/Evangelicals the “new Liberals.” Again, I know what they mean, but not quite right; more L-word rhetoric designed to elicit blank stares by the former groups (”what? who? us? You are calling us…gulp…Liberals? Guess we better re-think ourselves”). Feeding people their own galling, name-calling medicine gets something done, I will grant. But I don’t think it’s always the best or helpful thing. Real Liberals deny the faith. The CRC does not do that. It’s fairly well whacked, yes, but Liberal it isn’t. If it’s real Liberalism you want don’t go to 28th street and Kalamazoo…go downtown to Fountain Street.

   Steve

10. Phil

    August 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    Concerning “natural law” on “gay marriage and abortion”: “Scott Clark and others have repeatedly made it clear that we have all we need in natural law to argue against gay marriage and abortion.” But this is patently untrue, and it’s easy to show.

    For starters, search for the book *And Tango Makes Three.* It’s about the true story of two male penguins in Central Park Zoo. The moral of this children’s story is that sexually alternate families are OK.

    Then Google for “animal homosexuality.” You’ll easily find claims that 450 different species exhibit homosexual behavior.

    Now you can get down into the data yourself if you liked, and perhaps you could help us all in showing what these creatures are really like. However, I don’t know why we should have a problem if animals extensively exhibit homosexual behavior: we already know from the Fall that so much is broken.

    But in the meanwhile, this provides a huge base of “natural law” that demonstrates widespread homosexual behavior: the critters do it, so why shouldn’t we? The same goes for rape and cannibalism.

    Unless we permit Special Revelation to shape our thinking otherwise, which W2K disallows in the LHK, the animal kingdom.

    The problem is that natural revelation has nothing to say about ethics. That’s where W2K falls apart.

11. Phil

    August 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Steve, please give me an instance of structural sin in the LHK from a W2K perspective.

12. Phil

    August 7th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    As to Messiah reigning in the LHK, I emailed the following statement to Darryl Hart, asking for his agreement/disagreement:

    “0. JESUS: The Son of God as REDEEMER reigns over the RHK, but not the LHK. The Son of God as CREATOR reigns over the LHK as well as the RHK (holding the bread and wine together, for instance). Of course, the Triune God reigns over both, but differently in each.”

    He fully affirmed this statement.

    I also emailed it to David VanDrunen. He replied, “Could be elaborated, but true as it stands.”

    Thus, to the extent that W2K is well-represented by Hart and VanDrunen, I’m confident in saying that W2K rejects the lordship of Jesus Christ in the LHK.

13. Phil

    August 7th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Steve, when I wrote that liberals do not recognize structural sin, I was using Niebuhr’s category, “Christ of culture.” Clearly today’s liberalism is a kind of secularized Puritanism, and so it sees a lot of structural sins.

14. Phil

    August 7th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    Steve, I understand that you believe that “the Church is Israel.” But I’m not asking about you but about the theory we call W2K. Repeatedly W2K leaders tell us not to use national Israel as our paradigm; we may look to Abraham, since he was a pilgrim (although the warrior-king, David, was also a pilgrim—Psa. 39:12, etc.), and we may look to the exilic and post-exilic Israel. But if the Church is the internationalization of Israel (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8; cf. Rom. 11:17), why should I not look to Israel for guidance on how to conduct secular affairs?

    Thus, when I hear W2K advocates tell us that we must not use national Israel as our paradigm, I think I hear Ryrie whispering, “the one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.”

15. GAS

    August 8th, 2007 at 12:41 am

    Steve,
    I believe the Liberalism tag is accurate broadly while perhaps applied differently.

    If Liberalism is defined as a radical subjectivity on a personal level while trying to obtain an objective cultural paradigm we can see that both old Liberalism and new Liberalism fit that definition while applying it differently.

16. stevez

    August 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    Phil, to your homosexual post: first, my point generally was more to stave off any charges of neutrality, etc. This seems to be W2K’s critics’ biggest go-to charge, not so much to get into the discussion specifically, as well as using hot button scare tactics to ward off W2K’s supposed implications; (but, second, since you choose that route, whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you serious? For my part, I am totally boggled by this idea that what happens in nature is somehow sealed off from the effects of sin, as if what apes and dogs do is cause for human pattern. I think you have W2K confused with utter stupidities. This reminds me of the bad thinking in the resorationist/accomodationist debate. It is one thing to say most are “born that way,” as I do but another to assume that means it is all good, as I don’t. This is what the restorationists badly assume; they give in to the belief that if we allow they are born that way we are forced to accept it and become accomodationalists. Says who? I think autistic kids are born that way but I neither hold out hope for restoration nor oddly conclude that it is a good thing. You sound like a restorationist who allows the other side his false assumption: see, the apes do it and now, according to W2K, we have to agree that it is normative for humans. Huh? How galling.)

    “Steve, please give me an instance of structural sin in the LHK from a W2K perspective.”

    Now, now, you know I can’t do that. Who am I to judge the outside world? Will not God judge those outside? Yes, I have my own private views about what is right and what is wrong as I swim around in the KoM and am well persuaded that they are either right or wrong. But I will kindly keep my judgments about sin to be leveled at those within. I only wish some churchly office bearers could resist showing their cards (which are not at all wrong to have in the first place).

    “0. JESUS: The Son of God as REDEEMER reigns over the RHK, but not the LHK. The Son of God as CREATOR reigns over the LHK as well as the RHK (holding the bread and wine together, for instance). Of course, the Triune God reigns over both, but differently in each.”

    And were you forthright enough to ask them what they though of your conclusion, namely, that “W2K rejects the lordship of Jesus Christ in the LHK”? Something tells me this wouldn’t be so readily embraced. To this feebly-minded W2K devotee at least, such a statement is absurd. I for one will say it plainly: Jesus Christ is the Lord of both the LHK and the RHK.
    If He “reigns over both” how can He not be the Lord over the LHK? He reigns over both but differently. I wonder if primary and secondary categories could be employed? Primarily He reigns as Creator over the LHK, secondarily as Redeemer; primarily He reigns as Redeemer over the RHK, secondarily as Creator. One institution, the Church, is how He reigns as Redeemer in mercy (but that doesn’t eradicate His function as its Creator); the other, the state, He reigns as Creator in justice (but that doesn’t eradicate His function as its Redeemer). Another W2Ker puts it this way, “This is not to say that the magistrate cannot use mercy (informed by prudence and wisdom) in sentencing a law-breaker, nor that the church should not practice justice (though tempered with the recognition of human depravity and God’s grace, i.e., biblical excommunication is not meant to punish, although that dimension is there, but to lovingly chastise), only that neither institution can violate their respective callings.”

    It also seems one thing to say that as Redeemer He reigns over the LHK, another to say He redeems the LHK. Like I said before, he reigns over the LHK as Redeemer but to its shame since His redemption is denied. Does he not baptize with water and fire?

    “Steve, I understand that you believe that “the Church is Israel.” But I’m not asking about you but about the theory we call W2K. Repeatedly W2K leaders tell us not to use national Israel as our paradigm; we may look to Abraham, since he was a pilgrim (although the warrior-king, David, was also a pilgrim—Psa. 39:12, etc.), and we may look to the exilic and post-exilic Israel. But if the Church is the internationalization of Israel (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8; cf. Rom. 11:17), why should I not look to Israel for guidance on how to conduct secular affairs?”

    Because, in my understanding, we are no longer theocratic. Israel was not only exilic at one time but also theocratic at another. She is now exilic and not theocratic; she will be theocratic once again upon the eschaton. When she was theocratic she was typological. The types have been fulfilled and have now caused her to be exilic once again. This is exacly how Paul speaks of the Church, one of exilic hope. We have no nation. That’s the point. She is forced to hope in a nation to come at the hands of God alone, one not built by human hands.
    But you very question is confusing: why do you want to know how to order secular affairs? I would think you’d want to know how to order sacred ones.

    Steve

17. stevez

    August 8th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    GAS,

    And ironically, going by that definition of terms, is what Evangelicalism is. But as hart points out, there are two pre-dominant strains of that in America: Fundamentalist/Revivalist Evangelicalism and Mainline/Liberal Evangelicalism. And most Reformed gravitate to one or the other. Then you have the minority Confessionalists who are quite confused by these pre-dominant choices, not being interested either in cultivating the inward life or ordering the institutions.

    But Liberalism, I say, is still a bad broad tag since it is fraught with connotation. The Fundy/Revivalist will reject it outright because “he’s no Liberal.” Yet he has a “radical subjectivity on a personal level while trying to obtain an objective cultural paradigm.” He’s an Evangelical of the conservative strain, while the mainliner he abhors is one of a liberal strain.

    They were separated at birth and don’t realize it. Or maybe they do but just like to sustain their sibling rivalry.

    Steve

18. Phil

    August 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    Steve, on homosexuality, I’m not saying that W2K is neutral. Rather, it is civilly pointless, and apparently it desires to be civilly pointless. Thus , is there any reason why a W2K advocate could not choose abortion for sex-selection, polygamy, and bestiality for one’s pet’s friends? I’m sure that you would not, but what prevents a W2K advocate from these horrendous positions? After all, if the Bible has no civil implications, why isn’t civil antinomianism an option? If this is a stupid question, please disabuse my misunderstanding.

    As to locating structural sin in the LHK, yes, the saints are competent to do such things: “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” Furthermore, Christians may use the sword today to oppose evil (Rom. 13), and Christians know what God thinks is evil and what is not. So surely Christian magistrates are competent to locate structural sin in the LHK.

    On the lordship of Jesus, H and VD already agree that “The Son of God as REDEEMER reigns over the RHK, but not the LHK.” I’m merely repeating what they already accepted when I say that W2K denies that Jesus Christ reigns in the LHK. You might personally affirm Christ’s lordship over all things, but H and VD denied it.

    As to being theocratic, advocating exilic or post-exilic Israel over the era from Moses to the fall of the kingdoms won’t help you much. Consider, for instance, Nehemiah’s “theocratic” rulings under Artaxerxes in chapter 13.

19. Phil

    August 8th, 2007 at 9:04 pm

    If anyone is interested, I’m finding a number of substantial and historical errors in Hart’s *A Secular Faith.* Here are just a few:

    1a. On Augustine’s two cities, Hart writes, “These Christians [after the Incarnation] were not required to move to a Christian-run land but instead were supposed to remain where they lived, existing in the hyphenated status implied by Augustine’s two cities. They were to be citizens both of the heavenly city, conferred through church membership, and of their earthly cities, whether Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, or eventually Paris, London, or Boston. Only with the second coming of Christ . . . would another shift in the relations between the earthly and heavenly cities occur . . . where the differences between secular and sacred politics would be inconsequential” (2006, p. 44).

    1b. In this view, Augustine’s two cities were heavenly and earthly. But both cities are “heavenly” (or at least supernatural) and both are “earthly” in this life. Gilson supports this in his introduction. But without Gilson it isn’t hard to find in Augustine identities different from Hart’s claim. For instance, the two cities began with the holy angels and the fallen angels, thus both were supernatural cities. They also began on earth with Cain and Abel, so that both were earthly cities, often interpenetrated. Augustine shows the development of the cities in Part Four, and he calls them “two human societies, the destiny of the one being an eternal kingdom under God while the doom of the other is eternal punishment along with the Devil.” So instead of supporting a secular-sacred division, Augustine divides the cities by righteousness-unrighteousness. That’s a huge difference. Zillions of examples from Augustine could be cited.

    2a. Hart also writes, “Dabney also favored as a necessary evil a public education stripped of all reference to Christianity.”

    2b. But Dabney had another opinion. While one might agree with Hart from reading only the beginning of Dabney’s essay on “Secularized Education” (freely available online), a quick read of the entire essay will lay this claim to rest. For instance, “While the State does not authorize the theological beliefs of the Christian citizens, neither has it a right to war against them. While we have no right to ask the State to propagate our theology, we have a right to demand that it shall not oppose it. But to educate souls thus [secularly] is to oppose it, because a non-Christian training is an anti-Christian training.” Thus Dabney was quite opposed to favoring “public education stripped of all references to Christianity.” Read the essay for yourself and see.

20. GAS

    August 9th, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Steve,
    I see the Fundies differently. Because of their ana-baptistic tendencies any cultural objective is only and always a means to a subjective ends.

    As far as the CRC, I speak not merely from theory but having grown up in the CRC and as recently as couple of years ago attended a CRC leadership class, my experience was that the trend is throughly post-modern.

    I consider Post-Modernsim and Neo-Liberalism as synonyms and as a result there are important differences with Old-liberalisms. The important differences as I see them is the emphasis on supernatural manifestations against a strong skepticism of anything supernatural and a strong skepticism of most universal paradigms against a belief in man’s ability to totalize phenomenon through good reason.

    Thus, the CRC, unlike mainline Liberals, maintain a strong belief in a providential God while at the same time disparaging dogmatic doctrinal standards.

    I have no doubt that much of the struggle is the inconsistent middle ground between the old CRC and the post-modern CRC. One need only observe the strange happenings in the seminary in regards to a woman”s professorship.

21. MarkPele

    August 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Phil, thanks for the thoughtful research! That’s definitely food for thought.

22. stevez

    August 14th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    Phil,

    I suppose my point was simply this:

    You said, “Of course, the Triune God reigns over both, but differently in each.” Both hart and DVD, evidently, said amen to that phrase. Then you concluded, “W2K rejects the lordship of Jesus Christ in the LHK.”

    Then I say, Huh? If the Triune God reigns over both, how do you conclude that such a view also denies the Lordship of Christ in any sphere? The point seems to be that it is done differently, that’s all. The way you have interpreted them seems a lot like this: “I am a superior to two different subordinate employees. One cleans the restrooms and the other bids on contracts. I supervise the latter differently than the former, but I have no authority over the latter.” If I explained this set up to my two employees and sent them on their way, the former would be quite perplexed…”he is my superior but he has no authority over me?” Non-sensical.

    Steve

23. stevez

    August 14th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    GAS,

    Whatever way you want to diagnose the CRC, OK. Whatever post-modernism looms I still see the lapping waves of “broad Evangelicalism” over against any formal tendencies toward post-modernism…but then again, isn’t it all the same? For this member’s part, I am still no fan of my own denomination and seek quiet withdrawl when the opportunity arises.

    BTW, the Ruth Tucker situation is interesting for various reasons. The important thing was that the seminary president “prayed about it” before he ousted her (i.e. spiritual abuse). Now if that ain’t the result of heavy imbibing on Evangelicalism, I don’t know what is!

    Steve

24. stevez

    August 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    “While we have no right to ask the State to propagate our theology, we have a right to demand that it shall not oppose it.”

    How do we know when it opposes? When it denies the CoW, or Dordtian grace or the actual theory of the Atonement or sola fide or the real presence of Christ? I have yet to hear any PS do this; the denial or affirmation “of theology” is a churchly/sacred endeavor in the first place, not a secular one.

    And what happens when so-called Christian schools oppose “our theology” and teach what is contrary to our forms? And what happens when only 15% of the representative parents actually observe the Sabbath and go to church?

    And what of it when it does oppose us? Should we take our balls and go home, or do we have the right and duty to rebel, or is that more the worldly action of those citizens in a liberal democracy versus members of the Church? Maybe we could ask WWJD: well, what did He do when the powers-that-be did not bend the knee?

    And what happens when our vocations as adults demand (inasmuch as our childrens’ vocations are their educations) something “opposed to our theology”? Are we to erect “Christian vocations” within the wider world? Why do children get the benefit of a Christian environment (excuse me, Christian education/vocation) and we adults have to slog through an unbelieving world, fraught with all sorts of anti-Christian dimensions? How are we preparing our children to have to enter that world as adult-Christian where there is no such benefit?

    You cause me more questions than answers, Phil. Obviously.

    Steve

25. Phil

    August 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    Steve,

    That’s why I think W2K is nonsense. But you haven’t interacted with VD’s and Hart’s claim.

26. Phil

    August 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Steve,

    VD not uncommonly says things like this: “That culture and society are legitimate and under God’s rule are not in dispute, but is this-worldly culture under Christ’s redemptive order?” (DVD’s review of Lazareth).

    That is, all of life is under God’s rule; we all agree with this. But for him, the LHK is not under Christ’s rule because “Christ” is intrinsically the Redeemer, yet the LHK can be under the Son’s creative/sustaining rule.

    So W2K bisects the Son of God.

27. GAS

    August 14th, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    C’mon Steve.
    I would hope he prayed about it.

    The implication you make is that it was simply a spiritual decision.
    I doubt you have any grounds for that.
    I think the evidence more strongly suggests that Ruth did not fit into the community and did not share enough experiences with the rest of the staff such that the “truth” the staff wanted to promote was threatened (i.e. She did not meet the post-modern definition of truth).

28. stevez

    August 15th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Phil,

    I suppose I essentially disagree with Dabney’s presupposition that “true education is…the nurture of the soul.” I believe that such is more generally the role of the family (and more specifically, and insofar as I am Christian, in conjunction with the Church). The word family does not appear even once in his exposition. In this way, I think he lends way too much credibility to the institutions of education. It is the home that ultimately shapes and molds and nurtures souls. (Home is another word, as well as parents, that is oddly absent anything he puts down.) This over-lending seems to be what drives so many religious zealots to change a variety of quarters in broad culture. In pop culture they want TV and movies to be cleaned up. Why? Because they mistake the dimension of influence for nurture. But no matter how much commercialization a child takes in, it is still the parents that shape him. (I am being extreme here only to make a point. A good parent monitors just how much a child might take in, knowing that these things do influence; this itself is nurture. But, again, influence is not nurture.)

    Maybe I could be accused of being much too conservative in this way, but there are worse things to be and I would be happy for the accusation. True education certainly influences, even helps in the shaping of, souls; but it doesn’t nurture them the way the home does. I believe that God has ordained the family/home to affect the nurturance of souls, both young and old; even as a full grown adult I still seek my father’s guidance either presently or in looking back to my rearing—I do not much recall what any teacher may have taught me but my parents’ shaping is written all over me (for both good and ill!); it’s in the DNA of our original creation and you cannot escape it. Part of the problem anymore is the skirting of this truth on the part of parents, across the belief-board. Lending the kind of credibility Dabney appears to, parents seem to think they may farm their children out to the schools (of whatever variety) and that they will take care of what THEY have been ordained to do.

    But when Mr. VanVanderVan tells me God made the world and is personally involved in directing all its phenomenon and that we are beholden to Him, it simply doesn’t mean what it does when Dad says so.

    Steve

29. Phil

    August 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Steve, you wrote, “I suppose I essentially disagree with Dabney’s presupposition that ‘true education is . . . the nurture of the soul.’ I believe that such is more generally the role of the family (and more specifically, and insofar as I am Christian, in conjunction with the Church).”

    But Dabney isn’t disagreeing with your point here. He would agree that educational responsibility flows from the family; they may delegate this responsibility, but the duty is primarily theirs.

30. stevez

    August 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    Perhaps. But now we must define education. Is it the 3 R’s or is to “shape, mold or otherwise nuture the soul”? Dabney seems to suggest, nay, says it’s the latter, while I say it’s the former. And before you charge compartmentalization, see my other response to you per that charge. In brief, there are roles and rules each instition plays in society. I shape my child’s soul, Mr. Salisbury educates my child…and he’d better think twice before he thinks he’s shaping her soul.

    And I am not talking about who gets to decide where a child goes. *Clearly* that is the right and duty of the home, clearly. But I am not talking about logistics.

    Steve

31. stevez

    August 17th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    GAS,

    I agree; we all should seek godly wisdom in all our endeavors, great, small and in between. That he “prayed about it” isn’t the issue, but rather how he used that information. It ought be done in private, and that we did not flouted before someone with whom we have disagreement, etc. It should be an unspoken agreement amongst us believers that we have done so. Otherwise, we run the risk of an abuse. This inability to appreciate private/public distinctions is what is so Evangelical. And I only implied it was a “spiritual decision” because he seemed to.

    My hunch (and it is only at best that, for sure) is like yours: that she just simply fell short whatever expectations, for good or ill. She has made the whole situation quite public as well. Much as I am a subordinationist, at least Ruth was on the minority committee that spoke something resembling truth concerning third wave penetecostalism (whose report to Synod this year was flagrantly ignored “until the future”–insert more boos here from this confessionalist insider).

    Steve

32. Phil

    August 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    Steve, I wouldn’t charge you with compartmentalization as much as an excessively instrumental view of education (which seems to fit with W2K). Your view works well with producing assembly-line robots or mindless clerks. Dabney had a bigger goal; he agreed with something like the liberal arts view of education in which the goal is to free students from a slave mentality and encourage them to be thoughtful, inquisitive graduates. They already started kindergarten this way, but American education (including Christian schools) suppresses inquiry: it’s too messy with 30 students.

    I was a Christian high school math teacher in a “previous life.” I was very disappointed with students who could perform well but could not give thoughtful accounts of their 3 R’s performances. Sometimes I would say to them, “What question am I about to ask?” They always knew that I was asking, “Why?” Students accustomed to instrumental questions thought I was torturing them when I did this! Such students don’t care about why anything happens in the discipline; they have slave mentality: they just do what they’re told, and don’t worry about why.

    But in an inquiry environment, it’s easy to ask big questions that are obviously relevant to the discipline and yet have theological or philosophical overtones.

    Young children can thrive in this environment. It’s not for the Mensa members alone.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.