Comments on: The Myth of Integralism http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/ The Reign of Christ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:23:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1458 D Hart Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:34:14 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1458 Phil, I have tried lots of theology. You just don't agree with it. I've appealed to Paul on the distinction between things eternal and temporal, to the difference between justification and sanctification, to the difference between the physical and eternal swords or the different jurisdictions of church and state, and to Reformed teaching on the kingdom of Christ. None of this seems to matter. So here's what the issue seems to be. You say that Christ rules over all things. So do I. You see that rule as non-existent if "all things" aren't being sanctified. This position seems to fly in the face of both the ongoing presence of sin in the lives of believers, and in the mingling of believers and non-believers in this age of redemptive history. In other words, you are admirable in your desire for the eradication of sin in our lives. Yet, you seem to be impatient with the way the Lord, who rules all things, is getting rid of sin. Is that theological enough? Phil, I have tried lots of theology. You just don’t agree with it. I’ve appealed to Paul on the distinction between things eternal and temporal, to the difference between justification and sanctification, to the difference between the physical and eternal swords or the different jurisdictions of church and state, and to Reformed teaching on the kingdom of Christ. None of this seems to matter.

So here’s what the issue seems to be. You say that Christ rules over all things. So do I. You see that rule as non-existent if “all things” aren’t being sanctified. This position seems to fly in the face of both the ongoing presence of sin in the lives of believers, and in the mingling of believers and non-believers in this age of redemptive history. In other words, you are admirable in your desire for the eradication of sin in our lives. Yet, you seem to be impatient with the way the Lord, who rules all things, is getting rid of sin.

Is that theological enough?

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1456 stevez Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:10:03 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1456 Phil, as to the email exchanges with Hart and DVD: here is the problem. You said, "The Triune God reigns over both but differently in each." DVD basically agrees, as would I. But then you conclude on your own that what is being said is that "Christ does not reign over the nations." Not only is the problem that you never gave them a chance to respond to *that* conclusion, but it simply doesn't even follow what they agreed to. How can someone at once say, "Christ reigns over both but He doesn't?" As to Keller, I will admit that my rendering of his “wowing” is fairly impressionistic. But read his 3 page tract called “The Missional Church.” He uses a lot of post-modern buzzwords like “tolerance” and “counter-cultural” to make those who sign up for transformation seminars feel like they are being “relevant” and “meaningful” in a post-Christendom age. After all, who really wants to be associated with Bible-thumping, cranky, life-sapping, hellfire-and-brimstone, sandwich-board curmudgeons simply irritated by the fact that they are at the bottom of the cultural heap? I sure don’t. He is appealing to a set of generational felt needs that is correctly exhausted by the efforts of institutional Christendom, especially as it has formed another burned-over district in its adoption of high-gear activistic efforts—political, moral, social and cultural. But like Bill, what he gives with one hand he takes away with the other insofar as he simply ups the ante by calling on sinners to be “authentic and real.” That’s the very problem, isn’t it? When we are “authentic and real” we are pretty ugly. Can Calvinists really be comfortable with sinners being “authentic”? The call to be authentic is quite post-modern insofar as it is anti-institutional, and post-moderns eat that stuff up with a spoon. I think Keller represents just more warmed-over American pietism in Reformed dress. It is understandable inasmuch as it wants to turn conventional Christendom on its head. Think David Kuo, the Administration’s former point man for the Faith-Based initiatives. Whatever immediate and debatable problems attended his tenure, he still exited saying that no government programs will fix anything (OK, I am with you so far)…we all just need to “get real” and be the best Christians we can be and that will take care of it (huh? What just happened?). As to the language of “transformation,” don’t words matter? The more you and I speak the more our meanings seem very different to me. I would deliberately avoid transform. Seems to me, that after hearing you on all this, transform captures well what you mean to say. Steve Phil, as to the email exchanges with Hart and DVD: here is the problem. You said, “The Triune God reigns over both but differently in each.” DVD basically agrees, as would I. But then you conclude on your own that what is being said is that “Christ does not reign over the nations.” Not only is the problem that you never gave them a chance to respond to *that* conclusion, but it simply doesn’t even follow what they agreed to. How can someone at once say, “Christ reigns over both but He doesn’t?”
As to Keller, I will admit that my rendering of his “wowing” is fairly impressionistic. But read his 3 page tract called “The Missional Church.” He uses a lot of post-modern buzzwords like “tolerance” and “counter-cultural” to make those who sign up for transformation seminars feel like they are being “relevant” and “meaningful” in a post-Christendom age. After all, who really wants to be associated with Bible-thumping, cranky, life-sapping, hellfire-and-brimstone, sandwich-board curmudgeons simply irritated by the fact that they are at the bottom of the cultural heap? I sure don’t. He is appealing to a set of generational felt needs that is correctly exhausted by the efforts of institutional Christendom, especially as it has formed another burned-over district in its adoption of high-gear activistic efforts—political, moral, social and cultural. But like Bill, what he gives with one hand he takes away with the other insofar as he simply ups the ante by calling on sinners to be “authentic and real.” That’s the very problem, isn’t it? When we are “authentic and real” we are pretty ugly. Can Calvinists really be comfortable with sinners being “authentic”? The call to be authentic is quite post-modern insofar as it is anti-institutional, and post-moderns eat that stuff up with a spoon. I think Keller represents just more warmed-over American pietism in Reformed dress. It is understandable inasmuch as it wants to turn conventional Christendom on its head. Think David Kuo, the Administration’s former point man for the Faith-Based initiatives. Whatever immediate and debatable problems attended his tenure, he still exited saying that no government programs will fix anything (OK, I am with you so far)…we all just need to “get real” and be the best Christians we can be and that will take care of it (huh? What just happened?).
As to the language of “transformation,” don’t words matter? The more you and I speak the more our meanings seem very different to me. I would deliberately avoid transform. Seems to me, that after hearing you on all this, transform captures well what you mean to say.

Steve

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1455 Phil Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:29:22 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1455 I did not respond as well as I should have to Darryl’s question, “Phil, if I recommended reading A Secular Faith would that work? It has lots of examples from the history of American Protestantism where the effort to Christianize (some would call it transform) the U.S. did not work out so well for maintaining the integrity of the gospel.” This was his response when I tried to state a W2K claim: “There does not exist a transformative approach to any subset of the Left Hand Kingdom.” I should have said this: anecdotal evidence never establishes a trend, such as the alleged trend that every transformative attempt necessarily fails. Anecdotes can give a “thick description” to help us crawl inside someone’s head, but you probably need something like a simple, random sample here. I doubt that this is possible. That’s why I would have preferred a logical or theological argument. At the root, my reasons for promoting transformation are theological, and they do not flow from the successes or failures of others. I did not respond as well as I should have to Darryl’s question, “Phil, if I recommended reading A Secular Faith would that work? It has lots of examples from the history of American Protestantism where the effort to Christianize (some would call it transform) the U.S. did not work out so well for maintaining the integrity of the gospel.”

This was his response when I tried to state a W2K claim: “There does not exist a transformative approach to any subset of the Left Hand Kingdom.”

I should have said this: anecdotal evidence never establishes a trend, such as the alleged trend that every transformative attempt necessarily fails. Anecdotes can give a “thick description” to help us crawl inside someone’s head, but you probably need something like a simple, random sample here. I doubt that this is possible.

That’s why I would have preferred a logical or theological argument.

At the root, my reasons for promoting transformation are theological, and they do not flow from the successes or failures of others.

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1454 Phil Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:19:52 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1454 Steve asked if the word “transform” is necessary for my meaning. No. But I do not avoid it, either. Steve asked if the word “transform” is necessary for my meaning.

No. But I do not avoid it, either.

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1453 Phil Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:19:03 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1453 Steve says, “Their answer wasn’t that Christ doesn’t reign over the nations, it was that He reigns over all things, just differently.” I asked David VanDrunen for his evaluation of this statement: “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.” This is his complete response to me: “Could be elaborated, but true as it stands.” Steve says, “Their answer wasn’t that Christ doesn’t reign over the nations, it was that He reigns over all things, just differently.”

I asked David VanDrunen for his evaluation of this statement: “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.”

This is his complete response to me: “Could be elaborated, but true as it stands.”

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1452 stevez Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:08:11 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1452 "Steve, when you agree that Christ reigns over the nations, you disagree with Darryl (email on July 14) and with David VanDrunen (email on July 13)." Actually, I never agreed that you interpreted their own answer to you correctly, if you recall. That was my main point back to you. You concluded from your questions a statement you never asked them directly. Their answer wasn't that Christ doesn't reign over the nations, it was that He reigns over all things, just differently. I characterized your conclusion as being similar to one supervisor overseeing two different employees differently and one of them concluding that the supervisor has no authority over him. Steve “Steve, when you agree that Christ reigns over the nations, you disagree with Darryl (email on July 14) and with David VanDrunen (email on July 13).”

Actually, I never agreed that you interpreted their own answer to you correctly, if you recall. That was my main point back to you. You concluded from your questions a statement you never asked them directly. Their answer wasn’t that Christ doesn’t reign over the nations, it was that He reigns over all things, just differently. I characterized your conclusion as being similar to one supervisor overseeing two different employees differently and one of them concluding that the supervisor has no authority over him.

Steve

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1451 stevez Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:33:09 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1451 Phil, Do you think you could still get across what you mean to say without using the nomenclature of “transform,” or is that indispensable to your meaning? Steve Phil,

Do you think you could still get across what you mean to say without using the nomenclature of “transform,” or is that indispensable to your meaning?

Steve

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1450 Phil Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:18:50 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1450 Please tell me how you know that “Keller’s missional approach wants to wow them.” Please be specific: where does he say (or imply) that impressing anyone is his goal? Please tell me how you know that “Keller’s missional approach wants to wow them.” Please be specific: where does he say (or imply) that impressing anyone is his goal?

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1449 stevez Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:08:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1449 Phil, I wondered if you might take that tack. But I am not talking about the legitimate use of the sword in the LHK. We may live in a “separation of church and state” context, but that doesn’t keep the flesh from still picking up the sword to do the Church’s task. There are multiple ways to use the sword. One is old-school Christendom—you know, the more objectivistic or institutional approach of the sword. The other edge of the sword still takes its cues from the spirit of this age. It may be to beat a dead horse, but I think our friend Keller still serves as good example of how we have figured out enough to depose that rusty side of the sword and brandish the cleaner one. Instead of an outside-in approach that seeks to force the faith onto the hearts of men, Keller’s missional approach wants to wow them; instead of transforming the institutions he wants to transform the people in them. That may sound good. But I still say there is a difference between converting souls and sending them out into the good world than transforming them in order to “take over” the world. True, it’s not your grandfather’s sword, but it’s still a sword, just a kinder, gentler use is all. It still depends upon the might of the flesh to affect that which shall only come by God’s hand alone. But counter to Kellerism, as folksy as it may sound, the only ordination I have is over my own household. As such, there are only two people in the world I may even hope to “transform,” my two covenant children. Of course, I prefer the terms “shape, mold or nurture (their souls)” over transform. The latter is just such a power phrase and seems to neglect that, even though I am ordained to such power over my children to write myself up one side and down the other all over and inside and out of them, most days it seems like this, too, is farce (!). But I know it isn’t as my own parents’ writing is all over me. I have enough to do with two covenant children. I will leave the more optimistic “we are the world” efforts to those who have convinced themselves they have, by virtue of faith, transcended their own humanity and know something the unbeliever doesn’t in his common endeavor to “do earth.” In the meantime, somebody, please just pass the bread and wine and I will get out of your way. BTW, in your list of anecdotal woes endemic to NYC you forgot the fact that therein lays Wall Street. Oh, so many things to transform, so little time, ability and calling from on high to do so. Steve Phil, I wondered if you might take that tack. But I am not talking about the legitimate use of the sword in the LHK. We may live in a “separation of church and state” context, but that doesn’t keep the flesh from still picking up the sword to do the Church’s task. There are multiple ways to use the sword. One is old-school Christendom—you know, the more objectivistic or institutional approach of the sword. The other edge of the sword still takes its cues from the spirit of this age. It may be to beat a dead horse, but I think our friend Keller still serves as good example of how we have figured out enough to depose that rusty side of the sword and brandish the cleaner one. Instead of an outside-in approach that seeks to force the faith onto the hearts of men, Keller’s missional approach wants to wow them; instead of transforming the institutions he wants to transform the people in them. That may sound good. But I still say there is a difference between converting souls and sending them out into the good world than transforming them in order to “take over” the world. True, it’s not your grandfather’s sword, but it’s still a sword, just a kinder, gentler use is all. It still depends upon the might of the flesh to affect that which shall only come by God’s hand alone.
But counter to Kellerism, as folksy as it may sound, the only ordination I have is over my own household. As such, there are only two people in the world I may even hope to “transform,” my two covenant children. Of course, I prefer the terms “shape, mold or nurture (their souls)” over transform. The latter is just such a power phrase and seems to neglect that, even though I am ordained to such power over my children to write myself up one side and down the other all over and inside and out of them, most days it seems like this, too, is farce (!). But I know it isn’t as my own parents’ writing is all over me. I have enough to do with two covenant children. I will leave the more optimistic “we are the world” efforts to those who have convinced themselves they have, by virtue of faith, transcended their own humanity and know something the unbeliever doesn’t in his common endeavor to “do earth.” In the meantime, somebody, please just pass the bread and wine and I will get out of your way.
BTW, in your list of anecdotal woes endemic to NYC you forgot the fact that therein lays Wall Street. Oh, so many things to transform, so little time, ability and calling from on high to do so.

Steve

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1448 Phil Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:22:59 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/08/21/the-myth-of-integralism/#comment-1448 Steve, here’s another reason to distinguish the sword from transformation: several current Anabaptist scholars are advocating a Niebuhr-like transformation. One example is Duane K. Friesen (Bethel College in Kansas), and another is Craig A. Carter (Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto); you can find both at Amazon.com. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a theological basis for Anabaptist transformation as I can for Reformed transformation. In fact, I doubt that the Anabaptists can justify themselves, but I’m happy they come this far. They explicitly see their transformational roles as parallel to Augustine, Cromwell, Calvin’s Geneva, Puritan England and New England, with this distinction: they distance themselves from “Christendom,” by which they primarily mean the use of the sword, whether for national or self defense, or for capital punishment. Here’s another reason why your parallelism, “Spirit (disciple) and sword (transform. . .)”, does not hold. Steve, here’s another reason to distinguish the sword from transformation: several current Anabaptist scholars are advocating a Niebuhr-like transformation.

One example is Duane K. Friesen (Bethel College in Kansas), and another is Craig A. Carter (Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto); you can find both at Amazon.com. Unfortunately, I cannot give you a theological basis for Anabaptist transformation as I can for Reformed transformation. In fact, I doubt that the Anabaptists can justify themselves, but I’m happy they come this far.

They explicitly see their transformational roles as parallel to Augustine, Cromwell, Calvin’s Geneva, Puritan England and New England, with this distinction: they distance themselves from “Christendom,” by which they primarily mean the use of the sword, whether for national or self defense, or for capital punishment.

Here’s another reason why your parallelism, “Spirit (disciple) and sword (transform. . .)”, does not hold.

]]>