Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

There’s nothing problematic with the C.Plantinga quote you offer. In what way do you suppose that he says the church should take over the film industry, and/or applauds the ecclesiasticism of the medieval period, or Constantinianism, and/or triumphalistically identifies the spirit of Christ with the animus of Western civilization?

C.Plantinga doesn’t suggest any of those things –not in the quote you provide, anyway.

In a tremendous non sequitur you write “then it is quite easy to see how some corporate entity would need to redeem other corporate entities.”
To what ‘corporate’ entities do you refer?
How does C.Plantiga suggest that a ‘corporate entity’ is the agent of redemption here?

You go on to write “because of kingdom theology, Christians will individually and through their various spheres try to initiate the kingdom shalom”
What do you mean by ‘kingdom theology’?
What do you think a ’sphere’ is?
What do you think ’shalom’ is?
How does C.Plantiga suggest that this shalom is ‘initiated’ through spheres and individually by Christians?

You also write “to redeem the world from sickness the broadest sphere, ie federal government,”
Does C.Plantiga somewhere suggest that the world can be “redeemed from sickness” previous to glorification?
Does C.Plantiga (or anyone) speak of ‘broader’ and ‘narrower’ spheres, let alone identify “the broadest sphere” as ‘federal government’? Does anyone even refer to ‘federal government’ as a ’sphere’?

While you’re down there by the bonfire, give some thought as to whether you really know what you’re talking about, because you’re making very little sense. If you can straightforwardly answer the simple clarifying questions I’ve asked you here, I’ll be happy to respond further.

Isn’t the Reformational project to redeem all of life, ya know, Christ owns every square inch?

I think you’ll need to provide a list of the intellectual leaders of Kuyper, or those who claim to be a part of the tradition, and delineate between the orthodox and the hetrodox. Who has their spheres lined up correctly and who don’t?

How about we take a look at C. Plantinga in his book, “Engaging God’s World”?

“Everything corrupt needs to be redeemed, and that includes the whole natural world, which both sings and groans. The whole natural world, in all its glory and pain, needs the redemption that will bring shalom. The world isn’t divided into a sacred realm and a secular realm, with redemptive activity confined to the sacred zone. The whole world belongs to God, the whole world has fallen, and so the whole world needs to be redeemed- every last person, place, organization, and program; all “rocks and trees and skies and seas”; in fact, “every square inch” as Abraham Kuyper said. The whole creation is “a theater fo the mighty works of God,” first in creation and then in re-creation.” -p.96

Now I would think this is a good summarization of Kuypers view, is it not? So if all things need reforming, including all corporate things, then it is quite easy to see how some corporate entity would need to redeem other corporate entities. Hardly a laissez-faire approach.

In addition, because of kingdom theology, Christians will individually and through their various spheres try to initiate the kingdom shalom as they interpret what that shalom should entail. It should come as no surprise that some would try to initiate a broad shalom through the broadest sphere. Thus, someone’s kingdom theology could be such that they believe that the shalom of health is a kingdom priority and to redeem the world from sickness the broadest sphere, ie federal government, should be engaged maximally to acheive this shalom.

While I’m down here enjoying my strawman bonfire would you mind discussing the boundaries of “thy kingdom come on earth”?

Sphere sovereignty is an understanding of how the various societal communities normatively relate. Since only God in Christ has absolute Lordship, each kind of community in society is bound by its own distinctly delegated responsibility. This principle excludes the legitimacy of ecclesiasticism (the church taking over or running anything but the church). This principle also militates against all forms of ‘civil religion.’ The institutional community of faith cannot be legitimately blended with any state or nation or political party or any other societal community. In fact, Kuyper’s own political party, the Anti-Revolutionary Party, was highly critical of “Christendom” and saw it as responsible for a major post-medieval animus of the West, namely “Enlightenment” (or Modernism).

Chellis, that Burke was also opposed to the secular revolutionary spirit, does not mean Kuyper favored Burke’s alternative. Kuyper offered a distinct non-Burkean and non-Christendom alternative to Modernism. And, just to be a stickler, there is no “neo-kuyperianism” yet.

For more help with Kuyper, you may also find this site helpful:
The Kuyperian
http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/

It was sort of funny. The Sunday evening after I posted last we had a professor from Kuyper College (formally RBC) preach. My friend who “applauds the ecclesiasticism of the medieval period, or Constantinianism, and triumphalistically identifies the spirit of Christ with the animus of Western civilization” sat just in front of me. The sermon was glorified American patriotism. I believe the point was that “there’s a heap of grace here but not so much anywhere else.” I couldn’t help but recall one Covie’s comment around here at one point that “the Gospel hasn’t taken root in China.” I believe the “proof” was something about the form of government, etc., etc., which seemed to also imply that it sure has taken root here in the West, you know, since we can vote, etc., etc. Both seem to read “grace” through the lens of…well…worldiness.

Nevertheless, by all means, feel free to address how all of that ISN’T Kuyperian. I am all ears since, when I read Kuyper, I don’t have much trouble seeing how these nice fellows of mine come up with what they do…

Go ahead.

If you can’t do it, then consider yourself schooled. For more help, you’re welcome to direct all your Kuyperian related questions to me.

I believe Bill’s analysis is at least partly correct in reference to Southern Presbyterianism’s affinity for libertarianism and that attitude reverberating all the way back to the Civil War.

I doubt any such correlation could be made with the northern Dutch Reformed who are less prone to isolationism and radical federalism.

As evidence, the results show that the “psuedo-kuyperians” in Sioux County, IA voted overwhelmingly for Hucklebee with “true-kuyperian” Ron Paul finishing with a measly 6%.

The funny thing is that when it comes to what extent the two aforementioned candidates are committed to the most fundemental concern of goverment, and especially for the executive branch, that is, the commitment to protect the citzenry from enemies foreign and domestic, both of these candidates principles are sorely defective.

I believe the analysis by a previous poster concerning Hucklebee with his “golden rule” govermental principle is accurate and when that it is extended to foreign policy it can only lead to disaster and certainly doesn’t comport with Romans 13.

Ron Paul is lost in the fog of idealogy. With a stupid naivete he believes this ever shrinking world will comport with his simplistic notion that no harm will be possible to us if only we minded our own business. Paul would have us believe those insane Moslem facists will respect our non-interventionism and lose all desire to enact their eschatology. Laissez-Faire ad adsurdum.

Thus both candidates, in their own way, fail on First Principle.

Plus, what confessional Presbyterian could abide a federal smoking ban?

I am not surprised that CRC folk are largely of the “America is Jesus’ Homeland” crowd, but anyone who thinks the church should take (or should have taken) over the film industry is not a Kuyperian by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyone who so applauds the ecclesiasticism of the medieval period, or Constantinianism, etc is not a Kuyperian by any definition. To triumphalistically identify the spirit of Christ with the animus of Western civilization is certainly NOT Kuyperian.

Makes me wonder if you or your fellow CRC’ers have read much Kuyper. If you’re interested in talking more about what genuine Kuyperianism is… well, that’s why I’m here. We could start a new post and thread of comments, if you like.