RSSEcclesiastical Totalitarianism
Here’s an effort to separate the real from the faux neo-Calvinists.
Recent interactions with seminarians have made me realize how popular the notion of cultural transformation is as the best understanding of the Reformed ministry. Whether called mercy ministry, urban missions, or word and deed, a wing of the Presbyterian world believes that the church is called to apply the gospel to all of society and culture as part of the Great Commission. Cultural transformation is essential to the church’s love of neighbors and evangelism. As one prominent Presbyterian pastor puts it, “To say that social concern could be done independently of evangelism is to cut mercy loose from kingdom endeavor. It must then wither. To say that evangelism can be done without also doing social concern is to forget that our goal is not individual ‘decisions,’ but the bringing of all life and creation under the lordship of Christ, the kingdom of God.â€
This has an obvious appeal and appears to move the church away from irrelevance to the front lines of social activism. I have long thought that Kuyperianism of this sort is far more popular than the two-kingdom view because it is uplifting and inspiring. It gives the timid the gumption to go out and get things done. By contrast, the two-kingdom view prompts introspection and uncertainty.
But further reflection shows that the inspiration of such transformationalism may be as full of hope as Obama (and as vacuous). How exactly is a small wing of Protestantism going to transform New York City? At my home church in Glenside, Pa., we need a permit from the Virtuous Commonwealth just to remodel our auditorium. Even transforming an intersection in the Big Apple would require a herculean effort. (Can you really call it transformation if you need a permit?)
The need for permits is a reality that transformationalists do not seem to consider thanks to what seems to me a naive view of culture and society in the West (at least). Our society is remarkably complex affair that owes to legal, economic, political, and church-state developments that transpired over two millennia. The legendary sociologist, Edward Shils, for instance, explained some of this complexity when he tried to define the basic components of civil society. The first is that society is distinct from the state. Second, it protects rights to personal property. And third it involves “a constellation of many autonomous economic unites and business firms acting independently of the state and competing with each other.†The virtue of a civil society is that it allows for the diversity of objectives pursued by individuals and institutions. So one could say that civil society allows churches to try to transform society. What civil society will not allow is the conflation of society and the state. This was the mistake of Communism and why it was always the Party’s job even to throw a party.
Sometimes I think the rhetoric of transformationalism leads to a form of tyranny similar to Communism. Instead of conflating society and the state, the ideal of redeeming culture verges into conflating society and the church. If godless tyranny was a bad thing, wouldn’t godly tyranny also be?
Of course, the response is usually the fist-pounding one that quotes Kuyper and says “every square inch is Christ’s.†But the point of this remark is not entirely understood. Two kingdom folks agree that everything belongs to Christ, including civil society. In fact, every square inch is Christ’s even if the church is not transforming it. (Maybe the reason for the popularity of Tim Keller’s new book among the transformationalists is that lacking examples of the gospel’s transforming power they really do need reasons to believe that God exists and is in control.)
So if we can agree that civil society as it has developed in the West is a good thing, then maybe it’s possible to clarify exactly what’s at stake in the debates between Kuyperians and two-kindgomers. Kuyper himself believed in sphere sovereignty and that the institutional church should remain distinct from the spheres of the family and the state. He was also a great opponent of cultural and social homogeneity. So there’s a measure of agreement. Kuyperians and two-kingdom folk would also likely agree that the church is responsible for the gospel. Disagreements may surface over the degree to which the spheres of the family and the state depend for their legitimacy on whether or not they confess Christ. But this is a very different question from saying that the church, for the sake of neighbor love or mercy ministry, should build low-income housing.
Possibly what the soft (as opposed to hard) Kuyperians have in mind by mercy ministry and “word and deed†is simply providing assistance for the poor and destitute. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t the word charity be preferable to social justice (a phrase that eerily unites Jim Skillen and Jim Wallis)? And granted, Reformed Christians may disagree about the nature and scope of diaconal work. But do we really need the mantra of redeeming the city to engage in simple and low-profile acts of charity?
W.H. Chellis
February 21st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
What is the difference between a real neo-calvinist and a faux neo-calvinist? Or are we separating between calvinists and neo-calvinists? Sorry, I was confused by that first sentence.
D Hart
February 21st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Bill: it could be either those who actually read Kuyper and those who don’t. But more seriously it would be those who take sphere sovereignty seriously (along with social differentiation) and those who haven’t thought about it.
W.H. Chellis
February 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I like it. I hate arguing with Darryl Hart. We share to much cultural capital. He always has the argument won by the time he defines the terms. He makes it impossible for me to argue with him.
And still we argue on.
Hart on Ecclesiastical Totalitarianism « Heidelblog
February 21st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
[...] February 21, 2008 in Uncategorized At DRC [...]
Baus
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 am
Hart, do these would-be ‘transformers’ (who think the institutional church should run social programs ad nauseum), do they really claim to be “neocalvinists” and “Kuyperians”? Does Tim Keller claim to be a neocalvinist?
As far as the role of the institutional church is concerned, the principle of sphere sovereignty is virtually synonymous with the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. No one who believes or teaches that social charity is an ecclesiastical matter is Kuyperian. It’s just that simple.
I am aware that there is a “missiological” approach coming from the 1970’s sociology/anthropology-driven contextualism of Charles Kraft and others, fostered by would-be Kuyperian sympathizers like Leslie Newbigin which perhaps now is trying to steal the prestige of Kuyper’s name and the term “transformation”.
Certain people reformed churches and seminaries who leaned toward a sort of evangelical ecumenicism brought this influence in, such as Harvie Conn and (alas) Ed Clowney. But it is not neocalvinism, nor Kuyperian transformationalism. For one, it fails to see the proper sphere sovereignty distinctions between the institutional church and other societal communities. A world of blurred boundaries is let in the church’s back door under the cloak of “diaconal ministry”. We consider this nigh unto heresy.
As an official representative of neocalvinism, I can say that they are not of us. If that kind of unreformed thinking is popular among some seminarians, I have very strong doubts that it is the result of the success of the CPJ or other neocalvinist groups in educating reformed believers. By definition, it could not be, since such views are at total odds with our approach. More likely, such muddled thinking is the result of the way neocalvinist thought was largely rejected at conservative reformed seminaries in the 1970’s in favor of a more “church (and theology) friendly” contextualist perspective that blended missions and social work (in the name of centrality of the church).
This is all complicated by the fact that some of the main spokesmen for the neocalvinist position at the time were really unDooyeweerdian heterodox Canadians, who have since shown what they were made of all along by leaving the Reformed Faith. But the point is, what is now perhaps passing under a banner of ‘transforming’ has little to do with neocalvinism. It has more to do with the contextualist missiology of the PCA. A different pedigree altogether.
W.H. Chellis
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Does this mean we have found common ground between Baus and Hart? This blog should get some kind of ecumenical award for bringing folks together.
I keep waiting to hear from the Nobel Peace Prize committee.
W.H. Chellis
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
A serious point. Grace does not transform nature. It restores nature (ultimately it perfects nature but not until the eschaton). The early Christians did not try to transform pagan culture but to sanctify it, preserving what was best and slowly extinguishing what was worst. They did so by preaching the gospel and dying for it. The Christian faith is not revolutionary. It requires submission to the powers that have been ordained by the hand of providence…. ruler, master, husband, ect. It is the paradox of Christian culture that those who focused on the Kingdom caused Rome to bow the knee.
Noting that grace restores and sanctifies allows us to see culture as extremely nuanced. There was no need to transform all things pagan. The greatness of the West is the synthesis of the Greek, the Roman, and the Jewish into the Christian, imperfect though it has always and will always be in this age.
Our day is different. Grace must continue to sanctify and restore nature. For sons of the West this does not mean transformation but conservation. We have much to preserve and defend.
stevez
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
DHart,
I wonder if this has a lot more to do with American religion than neo- or faux-Calvinism, etc. My sense is that much of this sort of discussion is met with a blank stare on the part of those who wax eloquent about transforming this or that, etc. After all, “isn’t it obvious that true religion is supposed to make the world a better place, make bad people good and good people better? If not, I have no idea what you trying to say”? That’s American religion and is the set of assumptions all this really seems to turn on. This principle of betterment seems deeply seated in the American (better, western) religionist and is applied in very diverse ways from Liberalism to Fundamentalism. No matter what shade of red or blue, it certainly seems more American than Pauline.
Bill,
I know you are not warm to the distinction, but there does seem to be a helpful difference between grace “restoring” nature and grace “renewing” nature. From what it looks like, the langauge in both seems to want to make a distinction between the “essence” of nature and the “condition” of nature. The essence of nature is “very good” while its condition is “sinful.” This is why I have no idea what is wrong with NYC in the first place, for example, or why it needs to change. I understand its condition is quite sinful, but so is every time’s and place’s condition (i.e. why the unequal fixation on NYC and relative neglect Podunkville?). But if its condition is sinful there is only One who can fix it. Furthermore, the only sinful condition being sanctified seems to be the individual believer/corporate Church…not general creation. So, I wonder what you mean when you say that “our day is different,” etc.? Much as there are ostensible and glaring differences between times and places, those seem always overwhelmed by their almost painful similarities. I have heard this response to popular transformationalism before where it is countered by “conservation.” But that seems to imply “we have gotten somewhere and just need to keep it mainatained.” Heavenn knows, I am all for maintaining over transforming, but I wince when it seems to be assumed that what we are maintaining is real progress.
Doez True Religion Really Imply Betterment? « The Confessional Outhouse
February 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
[...] Doez True Religion Really Imply Betterment? It appears that Darryl Hart is at it again. [...]
D Hart
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:10 am
Baus, some of these “soft” Kuyperians have simply heard second-hand the uplifting bromides of world and life view and every square inch and lordship of Christ and run all over the city trying to make it Christ’s. Unfortunately, the “hard” Kuyperians in their midst have not been willing to pull on the leash.
I would say, though, that even among some of the “hard” ones who can make useful distinctions among the spheres and affirm societal differentiation, also make arguments about social justice that make havoc of the ideas of forgiveness and grace. The language of social justice also appears to the the meeting ground for the likes of Jim Skillen (hard Kuyperian), Ron Sider (evangelical Anabaptist) and Jim Wallis (successful radical, ant-establisment minister to the Democrats in DC).
Zrim, I think you’re right about the American component. It’s just that the transformationalist rhetoric gives it a “Reformed” benediction. The odd thing is that transformation of a social justice variety makes nonsense of the beatitudes. If the poor and meek will inherit the earth, and if social justice eliminates poverty, who will be around to inherit the earth. Can making the poor and meek middle-class really be the point?
stevez
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 am
Darryl,
Exactly. And it’s not all that conducive to inspiration to be told that “the poor you will always have with you.” It seems that certain conditions are just a part of this age. I hate my bad vision and sensitive skin; if we can actually pull off changing NYC, may my eyes and skin be next…pretty please?
With regard to a “Reformed” benediction, the funny(?) thing is that the transformationalist rhetoric takes huge chucks of credibility away from a tradition that gives so much shelter to those of us fleeing a “vacuous…naive view of culture and society in the West.” It seems the siren song of relevancy spans the spectrum of silly to serious. If anyone thinks that an overstatement, I invite him to watch some Dutch Reformed who have inherited a sober piety try to shed it and behave evangelically. I never know whether to weep or chuckle.
M.Kwiatkowski
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
New Perspectivists, Federal Visionists, emergents, and Kellerite presbyterians generally believe that some combination of the incarnation and the resurrection had resounding effects throughout the creation at large. Whether this is a genuinely theological difference or only another attempt to justify American religion, it’s been foundational to the alternative Reformed views of the past decade, but I’ve never understood how either Scripture or real history supports it outside of extremely selective reading. I suppose Nevin held to something similar, if I’m reading his biography correctly, but his reforms were aimed at the church’s worship, sacraments, and catechetics.
Baus
February 23rd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hart, are you saying you have a problem with Skillen’s own definition and use of the term “social justice”? Or are you objecting to his cooperating with Wallis & Sider in some way? Or are you saying that you just can’t be bothered to figure out why they’re not pushing the same agenda?
In any case, (I should have previously said this in explicit terms) can we please not call the contextualists ’soft kuyperian’ ? I mean, how about we call John Frame a soft confessionalist, or Tim Keller a soft old schooler. Gary North is more a soft two-kingdom’er than these guys are any variety of Kuyperian. C’mon, really.
As for the neocalvinists not pulling on the contextualist’s leash… that assumes the contextualists are on our leash, or that we have their leash in hand. That’s an incorrect assumption.
If one finds contextualists (or even Romanists or secular fundamentalists) co-belligerents for some specific purpose, one has to count the costs. If you think Skillen or others (say, Gideon Strauss of the Work Research Foundation?) is compromising principles in a specific collaboration with, say, Tim Keller, you’ve got to spell it out. You should say more than “hurumph, birds of a feather” if you want to say something helpful.
(Forgive my firm tone, but I must insist).
D Hart
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Zrim, during my time in the CRC I first chuckled and then after a week at Synod I wept.
Baus, I’d rather not make specific in a public forum the leash holders I have in mind. But they are out there and they know better.
In Skillen’s case, I’m not sure what direct involvement he has with Wallis or Sider. I do think he could run rings around them theoretically. But I was struck when reading his 1990 book on Christians in public life that he used at that early date the language of social justice. From a strictly secular perspective (I know, I know you don’t think such a perspective exists) that phrase gives me the willies since it assumes that inequity of any kind is unjust. (So how does a mid-town Manhattan Presbyterian congregation live with its close to 9-figure budget when most of its sister congregations weigh in just over 6-figure? but I digress.) But the church proclaims forgiveness, unless you want to turn every preacher into an angry prophet intent on pulling down every injustice. (Is it just that my vertical leap was all of 8 inches?) Anyway, the way for Christians to be just, from a Reformed perspective, is by clinging to the righteousness of Christ, not by trying to legislate justice or redistribute income. When it’s all said and done, I think Olasky’s language of compassion and charity is far more Christian than justice.
W.H. Chellis
February 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Yet, Christ reigns. This fact, a fact that DGH is fully willing to admit, must have ethical implications beyond the confines of the invisible church. I am as suspicious as Dr. Hart of attempts by ecclesiastical do-good-ers to end poverty or perfect social justice.
Still, if Christ reigns over men and nations through providence, how can it be denied that a body politic dominated by professing Christians should be more humane and more justice than a body politic marked by it rebellion against the Messiah.
ZRIM, my point is that it is easier to oppose transformation in a culture that was long ago transformed than it is in a culture that has not. I think the Japanese RP’s would happily attest the fact. So would Christians in Iraq, China, and the Sudan.
Every upside of the West might not be directly rooted in the revelation of Christ’s Lordship but divorcing and parsing seems a work more fitting for left-leaning deconstructionists.
Dave Watson
February 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
You might find these two articles from the February issue of (Reformed - RCA) Perspectives interesting
http://www.rca.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=3776&srcid=3777
Essay
Reformed Intramurals: What Neo-Calvinists Get Wrong
by Steve Mathonnet-VanderWell
Essay
In Reply
by Nicholas Wolterstorff
Dave Watson, Kent, WA (WTS MAR ‘88)
glenside
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
[...] &39&39Superstar&39&39 was the first masterpiece of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim …www.mcall.comEcclesiastical Totalitarianism Here??s an effort to separate the real from the faux neo-Calvinists. Recent interactions with [...]