This semester I am teaching a course on Contemporary Worldviews, and also reading some of Abraham Kuyper’s works. He is one of the men attributed with the formalization of the “Christian/Theistic Worldview.” In view of some current controversy concerning Kuyper, and his ability/inability to “transform,” the Dutch culture in a more permanent way, I thought I might include some considerations. When thinking about Kuyper’s ability to transform the Netherlands, it might be beneficial grasp his perspective.
The worldview dilemma has not always been so disjointed and confusing. Until the 17th Century the “Theistic” Worldview dominated. At that time the basic orientation of most individuals allowed them to agree upon certain fundamental presuppositions. Some of those ideas were the reality of God as Triune, Personal, Eternal; additionally, humankind were His special creation. Because of Adam’s fall and imputed sin/guilt to all his ancestry, God began to unfold His redemptive plan through Christ. Around the time the Christian worldview was attacked, Kupyer, James Orr, Herman Bavinck and others promoted a schematic character to the Theistic worldview. These men developed their fundamental presuppositions from the writings primarily from one person; John Calvin.
Who were these men who developed the formal Theistic Worldview?
James Orr was a Scottish Presbyterian pastor/theologian who wrote, The Christian view of God and the World. Kuyper gave an address at Princeton University in 1898, which became Lectures on Calvinism. (I am currently reading this book.) In this detailed address to Princeton University Kuyper gives 5 distinct categories describing the rationale of Calvinism as a “Life-system.” In the lectures that Kuyper gave at Princeton he addressed, Calvinism as Life-system, Calvinism and Religion, Calvinism and Politics, Calvinism and Science, and Calvinism and Art. In each of these detailed chapters, Kuyper portrays Calvinism not simply as a soteriological system, but a full schema for living. By taking the presuppositions of Calvin and applying them to the main areas of life, Kuyper provides an individual with a reformed framework for existence. Herman Bavinck was also a Dutch Calvinist who provided great influence upon the Netherlands.
We can take Kuyper’s address and access the condition of his own country. This may or may not be an accurate assessment. Decades after the death of Kuyper the Netherlands was far from holding a Christian Theistic Worldview but were actually a bastion of depravity and wickedness. Today, this country is known for harboring some of the world’s most wicked practices. The question is, is it fair for us to look at the current condition and analyze the effectiveness of ineffectiveness of Kuyper’s viewpoints? Does this make him any less correct on his assumptions about Calvinism? What if there is an assessment of our country 100 years from know? What would that look like?
However, is there any validity to the hypothesis Kuyper asserts in his lectures?
James Sire is one of the leading Philosophy/Worldview experts today. In The Universe Next Door, he defines as worldview as, “A Worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may or may not be true, partially true or entirely false) that we hold (consciously, or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.” This is quite a lengthy definition, but a thorough one. Sire is more or less saying that a worldview is a deep rooted commitment of the soul, emotion, desire, will and intellect that is expressed in a group of presuppositions, often in a story, (metanarrative), that are true, conscious, and consistent, and all this therefore provides the foundation on which we live. Could a more complete understanding of Calvinism provide a substantial worldview according to Sire?
In his book, Sire gives 7 questions to filter any prospective worldview. Those 7 questions are;
What is the prime reality?
What is the nature of external reality and the world around us?
What is a human being?
What happens to a person as death?
Why is it possible to know anything at all?
How do we know right from wrong?
What is the measure of human history?
How do Kuyper’s ideas stack up?
The interesting thing is, when I take the Kuyperian ideals from Lectures on Calvinism, and filter them through Sire’s 7 questions, it really comes out nicely. I am not supposing that the system is the only or full answer, but the system uses biblical truths to sift the entire life of a person. Not even Kuyper’s ideas could last, as the Dutch Calvinistic conclusions would fall. As he pointed out in his lectures, America was and is on a slippery slope of dismissal of Christian Calvinistic ideals.
What if we viewed Calvinism not solely as a soteriological system, but a more complete picture of an ideal identity of the Christian Theistic Worldview? If we do that, is there any hope of salvaging America? Or, will we become the next France, Netherlands, and England?????
After hearing bits and pieces on Kuyper during the last several years of doctoral studies, I am finally digging in myself as I took advantage of the free download offer of his work on the Reformed perspective on science and art (I can’t remember the title right now, nor the URL of the link, in case it is still available).
In any case, my personal leaning, in the current evolutionary stage of my thoughts on all this, is more toward the Two Kingdoms side of things. I do think the present state of the Netherlands does have something to teach us regarding the ultimate viability of a transformational approach to Christianity, Christendom, and culture.
It’s kind of a complicated subject to discuss on a blog comment stream, but one I am very interested in. If anyone else (including you, Andy) has any more insights, I am eager to learn what I can and participate in the discussion.
Perhaps you have seen this article already. It may actually be part of what inspired your post. But, if not, I think it speaks pretty directly to the issues you are raising here.
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/08/cigar-smoke-and-mirrors-and-tr.php
There are other links to follow, as well, but since SBC Voices only allows one link per comment, I’ll have to leave at that for now.
And, though I don’t mention Kuyper directly, here is a link to an article I wrote in which I respond to and interact with the Christ Transforms Culture approach in general.
http://sbcimpact.org/2010/03/15/christ-the-faithful-suffering-servant-in-the-midst-of-culture/
I am looking forward to reading Kuyper himself and seeing if anything he has to say opens my eyes to some insights on these issues I have not yet seen.
David,
That article did provide some inspiration to the post. However, it was reading Kuyper for myself, and preparing for this course that really prodded at my interest. It would be very difficult to discuss through a blog stream, but it is nonetheless a topic I think worth exploring.
While I’m on a roll, there were a couple of interesting articles today at White Horse Inn blog related to all this. First, this one:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2013/09/06/does-the-two-kingdoms-distinction-necessarily-lead-to-apathy-and-indifference-toward-social-issues/
And then, this one, by Michael Horton:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2013/09/06/two-kingdoms-and-slavery/
I asked an Arminian philosopher once if anyone had developed a definitive worldview and I wasn’t surprised when he didn’t mention Kuyper. I likewise wouldn’t be surprised if a variety of answers in the comments demonstrates why this wouldn’t be possible. The Christian worldview is relatively homogenous in the West, but we still have some fundamental differences that put us at odds with each other. Among non-Christians radically divergent worldviews are being propagated quite intentionally. It’s why we are becoming an ungovernable people. In Calvin’s day, the worldview was codified in legal systems throughout Europe forcing adherence. That doesn’t end well because people naturally disagree. Today, we see a non-Christian worldview being codified one issue at a time. It won’t end well here either. People will angrily criticize a law that restricts something they think they should be allowed to do while mutter about something they think is wrong that, “There ought to be a law against that.”
The thing is that people are usually not aware of the full answers to the seven questions. There is a conscious focus to a worldview, but many people have trouble remembering who the Vice President is, much less why what seems obvious to them isn’t obvious to someone else. Most people are unaware of their subconscious compulsions, much less the minutia of what informs their worldview sensibilities. Unfortunately, most people don’t care either.
Jim,
I am not so sure the Christian Worldview is so homogenous in the West. I think more and more people are drifting farther and farther away from that foundation. What might have been an “ideal” for America in previous decades; I think is becoming extinct.
The reference to laws and people becoming anger over non-laws, is a pure display of the postmodernity that has captivated the hearts and minds of so many. The saddest part of that whole debate, is the LACK of understanding by the majority of people. They don’t even realize what they are saying.
I don’t think we disagree over the homogeneity of the Christian worldview. My point was that the Christian worldview is simply more homogenous than the divide between any Christian worldview and any non-Christian worldview. (In this I’m not counting people who claim to be Christian by don’t hold a Christian worldview.)
Jim,
I agree.
o “What if we viewed Calvinism not solely as a soteriological system, but a more complete picture of an ideal identity of the Christian Theistic Worldview?”
Sounds like a wonderful suggestion.
o “If we do that, is there any hope of salvaging America?”
Implicit Premise: America is in a state of moral-social decline. And hence, America needs salvaging.
Answer: Our only hope is Jesus Christ.
o “Or, will we become the next France, Netherlands, and England?????”
If I were to guess, the broad gate will not get any narrower in America.
I think James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World is an important contribution is this discussion as well:
http://www.amazon.com/Change-World-Tragedy-Possibility-Christianity/dp/0199730806/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378493790&sr=1-1
Question: Does combating, confronting, resisting, or speaking out against evil constitute a “transformationalist” activity by Bible-believing Christians?
I believe that as Christians we are to combat, confront, resist, and speak out against sin with the intent of calling individuals to repentance and to faith in Christ.
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (John 3:17)
“Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” (John 20:21)
Hi David,
Is your answer a “Yes” or a “No” to the question that was posed:
“Question: Does combating, confronting, resisting, or speaking out against evil constitute a “transformationalist” activity by Bible-believing Christians?”
Sorry, I thought I was being even more specific than what you asked for. My straight-up answer to your question is, I suppose it could. It all depends.
Hi David Rogers,
Here’s a communication from Pastor JD Greears to his congregation about a marriage amendment up for vote:
The Summit Church and the Marriage Amendment.
Excerpt: “After having studied the issues surrounding the amendment, I am comfortable with supporting it and encourage you to, but I’ll leave that ultimately to you and your conscience.”
Does this communication by Pastor Greear to his congregation constitute “transformationalist” activity by him?
Truth Unites and Divides,
First, in order not to evade your question: yes, it would probably be correct (at least in some sense) to call Greear’s communication here “transformationalist activity.”
On the other hand, I am not so sure there is any exact definition of the term “transformationalist.” And, in my opinion, your line of questioning is sidestepping the real issue, as I understand it.
I am not saying that “transformationalist” always = “bad.” And I am not looking to label this activity as “transformationalist” and that activity as not “transformationalist.” It is more of a question of emphasis.
For example, the following statements by Greear appear to me to capture an appropriate balance:
“At our church, we try to avoid politics for the simple reason that godly people often disagree about which policies are the most helpful in society. At the same time, there is a time, when out of love for our neighbor, civic action is appropriate and ought to be commended by the church.”
“I also want Summit members to know that our elder team believes there is room for disagreement on this. Whether or not homosexuality is sinful is not up for debate at our church, but sincere Christians might disagree on whether this particular amendment is helpful. Our unity at this church is built around the gospel and the things the Bible is clear about, and while the Bible is clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality, it does not tell us what government actions are appropriate.”
I agree that, out of love for our fellow man, we as Christians should do what we can to serve them and to work toward their well-being, not just in the age to come, but also in this present life. I think that Jer. 29:7—“But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare”—serves as a good general model for our engagement with culture as Christians in the present dispensation.
At the same time, I do not believe that as Christians we are immune to the truth communicated in the maxim “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Because of this, our goal should not be taking over the power structures of the world on this side of Jesus’ Second Coming, but rather taking on the role of servants and caring for “the least of these.” While it is true that government service and political involvement may be one way of serving our neighbor, we should be always be wary and vigilant of the seductive nature of power, and gauge our level of involvement accordingly.
Hi David,
I appreciate your nuancing of an earlier statement you made.
First, you wrote this: “I do think the present state of the Netherlands does have something to teach us regarding the ultimate viability of a transformational approach to Christianity, Christendom, and culture.”
Now, you have written this: “First, in order not to evade your question: yes, it would probably be correct (at least in some sense) to call Greear’s communication here “transformationalist activity. … I am not saying that “transformationalist” always = “bad.” ”
David, would you then say that Pastor Greear’s communication is good transformationalist activity then?
Truth Unites and Divides,
As I intimated earlier, I am not really interested in analyzing different brothers and sisters in Christ and evaluating their activities on a case-by-case basis with regard to my approval or lack thereof in the way they engage culture. In the end, in my opinion, that would be counterproductive, and potentially divisive, as the most important thing is our agreement on the essentials of the gospel rather than differences of nuance in our approach to culture. From time to time, I may pick out something a particular person says or does if it serves to illustrate a point. But this line of questioning could easily become unproductive and tedious.
Nevertheless, I will indulge you on this example, because I did link to Greear and a message he gave on this topic that I particularly liked in my “Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture” post at the old SBC Impact site that I link to in a previous comment here.
In general, I think Greear displays a good sense of balance on this question, and, to that extent, yes, I would call his communication in this particular instance “good transformationalist activity.”
While we are going and forth on this (which I do not at all mind doing, as it helps me to hash out what I really think about these issues), I would love to know with whom I am dialoguing. Do you use the moniker “Truth Unites… and Divides” for a particular purpose? or are you open to telling us your real name, where you live and minister, etc.?
This may be slightly avoiding the main worldview question, but when I read “is there any hope of salvaging America” my first thought was “are we called to save America?”
Robert,
By salvaging America I mean to keep it from growing the road that the Netherlands and England have seen. A total dismissal of God and a fully Naturalisic worldview.
Instead of developing a Calvinist worldview, maybe we should develop a CHRISTIAN worldview from the Bible? Instead of Calvinism being the answer, maybe JESUS is the answer?
I love Calvinists, BTW.
David
“Instead of developing a Calvinist worldview, maybe we should develop a CHRISTIAN worldview from the Bible?”
Why did you repeat yourself?
David didn’t, but you just have repeated what he said.
Mind you, there are plenty of us who believe it bears repeating.
Thanks. 🙂
I’m not sure what to call it when you repeat someone who repeated himself… reperepetition?
It’s called avoiding the question … a common ploy when you’re stuck for an answer!
David asked a question?
Chris if you don’t want to reply, just say so. Most people assume the use of a ? means a question has been made. There were two ? in David’s comment.
You must not be aware of the many times something can be given in the form of a question yet be a statement. David asked no questions, he made two statements. As for his statements, I did respond: David repeated himself.
I hope this lesson has been helpful to you. Are there any other lessons I can provide?
David’s comments did not appear to be actual questions. Looks like statements with a ? tacked on the end. Agree Chris.
Sorry Chris, I obviously missed the rhetorical nature of David’s comment. Please accept my apologies. Perhaps you could answer a direct question then, one of my own. Instead of trying to develop a Calvinist worldwide view, why not develop a Christian viewpoint based on the Bible?
I guess I have much to learn from you regarding how best to approach and interact with people.
Andrew,
Kuyper was making the assertion that the biblical Christian worldview was a Calvinist worldview. He equated the two.
I couldn’t reply to the comment below so I put it here. It does seem that many people want to plead that we need something to be “Christian,” or “biblical” and then never give some alternative. It seems to be more of an appeal to disregard Calvinism and less a out providing a “biblical” alternative.
A college professor of mine used to tell us, if you didn’t like his view but didn’t have any legitimate reason to disagree with him, or an alternative view, he would stick to what he had.
“Instead of trying to develop a Calvinist worldwide view, why not develop a Christian viewpoint based on the Bible?”
Because a Calvinist worldview _is_ a Christian viewpoint based on the Bible.
🙂
Which prompts the question: Is the Calvinism worldview the ONLY Christian worldview?
Haters gonna hate.
I love haters.
😉
I’m not much concerned about Kuyper and the Dutch folks from umpteen years ago. The line that grabbed me was the one referring to his ability or inability to transform the Dutch culture. God’s pretty clear that HE is the one that does that, where folks are Spiritually transformed.
You know .. some plant, some water, but GOD gives the increase.
The only way ONE MAN can transform culture is the way Adolph Hitler did it.
“The Gospel came to the Greeks & they turned it into a philosophy. The Gospel came to the Romans & they turned it into a system. The Gospel came to Europeans & they turned it into a culture. The Gospel came to America, & they turned it into a business.” –Unknown
So are we talking about how we’ve supersized the Gospel as Americans? Or hinting that John Calvin and comrades actually behaved like Greeks? Or that the Roman system that the Reformation sought to change simply turned into a Reformed system that wore camouflage and became culture?
I think the quote is fascinating. It actually reminds me of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue with the head of gold, chest and arms of silver, legs of bronze, and feet of iron and clay. I tend to agree with you that we often spend time discussing philosophy in an effort to frame our understanding of the Bible with a thoroughgoing human scaffolding. And i wonder if that scaffolding is being used to construct an edifice that truly does honor God or if it instead might be building a statue…an idol.
There are definitely times when these kinds of discussions fascinate me. And then there are other times when I really do wonder if it isn’t just pointless. My take on this specific discussion is that in my experience the visual accumulation of cultural elements that suggest that our faith is transforming culture often have very shallow roots.
Let’s take the supposed dependence of our national law on the Ten Commandments (which is why Alabama had a commemorative stone to the Ten Commandments.) So there are very fascinating connections between our bankruptcy law and the OT requirements for forgiveness of debt every seven years. But without the moral context of the theocracy, two things have happened with bankruptcy law:
1. Since it is viewed as secular law, people sometimes will treat it as an entitlement as opposed to a very early “outcropping” of the concept of grace.
2. Partly in response to the problem in #1, lenders have sought to trim the efficacy of it and have had some success in getting Congress–especially under Bush–to put more limits on the ability of bankruptcy law to forgive debts which allows continued dunning and no real experience of freedom from mistakes.
3. Most notably: business leaders that lead a company into bankruptcy due to corporate law that provides them with a liability shield rarely have their assets seized when the company ends up in the equivalent of Chapter 7. Yet an individual will be able to protect very few assets in Chapter 7. In Chapter 13 the individual will have a repayment plan which typically lasts for three years on the other hand. Businesses on the other hand either re-organize or liquidate as well, but there often is less moral stigma for a business than for an individual.
The Bible in presenting forgiveness of debt clearly introduced a novel concept of law that persists to this day (I’m not claiming similar concepts didn’t exist elsewhere, by the way, just that from a Judeo-Christian perspective it isn’t unfair to treat the Bible as a source of this concept.) And many “scholars” point to the efficacy of bankruptcy law for a very specific purpose in the United States: it enables entrepreneurialism because when a person makes a serious financial mistake, instead of throwing them in debtor’s prison, the person gets to start anew.
That concept is now an enduring portion of American life, but it’s nearly impossible to tell the story that it’s due to “the church” or “Christianity”. And yet it has an uplifting impact on our nation and teaches grace as a concept.
I cannot point to very many direct proofs that faith transforms culture in durable ways. So the temptation is to suggest that we should not expect that to happen. But I think we need to celebrate the fact that God’s invisible Kingdom permeates everything we see. It’s just that sin corrupts much good.
As I’ve commented before: I have always admired the optimism of the post-millenialists–especially the turn of the 20th Century post-millenialists–that believed their evangelical work directly ushered in the Kingdom and the a-millenialists that similarly felt there was no literal kingdom because the figurative Kingdom of Christ would be lived out loud and all would join it. I think inerrancy has helped us see that both views seem unlikely to be consistent with Revelation, but I still prize the optimism that our faith is transformative.
I think that is a hope we should hold onto even if we can’t prove it to be true because there is vast evidence that it is true. When the live of an individual believer is truly transformed, it affects the culture. It might not be permanent. It might not be complete. But it is essentially transformative: one person at a time.
Which is why Southern Baptists are fervent about evangelism: we believe that our calling is to add to the Kingdom one person at a time so that the invisible Kingdom becomes visible in each of us. While it is easy to contemplate that work being incomplete and even that there might be regression at time in the progress of that Kingdom, we have every reason to believe that God will finish the work that he has started in us and that it will be finally transformative for everyone who believes in Him. At the very least that will be very many people. And at the most–especially during the Millenial Reign–it seems the Bible says it will be everyone.
Amazing …….I have been trying to communicate this for years. That Christianity is a worldview! That is what I meant by “From the Southern Baptist Geneva”.
Yes it means that I am soteriological Calvinist but Calvinism is more than just about Salvation its a world and life view.
David Rogers
Michael Hortons, two kingdom theology is Lutheran in its origins ,indefensible from Scripture,and is leads to Dualistic worldview as shown in this article.
http://americanvision.org/6882/ho-two-kingdoms-always-turns-out-radical/#sthash.RyWxhjXp.dpbs
Robert,
I am aware that Horton is Lutheran, and that other Two Kingdom proponents are from a Reformed perspective, many of them affiliated with Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California. My personal view on the way we as Christians should approach culture, though sharing some distinctives with the Escondido Two Kingdom proponents, is more Anabaptistic in its ecclesiology and soteriology. My eschatology is also premillennial, though somewhat open and undecided between the historic and progressive dispensational approaches.
The problem with Kuyper and the others is that they were coming up against the big financing of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who were promoting and agenda hard for anyone to believe, even to this day, when they had Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and his The Anglo American Establishment, and C.S. Lewis’ sci/fi trilogy wherein in the third volume, Perelandra he names one of the conspirators in Tragedy and Hope, Cecil Rhodes, Tony Brown’s Empower the People, Bella Dodd’s exit from the Communist Party, when she was ordered by Moscow to take her orders from one of three capitalists in the Waldorf Astoria, Taylor Caldwell’s novel with a bibliography, Captains and the Kings, and etc. The folks thus far mentioned also brought us, along with Rome, the spectacle of World War II. Even the Catholics are getting fed up with reality and are beginning to criticize their church, while Protestants and Baptists in particular, are still out to a long lunch.
YEp, I agree
In case anyone further does not understand Chris R’s comment about Volfan repeating himself, maybe this famous Twain quote will help.
“Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.” ~ Mark Twain
Oh dear, this is about as poor a level of comment as I would wish to find. Patronising to the nth degree, especially when no real answer is forthcoming, plus a funny from his namesake. Mark, do you honestly think that anyone didn’t understand David’s comment? Or for that matter, Chris’s reply? (for those who really are lost at this point, that was a rhetorical question and needs no direct answer)
And just to make the point clear Chis, a Christian worlview based on the Bible would be worthwhile. A Calvinistic viewpoint is not be the same thing. Just try singing that old song, Jesus is the answer, for the world today. Above him there’s no other, Jesus is the way. Now substitute in ‘Calvin’ ….. doesn’t have quite the same ring does it!
“a Christian worlview based on the Bible would be worthwhile. A Calvinistic viewpoint is not be the same thing.”
Uh, I don’t know where you’re getting your info, but a Calvinistic viewpoint *is* based on the bible. Chris already pointed that out, “Because a Calvinist worldview _is_ a Christian viewpoint based on the Bible.”
My comment above…which has gotten so many comments…was just to encourage a Christian worldview….based on the Bible….as being the thing we should strive for. Why do some people want to equate Calvinism with the Bible? Why are some obsessed with a Calvinism, and making everything about Calvinism?
Maybe we should be more concerned with having a Christian Worldview….with our view being based on the Bible. Maybe we shouldn’t put a philosophical framework as the foremost thing in our life?
So, let me ask you, Calvinists, who seem to really like having a Calvinist Worldview, can we have a Christian worldview just based on the Bible? Or, does it have to a Calvinist worldview, in order to be a Christian worldview?
David
Um, sir…
1. YOU brought up Calvinism ….not us rascally Calvinists.
2. YOU intimated that it’s not compatible with a Christian biblical worldview
3. Chris Roberts and others have responded.
4. Now your playing the victim.
It would certainly seem that you did 1 and 2 knowing 3 would happen.
Which is OK cause we expected 4 when we responded.
I love those who start stuff and then play the victim when responded to.
😉
My biblical worldview happens to have a name: people call it Calvinism. So when I talk about my biblical worldview, I don’t mind calling it Calvinism. But of course you know all this already and you’re just trying to score cheap points by forcing an invalid point.
Tarheel,
Have you read the OP? It was about adopting a Calvinist Worldview. I didnt bring it up. I was simply responding to what was written.
Secondly, I never said that it wasnt compatible with Christian Biblical worldview. I stated that we should be more concerned with a Christian worldview, which is based on the Bible; instead of being obsessed with a philosophical slant(Calvinism) on everything that we think about, see, hear, or talk about.
David
David
Chris,
Trying to “score points?” What game are you playing? Because, I’m not playing it.
What I write is what I believe. I’m not playing any debating games. I’m simply writing from my heart.
David
Since there are only two types of Christians in the world, Calvinists and non-Calvinists :), what is the NC worldview?
Andy said yesterday I think,
“A college professor of mine used to tell us, if you didn’t like his view but didn’t have any legitimate reason to disagree with him, or an alternative view, he would stick to what he had.”
What is the alternate view?
A summary is:
“Key to Kuyper’s approach, and legacy, are the following themes: (1) a cosmic understanding of salvation, that grace restore nature as well as souls; (2) the sovereignty of God over all of life and order; (3) the cultural mandate as prior to, and unlocking the meaning of, the great commission; and (4) a spiritual antithesis characterizes the relationships of believers and unbelievers.”
And his famous line, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”
Is there something in the above that you disagree with? Which part(s)?
David,
“I’m simply writing from my heart.”
That’s part of the concern.
Drat, I responded at the wrong place. I’m usually better than this. I repent in dust and ashes.
Mark,
I was not repeating myself.
God bless you.
David
Would this Calvinistic worldview be transferable to any culture? Is there a missiological idea for worldview promotion here?
The term “transferable” is not very specific. Cultures embody worldviews. That is to say that the practices that comprise a culture are commended by the sensibilities within that culture. Those sensibilities, with some room for divergence, interact with individuals’ worldviews. Sometimes those sensibilities inform worldviews. Sometimes worldviews inform sensibilities. Ideally, the Christian worldview should inform our sensibilities although we know that people will initially apprehend the Christian worldview from the standpoint of their cultural sensibilities.
Therefore, inasmuch as the limits of divergence from the sensibilities of a culture do not allow for the Christian worldview, that culture should be deemed unacceptable. The Bible, as our authoritative source of information about God, is likewise authoritative in our apprehension of cultural norms.
This is the pattern for missiological promotion, then. Each culture should be analyzed for the ways in which we can communicate the gospel using the culture’s acceptable sensibilities, and for the areas in which we need to warn people against sin and the deception of the unacceptable sensibilities in the culture.
“to that extent, yes, I would call his communication in this particular instance “good transformationalist activity.”
Thank you for saying so, David.
I simply use the moniker “Truth Unites… and Divides” as a pseudononymous blog handle. I joyfully live and minister in the United States.
Incidentally, have you read this link provided by Robert I. Masters:
Two Kingdom Critique
I had not seen the Two Kingdom Critique article. Skimming over it, it appears to me to be written from a theonomist/reconstructionist/dominion theology/postmillennial perspective. Is that the perspective you are coming from also?
David Rogers,
No. To support “good transformationalist activities” does not require one to have a theonomist/reconstructionist/dominion theology/postmillenial perspective. Wouldn’t you agree?
The concluding paragraph of the linked article has this:
“To avoid this task (good transformationalist activities such as Pastor JD Greear’s communication to his congregation about voting for traditional marriage, and thereby against same-sex marriage), or to condemn others for performing this task, is to be the practical equivalent of the German Evangelicals described above: forcing the church to remain silent while the state continues to encroach on every area of life.”
One need not have a theonomist, reconstructionist, dominion theology, and/or postmillenial perspective to agree with this conclusion.
Fair enough. Yes, I agree it is possible to support what you call “good transformationalist activities” without at the same time falling into the trap of theonomy, dominion theology, et al. Actually, that is one criterion I would hold forth as a way to distinguish between “good” transformationalist activity and “not so good” transformationalist activity; whether it tends to support and lead to a dominionist approach or not. Also, while, as I said earlier, I am not calling to throw all so-called “transformationalist activity” under the bus, so to speak, I do think the Christ Transforms Culture paradigm is basically flawed at several crucial points, which I address in my “Christ, the Faithful Suffering Servant in the Midst of Culture” post.
David Rogers,
Is it possible for one to be a theonomist, dominionist, preterist, post millenialist and still be a “good” Southern Baptist? I have yet to hear one Southern Baptist correctly lay out what they believe and most of the elders at my church had no knowledge at all on the topic.
I think there are a number of excellent post millenialist out there today including Douglas Wilson, Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry and from yesteryear: Mr Southern Baptist, Hershael Hobbs!
BTW-I believe Michael Horton is a member of a United Reformed Church and not a Lutheran but I could be dated on my information. My point was that the man,Martin Luther,seemed to hold two kingdom approach.
Here is a evangelical symposium, debate for reformed types, on eschatology.
http://americanvision.org/8995/prophecy-wars/#sthash.upVh4aRe.dpbs
“Actually, that is one criterion I would hold forth as a way to distinguish between “good” transformationalist activity and “not so good” transformationalist activity; whether it tends to support and lead to a dominionist approach or not.”
Fair enough. By the same token, that is actually one criterion I would hold forth as a way to distinguish between “good” 2K activity and “not so good” 2K activity; whether it tends to support and lead to a cowardice approach or not.
Before this post disappears from the board, here are a few questions I have for any of you who are somewhat familiar with Kuyper, Two Kingdom theology, and Christian Reconstructionism/Dominion theology. I am not looking to make a point here, just expand my knowledge.
1. What are the principal differences between a Kuyperian worldview and a Reconstructionist/Dominionist worldview?
2. Would you consider Kuyperianism and Two Kingdom theology to be two totally separate worldviews? If so, could we call both of them “Christian worldviews”? Why or why not?
3. What is it that makes a worldview Christian or not Christian?