This is an exchange I had a couple
of months ago with a pastor who is also a longstanding friend. We respect each
other but we often disagree. One of my frustrations is that people who are
coming from what I might call the ‘default’ position concerning culture have a terrible
time even grasping what a Two Kingdom/Pilgrim theology person is trying to say.
Again and again it seems that if you
say our task is not to focus on cultural transformation that you’re somehow
suggesting that the lives of individual Christians don’t have to be
transformed. In addition to their way of thinking it seems to suggest that you
somehow leave your faith behind Monday thru Saturday. When I hear or read these
suppositions I’m immediately aware of the fact that they’re not grasping the
argument.
My friend wrote the following…..
This is how I understand my calling as a pastor. I am to
preach the Gospel in the expectation that there will be some who will repent
and believe; that is, they will turn away from their acts and attitudes of
rebellion against their Creator and turn toward living according the teachings
of the Scriptures. This repenting and believing is ongoing throughout the life
of a Christian. It is pursued in the context of being a disciple of Jesus, that
is, of hearing His direction and obeying it. In this way, as each disciple
fulfills the purpose that Jesus has for him, the people he comes into contact
with are affected, some are converted and the world is increasingly changed.
How does your understanding differ?
Based
on our previous conversations I went ahead and expanded on what I believed to
be the salient issues….
I
wrote:
I'm not sure if
you're suggesting this, but I notice a lot of people who are critiquing my
position (and I'm hardly alone on these points) seem to believe that what we're
saying is that your Christianity doesn't affect your life Monday through
Saturday.
Nothing could
be further from the truth. Our faith informs every aspect of our lives and we
live as Christians in the world.
What are our
goals and expectations? How do we view the world and think of the Kingdom?
Well, that's different.
I would say
that if you want the guy running the local convenience store to stop selling
pornography then you preach the Gospel to him. If that doesn't work then you
continue to preach the Gospel to everyone else in the neighbourhood.
When the
neighbourhood is converted, no one will buy those materials and he'll quit
selling them.
Now, that's
simplistic and naïve but an illustration I believe would demonstrate how the
Gospel transforms society. I do not believe that the Christian calling is to
make converts so that we can pass legislation and call on state power to
enforce Gospel conformity. That's using violence (the threat of law) to create
a pseudo-kingdom.
If there's a
townhall meeting to decide whether a local ordinance will be passed regarding
the sale of such materials. Sure...go, but go as a private citizen who is a
Christian not as a Christian who is trying to transform the township. You go as
a Christian, you faith informs your thinking, but the mission of the Church is
to preach the Gospel, not pass legislation.
The reality is
that sometimes we will have to walk away from things. There are oaths and jobs
I cannot take or fulfill....and I'm not under a mandate to take them or fulfill
them. I want this Babylon to be peaceful and free so we can go about our work.
I'm not trying to transform Babylon into Zion.
At this point
usually the hypothetical question is raised....what if everyone is converted?
Well, that would be great but I don't think there's any expectation that
Christians will somehow become a majority anywhere. Colonial Pennsylvania under
the Quakers would probably represent the closest thing to a Christian government
that I can imagine and yet it was flawed and ultimately failed. Amazingly they
rescinded their power when crisis came and their principles were tested. With
all their many flaws they at least seemed to understand the Spiritual nature of
the Kingdom.
And ultimately
as I've pointed out to many Theonomists, if you really lived in a neighbourhood
or town full of Christians you would in fact need less law, not more.
I agree with
your statement and maybe I'm reading a little too much into the last clause
about the world being changed. The world is changed by the presence of the
Kingdom. But don't the Gospels themselves tell us that it comes without
observation? In fact you have to be born again to even see or discern the
Kingdom? Individual lives, families, and even generations are profoundly
changed. There's no doubt that a country like England benefited in many ways
from a strong Christian presence. It did much to shape their attitudes and
demeanour.
However they
also established a pretty wicked Empire based on conquest and theft and they
made their country into a New Israel, and this blinded them to many of their
deeds and baptized many of their evils. That's the kind of thing I'm arguing
against.
Christians need
to be out and involved in the world. I loathe Pietism but I also reject
Transformationalism. I want people to know Christ and rejoice in fellowship and
reconciliation with God and to see their lives transformed. Yet sadly a set of
doctrines have (in different forms) permeated the Church throughout its history
and have not only distracted the Body of Christ but present a real danger that
can create a counterfeit Church which redefines the Kingdom in worldly terms
and is bent on the acquisition of power.
A couple more
things I can perhaps tease out of your statement.....
Ongoing
repentance and belief........amen. I think we've always agreed on the nature of
Saving Faith, the necessity of Fiducia, and have rejected hyper-forensic
soteriological constructs. While I am to some degree 'with' many of the
Klinean/Westminster West types on the issue of the Kingdom, I am more in line
with the Federal Vision/Shepherd folks on issues related to soteriology and
covenant.....but understood in a Redemptive-Historical framework(again with
Westminster West) and contra Theonomy.
You speak of
the disciple fulfilling the purpose Jesus has for him.....
Now if you mean
this in terms of Decree....John Doe was meant to be a carpenter
or,
In terms of Revealed
Will....John Doe is a Christian husband and father and needs to have an honest
ethical job that he does with diligence, then I can agree.
If you mean
this in terms of the doctrine of Vocation, then no, I would disagree. I also
reject the common formulation of the Dominion Mandate based on Genesis 1.26ff.
My opinion is that it stems from a philosophical commitment tied in with a
chiliastic formulation of the Kingdom. In terms of exegesis I think the
subsequent Biblical data within Genesis does not support it. And the way in
which some have tried to tie it in with the Commission of Matthew 28 does not
support the notion either. I'm not sure where you're at on that point or if
it's something that plays a part in your thinking, so I'll cease elaboration.
My Vocation
(used theologically) is not to be a carpenter. That's just a means to an end.
It's a job. My calling or vocation is to be a Christian and it is in that
context that I build the Kingdom of God. As a carpenter I hang a door, and yet
there's nothing specifically Christian about that task. I can and should do it
well and in an honest manner but there are unbelievers who can do that just as
well and honest as I can. In fact some are undoubtedly better at it.
It's a means to
support my family which is also part of my calling as a Christian. My children
are baptized and being raised in the faith. I have a duty to them to provide.
Hanging the door helps me do that. In that sense the work itself, the vocation
or job, helps me in a sense...in an indirect sense. It's not of the essence of
my Christian calling and Kingdom building activities.
Now perhaps
when I'm on the job I will interact with the homeowner and my conversation
(both verbal and in terms of conduct) may contribute to the Kingdom... but
again it has nothing to do with the door hanging. We could do that over coffee.
The theology
I'm arguing against views culture as Sacral and thus the business of building
culture becomes Kingdom activity. I know that many will emphasize the lowliest
jobs are part of that and yet the reality is the focus is on the big 'mover and
shaker' type jobs. This is not really the issue with the doctrine but it’s an
interesting outworking. If you're a doctor, lawyer, or politician, great,
that's important to the Kingdom mission. Artists and musicians have their place
too. But a garbage man? A worker at the dollar store? Practically speaking
those people are not held in high regard within the circles that sanctify work.
Now in many
ways I am anti-clerical and I realize this doctrine was used at the time of the
Reformation as a counter-argument to the whole Sacerdotal system and the notion
that live a truly holy or almost super-Christian life you needed to be a member
of the clergy or in a monastic setting. Luther and others countered this and
gave validity to the common man. But I don't agree with his construct.
It is often
pointed out that rejecting Vocation would re-establish the clergy-laity
distinction. I would argue this has happened anyway in many Protestant circles
and yet I would say that office holders (not the same as Clergy properly
speaking) do have a higher calling. When you're going about your daily tasks
they are indeed Kingdom building endeavours. Your full time occupation is to
teach the Word, to talk to people etc...
It's a high
calling indeed and I can't imagine anything better.
My job while
valid, is of less value to the Kingdom. Not my calling, but my occupation.
Tomorrow when I'm laying brick or next week when I'm sistering ceiling joists,
my job while valid is of less spiritual value than what you do. Luther and many
others would say I'm wrong to think that but I see no alternative. If I really
believed the Kingdom was built via culture...now that would really depress me.
Because then, truly, my job is worthless. I work for some of the most worthless
people I have ever met. Often I'm working for miserable souls that have money
to burn and think their lives will be better if they remodel a room or add a
bathroom when they already have a sickening abundance of ease and comfort.
Right now I'm working for a guy who's opening an office in XYZ. His company
represents a decadent financial element within our society. He and what he
represents is a cancer and yet...it pays the bills. If I start imposing that
kind of ethical criteria on my employers I might as well sit at home. I do turn
down some. The local Methodist church(sic) wanted me to do some work on their
building. No way. I wouldn't touch their filthy money with a ten foot pole. I
do draw lines but the bar is pretty low. Some of my worst customers and
experiences have been working for Christians. Two of my best clients are a
lesbian couple. Go figure. Again, I blame the theology of Sacralism. It has
turned the Church on its head.
That does not
mean I embrace clericalism. Far from it. I embrace a distinction between office
holders and brethren. You can call it a clergy-laity distinction. I'm not
opposed to the denotation. What I'm opposed to is the historical connotations
as well as other hierarchical constructs that genuinely create a spiritual
aristocracy and destroy the Universal-local dialectic of Biblical ecclesiology.
That's the kind of clericalism I oppose, not the notion of an office holder
holding authority.
One last
thing.......
I would also
add that Sacralism can create a rather interesting phenomenon, or perhaps a
conundrum. While they would say that I'm promoting Sunday only Christianity,
the same charge can be made against them, and I'm not the first to do so. For
example, Sacralism often uses the concept of 'office' in terms of the
government or some other to function to sanction behaviour that would not be
acceptable for a Christian.
Look at the
occupation of a soldier. He kills and yet it is sanctioned because of 'office'
or is masked by extra-Biblical Constantinian constructs like Just War Theory.
Bottom line he's killing people which is something that he shouldn’t do. If
there are instances when a Christian can kill, defending your child from a
maniac on drugs or something....that's a possibility. But when can we ever
justify, or even worse glorify and celebrate violence? It's completely counter
to the Gospel imperative.
I would say a
Christian has no business being in the military and hence I got out as quick as
I could when I realized this.
What about the
police? Again, the office issue comes into play. Now I'll admit our society has
to have police. I view them as a necessary evil. It's a position of power and
violence and though I think they're necessary I want their power heavily
curbed. I'd rather have 'bad guys' get away than innocent people incarcerated
or civil liberties lost. It's a nasty job and I can't say that I like or think
much of the people engaged in it. I don't think it's a job a Christian should
do.
I'm not worried
about abandoning Kuyperian spheres. Every society, every Babylon will deal with
civil disorder and often calls upon the elements who are but one tier above the
criminals to do this. I'm not worried about Babylon. This one will fall and
another will rise. That's history. But I am worried about a Christian who puts
on Babylon's uniform and carries gun in the name of Babylon and is willing to
throw his weight around and if necessary kill people. I realize not all police
'have' to throw their weight around but if you talk to police...I've worked for
a few and at present chat pretty regularly with a state cop that lives nearby.
It's friendly chat. She asks me about carpentry and I ask her about police
stuff. Anyway, they all seem to admit there are nasty bits to the job where you
have to deal with people in harsh terms to get your point across.
I'm glad
they're there but I'm not doing it. In many cases I'm not glad they're there.
In the case of soldiers overseas, I'm not glad they're there. I wish they
weren't. In the case of our nation's politicians, I'm glad we have something
resembling law and order and yet I feel no affinity for these people. I'm
thankful Providence has given this Babylon some form of government, but in
terms of the individuals I think all of them are pretty wicked power mad and
deceived people and in the case of the Christians in the congress....even more
so.
I would argue
that Sacralist commitments have in many cases led Christians to embrace an
ethic that indeed leads them to abandon their calling Monday through Friday, making
them as it were Sunday only Christians. I could press that much further and
into many other occupations. And yet I wouldn't because I wouldn't wish to
unnecessarily violate or bind consciences. But I do contend that in many cases
if they were actually thinking about ethics in a more Biblical matter, they
would be a bit troubled.
I realize these
roads are not ones that lead to building a great civilization or one that
empowers the Church to have a great social impact. But I don't believe that
we're ever going to prosper or succeed in this world. I don't think we can do
so and maintain our integrity. I don't think that's our calling. Our calling is
to be a colony of the Kingdom of Heaven, citizens of Zion living in the
Babylonian Wilderness. We set up the Lord's altar, proclaim what the world
calls foolish and we die as martyrs....and yet they cannot stop us or destroy
us. Our strength is what the world calls weakness and though they think we
lose....in fact we win.
That's probably
way more than what you were looking for, but....there it is. Perhaps that helps
a bit? Taking your statement at face value, I can totally agree. And yet,
knowing you and from our conversations in the past, knowing a bit of where
you're coming from....I decided to add the rest even if it went far beyond what
you were asking.
Just curious,
was there a specific post that led you to ask this, or was it resulting from
reading various articles?
-----------
At this point
we continued to disagree and he continued to press me to go and ‘join’ a local
church. My break with the PCA is in part what precipitated this conversation. I
sent a further email….
Hello,
I don’t
understand why Christ coming to save the world translates into transforming or
redeeming culture.
I believe in a
New Testament-centric hermeneutic. I believe the New helps us to rightly
understand the Old and that would include the passages that seem to speak of
transformation, or a chiliastic Kingdom.
The world was
in a sense saved at the cross, and in a sense is being saved and post-Eschaton
will be saved to the utmost…but first it must be refined in the fires of
judgment.
We are salt and
light. I think primarily this is accomplished by us just being Christians.
Being martyrs. Worshipping itself is act of declaration, a prophetic presence
on the earth. Undoubtedly our very presence will affect people. If we raise
godly children, it will affect people and the world around us. But there is no
evidence from the NT to indicate that our success, the success of the Kingdom
will any way be measured by the world. It won’t be something that breaks the
Babel’s and Babylon’s. The gate is narrow and few are saved. The Kingdom is not
something observable, it is a redemptive category.
I’m not at all
opposed to be involved in the affairs of this world. Half the articles I’ve
written deal with the affairs of this world, with history, culture, and current
events. But my response is very different and my interaction is motivated by
different concerns and with different expectations.
Throughout
history the ‘Church’ has attempted to bring transformation into the world and
it has resulted in great evil. Medieval Catholicism, the Byzantine Empire, the
British Empire, and the American Empire have been great enterprises of theft
and murder. Sure there’s some good mixed in too, but to their shame I can say
likewise with regard to pagan empires and pagan religions. I think the
Scripture is warning us against such visions and expectations. I believe the
majority of American Evangelicals are unwittingly labouring to bring about the
very imagery we are being warned against in the Apocalypse.
We’ve never
agreed on these points, but I’ve never known you to be one who actively
promotes Dominionism or Theonomy and so I know that you wouldn’t go to those
extremes. However, you are an exception and though we would still differ on
many points, practically speaking I don’t think we’re all that different. But
there is a profound difference between what I believe, promote, and support over
and against what is happening not only in mainstream Evangelicalism but
especially within Reformed circles where I think there are some deplorable
things going on.
I agree with
what you say about the Visible Church. I’m not a Baptist in any way and I don’t
relegate much of the New Testament discourse to the Invisible category.
Certainly Corinth was reckoned a church, one in need of sharp rebuke. The
Galatians of course were in a borderline status…Paul stood in doubt of them.
I’m not sure the analogy holds throughout history. Things are of course more
complicated and I would argue churches today are much more accountable.
That said, I am
more than willing to endure messed up churches. In fact I assume that will be
the case. I am willing to endure not just a little…but a lot. The problem is at
present, that the few churches left that still meet some basic definition of a
church won’t put up with dissent. What do I mean? I was more than happy to sit
in the yyztown PCA and endure extra-Scriptural nonsense, error and whatever
else was happening….but it’s when I am forced, when I am compelled to
participate that I must draw the line. If I am forced to participate in
extra-scriptural polity and ritual in order to share communion….then they go
too far and claim authority they do not possess.
If I can
compromise that point out of charity or some other consideration then I see no
reason to continue there. A Reformed congregation would by no means be my first
choice. At that juncture, if I can in good conscience abandon the authority of
Scripture then I would much prefer to attend an Anglican or even an Eastern
Orthodox service. My flesh longs for historical liturgy and tradition. And to
be honest at that point I don’t think the PCA or most Protestant bodies have a
historical or theological leg to stand on.
Where should I
go? A Baptist church? They won’t allow you to be a part of their congregation
unless you subscribe to their doctrinal statements. I’m not an Arminian or a
Dispensationalist, nor a Baptist… they would struggle to believe I’m even a
Christian. I came from those circles. Amillennial baby sprinkling Augustinians
aren’t Christians. It’s not a matter of us enduring them, they will look at us
as lost people to be evangelized.
A mainline
congregation? I don’t believe these are churches. While I think there may still
be a few here and there that maintain some kind of gospel testimony I have not
found one in this area. And the ones that do are in sin for retaining
affiliations with these denominations sold out to do evil.
I have talked
extensively to numerous mainline pastors and usually come away convinced that
they’re with the enemy. We’ve attended mainline churches in the past. We
attended the Episcopal Church in YRY some years ago. It was great as long as
you didn’t talk to anyone afterward and well the rector…he didn’t believe in
hell or much else…but I guess everyone reading out of the BCP (Book of Common
Prayer) means something? I once would have thought so…but no longer. I remember
asking about the 39 Articles and got laughed at.
It is
unacceptable to be outside of the Church…. but just as there were exceptional
times in the OT, I think there have been many such times throughout Church
history and I think for many today…it is such a time. It’s a time of apostasy.
Again where
should I go? Basically I’m left with some Baptist churches. I have to say for
you to suggest that we go there indicates that perhaps you’re not familiar with
those circles? (My wife) and I came out of that. It makes us ill to return to
those circles, but despite that we have on numerous occasions. When the people
learn that you’re not ‘one’ of them…they scorn you.
Who then is the
schismatic?
We attended one
in YRY some time ago. Fellowship means…talking about retirement accounts and
bashing Obama. Christianity= American Nationalism in the form of Conservative
politics. If someone actually talks about the Bible….it’s Dispensational
Eschatology, usually brought up in light of current events with regard to
Israel and the need to kill more people in the Middle East. I keep my mouth
shut because there’s little point in engaging on those topics when most of the
people believe salvation consists of responding to altar call or signing your
name in the back of a Gideon Bible.
The
sermons….politics and therapy.
We’re not going
there for ‘us’ and what ‘we’ can get out of it. But it reaches a point after a
couple of months that your dreading Sunday mornings. We’re going to drive 45
mins to hear a sermon that to be blunt is either bubble-gum or just plain
garbage…and often heresy. It used to be okay when our kids were little, but now
it’s more than a little problematic when I have to deconstruct not only the
sermon but pretty much everything that occurred on the car ride home.
The people hate
us when we won’t let our kids go colour pictures of Jesus and we don’t want
them to be in their damn Christmas play (yes there’s some irritation here and
that’s what I truly think of their Christmas plays)….and no, we don’t want to
support Brother Bill over in Ukraine spreading Cheap Grace Dispensational
heresy to the poor Slavs who have been liberated from Eastern Orthodoxy.
You don’t dare
talk about the Bible with anyone because in about two minutes you end in a
terrible row. And I just smile as I listen about the wonderful things Billy
Graham or Jerry Falwell, or D James Kennedy have done. Three very evil men in
my book.
So my
conscience while burdened and unhappy is pretty clear in this regard. I cannot
attend Dispensational Baptist Churches. Oh and all this was while we endured a
band up front, and various other entertainments. They also know you’re not one
of them when you won’t go marching around the auditorium or step out into the
aisles and stomp with the song.
Jesus does not
love these churches. There are individuals within them that I’m sure he loves
but I will not attend these Samaritan synagogues or congregations that make a
mockery of Scripture. I’m not going to sit under women so-called pastors or
women so-called elders.
I think we just
continue to profoundly differ on the state of the Church and perhaps its tale
through the ages. I think there are very encouraging things happening in the
Church at large, but not here and not where a lot of people think. The numbers
are small but there are things happening that are good and encouraging. I think
there are very evil things afoot in this land and I think the American Church
is permeated with the evil and often the source of it.
So what’s the
plan? That’s usually what you’ll ask next.
Our plan is to
live. To find fellowship where we can, to find others who will open a Bible and
read it seriously…believe what it says. Maybe someday we’ll move. It’s not
happening anytime soon. Preferably out of the country! Oh how I would love to
leave this nation and never look back. But it’s not likely unless our financial
situation significantly changes.
Actually at
this point if I could find even a Church of Christ I would be pretty content.
The nearest ones are an hour away. But again, that only lasts so long.
Eventually they’re after you about Baptism as they only recognize their own.
Denominations are a curse. I’d happily take a Bible Church…but again, an hour
drive to find something that’s pretty depressing. We’d still attend it if it were
closer that’s how desperate we are.
I understand
what you’re saying and I don’t disagree with you that Church is a necessity.
Your ‘messed up’ church is not as nearly as messed up as you think. I’m sure
your laughing at my ignorance. I’m largely speaking of Sunday morning
pragmatics. It’s one of the few in this entire region that is reasonably sound.
I can even endure the horrible Advent wreaths and all the rest!
For me the
drawback is Presbyterianism. Though I hate the polity with a burning in my
heart, I am happy to endure it. But again, not if I am forced to participate in
that aspect of it. Most of the time….your congregation or even the one in YYZ
is a ‘congregation’ and everything is fine. But there are these certain times
when the Presbyterian machine comes rolling in (dark clouds and all) and
suddenly we’re not the congregation anymore…we’re part of this institution with
its own laws, its own order, and to me its own canon. I can’t find any of it in
the Bible but I know this…suddenly problems develop and the next thing I know I
can’t have the Supper unless I get in line.
If we lived in
ZZY, we’d happily attend ABC Reformed Church…but again, we’d be excommunicated.
It’s out of your hands. We’d happily attend the YYZ PCA…but we’re
excommunicated. Presbyterian Pastor X finally asked me the one day…why did you
come here? And that’s where I had to confess my folly. We shouldn’t have
because it would only end in disaster. I told him I thought maybe I had found
some men who would put the Gospel above the PCA….but alas. In that system they
don’t even have the choice, they can’t decide because a clerical council and
canon law rules the day.
It’s a sad
state of affairs. We were very reluctant to leave there but we felt we had no
choice. We were excommunicated. At least that’s how I see it. He didn’t like it
when I put it that way, but I refused to play the word games many Presbyterians
are so keen to play. If we’re Christians you have no right to turn as away. If
you turn us away, then that is tantamount to saying you don’t believe we’re
Christians. You can’t grant us the substance and then deny us the bare and
simple sign.
I don’t know
what to tell you. Maybe I’m in sin. Probably. Maybe I’m the one who’s lost.
Maybe we need to move. Maybe we live in an age of apostasy and it’s only going
to get worse. During Manasseh’s time what did the faithful do? Some villages
might have had a good synagogue and others didn’t and had to make do. When
there were idols and wicked priests in the temple I don’t believe the faithful
were going there. It was a dark age. I think many people throughout the history
of the Church have been in this same predicament.
Some people
blow off Church because they have a low view of the Church, they’ve embraced a
hyper-individualist, or a hyper-Calvinist theology. Some are home on Sunday
morning but they are grieved by this. This is unacceptable but the only viable
alternatives are equally unacceptable. They pray for a better day.
As always I
appreciate your input and wisdom.
The conversation went on a
bit longer but I’ll stop for now…. In the end it didn’t really resolve
anything. I know some readers will find these emails to be helpful and so I’m
sharing them.