I apologise in advance to long-time readers. This interaction
will probably prove redundant but I do it anyway, hoping that maybe a few new
readers will be grabbed by what I'm saying and turn away from a pernicious but
popular error and one of the rotten harvests of the Reformation.
I don't usually associate The Banner of Truth with explicit
Dominionist theology. Rather I would call it implicit. Theonomic
Postmillennialists scornfully refer to such fellow Calvinists as Pietistic Postmillennialists. In other
words old British Sacral Nonconformist Protestantism was more or less
Postmillennial, but they looked for cultural transformation by means of
revival. They looked for great outpourings of the Holy Spirit in which the
masses would be converted and would become yes, pious and transformed in their
lives.
Under the influence of Dutch Calvinism (and Abraham Kuyper in
particular), 20th century American Reformed Sacralism and
Postmillennialism took a different turn. It became more deliberate and
programmatic. Rather than rely on nebulous and unruly concepts like 'revival'
it sought to create a coherent holistic system upon which a programme of social
transformation could be embarked upon. Under this paradigm, not only will there
be large-scale conversions in the future but society and culture will be deliberately
and even coercively transformed through legislation and a series of state
sanctioned developments and punitive measures. This article, though published
at The Banner of Truth represents such thinking, even though it's latent and
the author probably hasn't worked it all out. Does it mark a shift for the
Banner? Time will tell.
It's interesting how the article starts with some Scripture
but then when we get to the so-called doctrine of Vocation, all we have is the so-called
Cultural Mandate of Genesis 1... which is never interpreted in light of the New
Testament. The Old Testament itself significantly modifies the nature of the
'mandate' but by the time we reach the New Testament we learn that the
'mandate' (so to speak) is now in reference to the heavenly Kingdom and not to
this world at all. In the New Testament the Kingdom is Holy, the realm of the
Spirit, the realm of those who have been and are being regenerated. It is not
visible to the lost world and it does not come with observation. Why? Because
it's not here per se, it's not associated with geography, political boundaries
or even a cultural concept like so-called Christendom. It's eschatological in
nature, meaning it belongs to the Age to Come and thus it's necessarily something
we participate in through the Spirit. The idea that the Kingdom is brought to
Earth through cultural works made by men's hands or through politics is
contrary to what the New Testament teaches. In fact it's fairly absurd as any
diligent reader will realise.*
We are given the quotation from1 Corinthians 7 which is
milked for all its worth and misinterpreted. The point of calling is the
calling to be a Christian. The idea is never to sacralize someone's profession
or turn it into some kind of 'ministry' even though this is commonly done in
today's Evangelical and Confessional paradigms.
In the Banner of Truth article we discover lots of stories
and quotations but the case is never made. The divine calling referenced in
light of being a slave is once again the
calling to be a Christian. It's not some kind of sanctification of slavery,
carpentry, banking or anything else.
Besides, the rest of 1 Corinthians 7 repudiates and rejects
the whole vocational-dominionist mindset. The pilgrim ethic of the chapter (and
the epistle as a whole) repudiates any notion of world-sanctification let alone
cultural transformation or a mandate to wield political power. 1 Corinthians 5
which is part of the larger conversation makes this explicit. Paul had no
understanding or expectation of so-called Christianisation. Once again, the
very concept necessarily redefines the term Christian. That alone should give
one occasion to pause.
Colossians 3.17 is in the context of love and forgiveness.
Paul isn't talking about doing your banking or auto repair to the utmost.
Indeed we should do our utmost at our jobs but these are secondary ethical concerns
compared to Kingdom work.... like worship, evangelism and giving.
I heard an awful statement recently by a Reformed pastor who
suggested that the guy feeling guilt for working extra hours and missing Bible
Study or Church Camp (for what it's worth) shouldn't feel guilty, because in
working those long hours he was actually building the Kingdom, doing
Kingdom-ministry work.
Such teaching is straight from the pit. I don't know how else
to put it. Anything less is just mincing words. It's also a version of the Prosperity
Gospel, a cancer that has long plagued Magisterial Protestantism, even though
this seems to have only been recognised in recent years as it has (in
Evangelical circles) developed and degenerated into an extreme and revolting
parody.
At the end of Colossians 3, slaves are exhorted to submit.
Look at the previous verses (3.18-21). This is part of the larger discussion
that began at the beginning of the chapter. And how does it begin? If then you were raised
with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting
at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on
the earth.
How does that square with the whole discussion of
Vocation? It doesn't.
It's amazing but as I read through the article I
am again struck by the fact that this whole doctrine is born of Middle-Class
concerns and categories. Apart from being unbiblical this doctrine has little
application to the poor or workers at the bottom of the spectrum. They work to
survive and often their work is degrading and effectively meaningless. They
need to submit to Providence as the Apostle says but that submission is rooted
in transcendence, in focusing and setting one's affection on things above.
That's the good news and motivation for perseverance. Sanctifying one's daily work
that is (probably in the end) just part of the sinful world system is not the
answer. This doesn't mean that as Christians we can exempt ourselves from
interacting with the world system or fail to do our best when we work. Indeed
we are called to live in it and suffer various forms of trial and persecution
but let's be careful not to sanctify the world and thus blind ourselves to the
reality of our situation.
Day in and day out I work for people well
connected to the system, people with money to burn and thus money to pay me.
Mostly miserable and unhappy people, I cater to their wants not their needs.
Most of the work I do is vanity, meaningless and a waste of time. Why do I do
it? Because I have to put food on the table and given my situation it's the
best I can do. But I don't enjoy it. For the most part it is a burden to me.
With my poor attitude do I produce shoddy work? On the contrary my work is
praised. I am complimented and of course the fact that I'm cheap (fair and
reasonable) also helps. By American standards (and given the size of my family)
I am well below the poverty level.
Why am I cheap? Maybe because most of the time I
feel like a whore catering to a bunch of sick and disgusting people who
represent the values and the system that I despise and oppose with all my
being. I don't really want their filthy money which comes from sources that
make me ill to even think about and yet I must take it to live. Additionally
I'm cheap for another simple reason. Just because they're all crooks doesn't
mean that I should be. The industrial age has destroyed the subsistence and cottage
economies that once provided better options for separatist antithetical living.
I'll do their work for them and I'll do it well but I won't share in their
values and I won't play their games. I probably lose some work because of this,
because I don't have the right 'trappings' for what I do. I don't play the
part. I don't resonate with them and pet them while they work through their agonising
but absurd decision processes. Some don't care and hire me anyway because they
want the work done and they appreciate the fact that I'm reliable, honest and
if anything tend toward perfectionism in my work. Ethics and Christian values
drive my daily existence and yet the work itself is a vain and futile joke and
it will all burn when Christ returns.
Even so come Lord Jesus.
The Dominionist doctrine of Vocation is
empowering and uplifting for people with money. It allows them a sense of
self-esteem and self-justification. For the poor and downtrodden, the people
the New Testament actually identifies with, this doctrine is one of defeat and
further humiliation. You feel it acutely in Calvinist circles which are for the
most part wealthy. If you're not part of that world, not part of the
culture-shaping element, if you're just a factory worker, landscaper or
mechanic, then interestingly the members of the congregation just aren't that
excited about your 'calling'.
Practically speaking this doctrine is about
wielding cultural power, security and respect. It's the imperative of the
bourgeois gospel, a speculative deduction, not a fruit of New Testament
exegesis.
As far as the cyber-security expert mentioned in
the article, to preach the gospel is indeed a higher calling, to engage in
full-time evangelism is certainly a heavenly labour. Cyber-security is a fruit
of the fall, a legitimate but temporary employment. A Christian man can
legitimately make money, support his family and honour Christ but the work in itself
has little meaning in light of eternity. Not all are called into New Testament
office and that's fine. My non-sacral work has dignity enough but also a great
deal of grief and futility. We're serving the lost world, trying to be salt and
light, trying to maintain our integrity in a world that is corrupt at every
turn, deceptive at all times, exploitative, cruel and mercenary. If you don't
see it, then perhaps it's because you've closed your eyes or have sold yourself
into its service.
We have to try to be Christians in the midst of
this and in many cases that love and motivation to 'do all' to the glory of God
might just mean that we turn away
from many jobs, professions and spheres which are too compromising, too
oppressive, exploitative (and even cruel) and require someone to be all but
sold out to the world and its system. Family, Church, obedience to God and love
for neighbour come first and if the job conflicts with any of these, then quit
and find something else even if it means living in poverty. For my part I'm
trying to figure out a way I can live off an even smaller income.
We're all called to be Christians, some are
blessed and chosen for higher callings, others are not. Being a Christian is
enough. These questions have also been confused by the corruption of
denominations and their 'professionalisation' of Church office and all the
politics that go with it.
This life is short and as one infidel put it,
it's often nasty and brutish but in Christ we can persevere and though
sorrowful we can even do it with a sense of hope and joy. At least Paul thought
so.
Continue reading part 2
Continue reading part 2
*Elsewhere I've written about my own battles. As a new
Christian in the mid-1990's I encountered Theonomy and was compelled to reckon
with its rather forceful arguments. At the time I was unable to theologically
answer their many assertions but I was never taken in by them. Why? Because I
was copiously reading all of the Scripture but especially the New
Testament. Their arguments seemed
powerful and unassailable but then I would read the Bible and it was clear that
their views, their whole ethos didn't match up. Eventually I came to understand
why they were wrong and how the movement as a whole had misread and
misunderstood the Bible on a massive scale. But at the time, it was simply
being immersed in the Scriptures that kept me from being pulled off onto their
wayward paths.