Calling for a Return to the Doctrinal Ideals and Kingdom Ethics of the First Reformation
https://reformedforum.org/vos-and-neo-calvinism-rethinking-a-transatlantic-identity/
Bucey provides some helpful analysis regarding this rather pivotal episode in the life of Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) and his 1886 refusal to join Abraham Kuyper at the Free University in Amsterdam. The young Vos instead made his way to Grand Rapids to teach at what would become Calvin College and Seminary.
There is a great deal of confusion out there. This hardly needs to be said but I was reminded again of it on a recent Sunday when talking to a very zealous and proud CREC member who launched into a criticism of Sacralism. He's really opposed to the idea of the Church being intertwined with the government.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/beginning-at-the-end-of-all-things/
The theology and thought of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) is riddled with contradictions. On the one hand contemporary Dominionists wishing to posit a monistic view of society will quote Kuyper's famous dictum : '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!'
It's a pretty bold statement suggesting the boundaries of the Kingdom are all encompassing and there can be no room for dissent.
One can only sit back in wonder when reading a statement like this:
It is on this basis that Bavinck can say: “There is thus a rich revelation of God even among the heathen—not only in nature but also in their heart and conscience, in their life and history, among their statesmen and artists, their philosophers and reformers.”
Reading this article about Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), I found myself overwhelmed by a flood of thoughts. His influence is profound and growing and yet is this something to celebrate?
In many cases his interpretation of culture, politics, and geo-politics will leave the American reader confused. Profoundly conservative, his views on economics are not at all in line with the American Right - and certainly not its waxing Libertarian wing. He condemns laissez-faire policies and the utilitarian arguments that capitalism so often resorts to. He understands that 'money creates power' and warns against it - but then still spends the whole of his life chasing after power and relying on alliances with those who possess wealth. I find it remarkable that he clearly understood and accepted the notion that a Christian political order without a regenerate populace would necessarily result in an oppressive system. It's something American Evangelicals largely do not grasp and of course they don't want to hear it as it flies in the face of the narratives about freedom and liberty. Americans can still dream and fantasize in a way never afforded to the claustrophobic ordering of nations in Europe.
I recently finished reading James Bratt's 2013 work - Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat. I cannot recommend it enough. It was an excellent work, well done, and at times even something of a page turner. While some American readers might struggle at times with the dynamics of 19th century European politics, enough is explained that I think most will be able to persevere through it.
If it was our duty to redeem culture or apply Christian teachings to society, the end result would not be in keeping with the vision of Right-wing Republicanism. A study of Europe and the rise of Christian Social Teaching (of which Abraham Kuyper is the Reformed representative) reveal that those wrestling with these questions are just as likely to come to very different conclusions than what has emerged within the American theological and political spectrum. For these Americans, 'Biblical' turns out to be something that arose within a specifically American context and mindset.
These discussions and debates are further confused by the influence of Neo-Calvinism (not to be confused with New Calvinism) and Theonomy which build on Kuyper and in some cases apply his ideas (by means of holistic assumption and inference) to their monistic models. Under such thinking, Sola Scriptura is effectively redefined not only in terms of philosophy but with this recasting comes a notion we might call hyper-sufficiency.
The Reformed Perspective/Bredenhof article in question provides a worthy discussion of the some of the dynamics concerning Article xxxvi of the Belgic Confession (1559) and the views of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). To many in the Reformed sphere, their teachings are effectively one and the same and yet this is not actually the case. For some Kuyper actually represents a serious departure creating an uncomfortable situation for those who would both champion Kuyper as the twentieth-century Reformed Theologian par excellence, and yet demand a strict Confessional Subscription.
In Belgic Article xxxvi we read:
or
The Distorted Thinking Which Dominates Reformed Political
Thinking Today
https://americanreformer.org/2023/07/reformed-political-theology-today/
The article errs in its opening salvo. Psalm 2 must be
interpreted in light of the New Testament. The tension Kennedy looks for is not
there. The New Testament reveals Psalm 2 to be eschatological.
As a consequence of this error, there is an admittedly
substantial heritage which Kennedy merely perpetuates. Begging the fundamental
question, he offers nothing by way of remedy.
Common Grace is a reality, a mercy, and restraint while the Church bears witness in the world and (this is critically important) wins by losing. We win by bearing the cross, we conquer by being sheep for the slaughter. By living as pilgrims and rejecting the world, we testify against it and to the spiritual powers that undergird it – and proclaim a way of life, a coming Kingdom, and a coming doom. This is foolishness to the world, madness, and supremely unappealing and unattractive. Only people who have lost their minds would embrace such a message and calling – or so it would seem. It's tragic that the majority of Christians think the same as the world does on these points and view such glory and victory, such testimonies to the power of the Holy Spirit as pessimism, defeat, cowardice, and offensive foolishness. One wonders if such thinking has in fact grasped even the broad strokes of the gospel message and the core principles of New Testament doctrine – let alone its ethics. No wonder Christ's words concerning mammon (and the security and power it represents) are incomprehensible to them.
The cited article by William B Evans provided a well-argued
and concise analysis of the question of Two Kingdom theology viewed from the
perspective of Reformed Confessionalism and as such provides a good opportunity
for some interaction and comment. Reading this essay alongside the work by
Evans will hopefully assist readers in understanding the nature of the issues
and just what is at stake.
Visiting another church this Sunday once more proved to be a serious disappointment. The congregation was something of a hybrid between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and yet Sacralist thinking dominated. The pastor continually confused the identity of the Church and the nation and begged the question regarding the Christian call to engage and dominate culture.
Doesn't Revelation 21 teach cultural continuity? Doesn't it teach that cultural attainments will be part of our life in heaven? Are there any historical readings of the passage that specifically refute this? Are there any commentators that argue explicitly for discontinuity in reference to this passage?
Continuity here refers to the idea that cultural progress and
attainments achieved in this age will continue into the age to come. In other
words, advances in the arts, science, philosophy, architecture and the like
will play a part in our heavenly life. Proponents of this view believe that the
productions of the great artists, particularly those that were God-honouring in
what they produced, men such as Bach and Rembrandt will be part of our life in
heaven.