Comments for cityreformed.org

Comment on Followup on Kuyper: where the rubber meets the road for many of us by Joel Chan

Joel Chan — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:42:43 +0000

“…I must be in the most important profession there is, or else all professions must be equal. I allow no other profession to be more important, more strategic to the kingdom of God, than my own. If you are honest with yourself, is there part of you that thinks that way?”

Yes. I think that really cuts to the heart of the issue for most of us who wrestle with this “rubber-meets-the-road” question. I know it does for me.

I’m now starting to think hard about how I might endeavor to build up the kingdom of God, to play my part in the army, as a scientist of the mind. What do the theories and data about the nature of the human mind look like through a coherent Christian worldview? What does the resulting image imply for our daily lives, and how might it help point others to Christ? Perhaps it’s time I started working towards answering these questions as I am in the formative stages of my development in my profession, before I get too crystallized in another worldview to do so.

Thanks for the post, David.

Comment on A Response to: “The Kuyperian Vision for culture: what it is, and how is it doing? by J. Hommes by Terry M. Gray

Terry M. Gray — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:57:24 +0000

I was just referred to David Snoke’s article. Couple of comments. I think completely missing from the David’s characterization of Kuyperians and only hinted at in the above post is the notion of the “antithesis”. The notion of worldview includes the idea of the antithesis–that there are two fundamental perspectives on every aspect of human existence: God’s way and not God’s way. This is why Kuyper set about to have Christian schools, a Christian university, a Christian newspaper, a Christian political party, a Christian labor union, etc. Not so much to withdraw from society but to develop freely the implications of the Christian perspective in that particular sphere of life. While Kuyper, via common grace, is willing to accept the fruit of non-believers culture making, it must always be viewed in light of the fundamental antithesis between the believer’s’ perspective and non-believer’s perspective.

This is where I may be sympathetic with some of David’s critique. Some self-proclaimed Kuyperians seem to emphasize common grace with no reference to the antithesis. This devolves, it seems to me, into a bland liberalism or social gospel-ism.

Since it was brought up by both David Snoke and the responder above, I will comment here. Kuyper on evolution is very nuanced. Yes, the fundamental perspective of evolutionism as a worldview/perspective is incompatible with the Christian perspective. However, Kuyper seems to be quite open to an evolutionary theory developed within the Christian perspective. Kuyper may, in fact, be the first to use the term “evolutionary creation” that has become in vogue today among theistic evolutionists. Now it may be the case that among many modern day theistic evolutionists there is a mere baptizing of the Darwinian perspective. But surely if one speaks prominently of God’s providential role in the evolutionary process, of his creative and sustaining power in all of the workings of the physical and biological realm, that we are clearly talking about an evolutionary viewpoint developed within the Christian perspective that is still fundamentally at odds with the Darwinian view (especially when Darwin’s metaphysical baggage is brought along).

Finally, with respect to eschatology. It seems to me that a-millennialists and post-millennialists have no trouble seeing some continuity between life today and life in the eschaton. While Biblical details may be a bit sparse, it seems that the true language of scripture is new heavens and new earth (not just heaven). The language also seems to be renewed, not just destroyed and then creating anew. In other words it doesn’t seem too far-fetched that there will be some continuity between our present existence (where there is an already-ness to the kingdom) and the not-yet-ness of the fullness of the kingdom. The fires of judgment will purge away the anti-God elements of this world (including those remaining in ourselves).

Creation Regained by Al Wolters is a good introduction to a Kuyperianism from a late 20th century perspective.

Comment on Ack! Raising our hands in worship! by Brad

Brad — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:50:08 +0000

Ya as a regular visitor I was wondering what the deal was with this. I love getting wrapped up into worship and lifting my empty hands to the Lord. I know it is wrong, but I was Apprehensive to raise my hands whenever I didn’t see anyone else raising their hands. I’m glad you addressed this

Comment on The Kuyperian vision for culture: what is it, and how is it doing? Part II by dsnoke

dsnoke — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:15:45 +0000

I’m not sure how you conclude Lyons is a modernist. I am certainly not presenting Kupyer as a modernist.
I know some of the organizers of Jubilee personally, and they are definitely Kuyperian. I was pretty Kuyperian myself up to a few years ago.
I dismiss the “take your cultural artifacts to heaven” idea quickly in this essay, but believe me it was not without a lot of thought and study of the Bible. I just have to say it totally goes against one of the great themes of the Bible, the “vanity” theme. Many evangelicals have not really dealt with that major theme of Scripture in depth. See my sermons and paper on Ecclesiastes on this website.

Comment on The Kuyperian vision for culture: what is it, and how is it doing? Part II by Robbie Schmidtberger

Robbie Schmidtberger — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:29:55 +0000

Your caricature of the Kuyperian vision is flawed. Gabe Lyons is not a Kuyperian- he is a modernist. (Thank you David Wells - see his The Courage to be Protestant and the more thorough cultural series.) Kuyper was far from modernity. While there are many within CCO who are devout Kuyperian, many of the speakers at Jubilee aren’t.

I would like to know where Kuyperians face persecution. We in the English speaking west certainly don’t.

Tim Keller argues that this Kuyperian vision has only led to more conversion and evangelism in our postmodern context. It helps us in our witness to this world as “pocket Christianity” is something distasteful to our neighbors. They want to see a consistent witness.

Finally I think you dismiss Hegeman’s argument too quickly. He is a poor representative of that theological idea. NT Wright, Tullian Tchividjian, and others would be better to learn and glean from. But the idea of God either (1) making a new universe or (2) God renewing this current creation, is a massive theological debate.

Comment on The Kuyperian vision for culture: what is it, and how is it doing? Part I by Robbie Schmidtberger

Robbie Schmidtberger — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:07:27 +0000

A lot of good thoughts in there.
I take issue with your so called “Puritan Vision.” Puritanism is an umbrella term- it is very massive. The Puritanism that came to the colonies back in the day followed the City on a Hill motif, but they were not thorough counter cultural as the Anabaptists during the reformation. Joel Beeke, in Meet the Puritans, defines Puritanism as a “holiness movement.” As an umbrella term there are many blends of Puritanism; i.e. how did Cromwell want to establish a Christian government? How did that differ from the Scottish Covenanters? Puritanism included Anglicans and Presbyterians- two very different postures in the church and state debate.

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is far from a holiness movement.

I agree that Christians must live in a tight tension- living against the world for the world (quoting Tullian Tchividjian there). We must be against the culture in certain arenas - as Kuyper would say, and in a way that engages, transforms, and redeems society with the gospel.

Comment on A Response to: “The Kuyperian Vision for culture: what it is, and how is it doing? by J. Hommes by dsnoke

dsnoke — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:01:06 +0000

Thanks for the feedback. My understanding of Kuyper is almost entirely second hand, through the way he has been explained to me by Kuyperians. It sounds like Kuyper himself would almost be called a fundamentalist by many modern people today. I have read a fair number of works by the Puritans, and I do think it is fair to lump them with modern fundamentalists and not with modern Kuperians.

So, in a way, perhaps it is best to take my essay not as a historical lesson but rather as a discussion of two mindsets that we have with us today, which don’t come out of a vacuum, having roots in these earlier people, but with changes along the way.

I think one of the most important debates I see in the various feedback I have gotten is the basic question of what is the primary calling of the church as a whole: are we building a _people_, or are we building a _culture_? The two are obviously not completely separable, as cultures are made by people. But in practice it has huge implications. Are we primarily working and strategizing to see actual, real people come to faith, love, and hope in heaven, or are we primarily trying to make lasting structures and artifacts in this world, even at the expense, sometimes, of relationships and evangelism? To put it this way: is my science or art a support activity for the building up of people? Or is the building up of people a support activity for grand societal accomplishments of science and art? I take the former position.

Comment on Ack! Raising our hands in worship! by Dave Snoke

Dave Snoke — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:08:03 +0000

Dave Faith sends this link to an article by Rob Reyburn:
http://www.faithtacoma.org/content/nl-worship-05.aspx

Comment on Ack! Raising our hands in worship! by John Bugay

John Bugay — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:32:32 +0000

Dave — Samuel Hugh Moffett, “History of Christianity in Asia,” suggests that the “Odes of Solomon” may well be “the earliest Christian hymnbook” and makes the case that it may have been composed “toward the end of the first century”. Here is a line:

“I extended my hands and approached my Lord,
For the expansion of my hands is his sign.
And my extension is the common cross… Read More
That was lifted up on the way of the Righteous One.”

(Odes, 42:1-2)

Comment on Church, Politics, and Non-Profits by John Bugay

John Bugay — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:28:16 +0000

Hi Dave — I found this through your “raising hands” post on facebook. I’ve been reading a site ( http://thebasilica.wordpress.com ) that deals with the historical foundations of “two kingdoms” theology — this is in a way what Horton is talking about, but Horton and WSC generally take a theological approach, whereas Basilica looks at it from a historical perspective. I think that there’s a lot of opportunity for the church as a whole to have a great discussion around these two approaches. (They are a bit different, I think).