But in this essay I want to focus on the second main theme of the feedback I have gotten. This is that, regardless of whether Kuyper said it or not, or whether it influenced churches and movements in the past, we still have a rubber-meets-the-road issue before us. This is the question that every young, well-educated Christian must ask: is going into “ministry,” specifically church work such as preaching and evangelism, a higher calling than work in a “secular” field such as science, art, or humanities? Essentially, you can boil down the two schools of thought that I described as “fundamentalist” and “Kuyperian” by their answers to this question. The fundamentalist says “yes” and the Kuyperian says no.

I note that when this question is asked, it is always “high” secular callings that the person has in mind: being a famous (or at least, excellent) scientist, or an excellent artist or musician, historian, etc. The career question is rarely asked in regard to beoming a garbage man, or a checkout clerk, or a daycare worker. I’m sure that most Kuyperians would affirm all of these as callings from God, but in practice, the young person struggling with church ministry vs. secular calling is not struggling with whether that secular calling is to be a garbage man. It therefore is worth asking whether you really believe that all callings are really equal, or if what is really going on in your heart is that you feel you can be excellent in a field that the world respects quite a bit, and you feel slighted by being told that it is not as high a calling as a church ministry.

I have given this question a lot of thought and prayer over the past year, and I have concluded that on this main question, the answer is yes, preaching and evangelistic ministries are higher callings (in one very important sense) than other ministries. In saying this, I do not mean that no one should pursue any other callings, and in a grand rush, Christians should drop all secular occupations and all become preachers and evangelists. What I do mean is that we should all see ourselves as aiding the going out of the word of God as much as possible. I believe strongly that this is the focus of Scripture. “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:22-23)

Let me draw an analogy. In an army, there are thousands of people doing all kinds of work. There are cooks, bureaucrats, computer programmers, design engineers, stockroom clerks, etc. All of these jobs are essential for the army to succeed—if not, the army would not create these jobs. If the army succeeds, all of these people rightly share credit in the victory as colaborers. Yet would anyone argue that the people working in the stockroom are doing just as crucial a task as the people doing the hand-to-hand combat in the trenches, the fighter pilots, and the behind-the-lines special forces? We give credit to all the army, but we recognize as heroes those who played a direct role in the combat.

The key aspect of the analogy is that the heroes of the battle are those who directly contributed to the direct aim of the army, which is to inflict damage on the enemy, with the implicit understanding that such people will also be the most direct targets of the enemy’s attacks. In the same way, the preacher and the evangelist are doing most directly the main task of the church, which is to fight spiritual warfare by destroying arguments and taking every thought captive for the glory of Christ (2 Corinithians 10:4-5), what I called “expanding the kingdom” in my previous essay. Such people are on the front lines and will take many more of the darts of the enemy.

If you don’t agree with me, ask the following questions. 1) Why is it that when a new church is organized, or when it has a limited budget to only hire a few people, the first person to be hired is a preacher, not a plumber, or a mathematician, etc.? We might all agree that plumbers and mathematicians might be employed to good ends by churches, but we would, I think, agree that the church is not the church without a preacher. In the same way, an army needs supply clerks, but if it only has supply clerks and no actual fighters, it is not an army. 2) Who makes more news headlines when they succumb to the darts of the enemy? If a pastor falls into sexual sin, we all know that headlines are made. When was the last time a Christian plumber or Christian mathematician made headlines by a fall into sin? Are not such people under more attack?

The natural question which then will come to many people’s minds is then, does that mean that I should drop what I am doing in my secular training and go into church ministry? If I don’t, does that mean I am being a compromiser, settling for something less than the best?

To this I emphatically answer no, not in the least. I do not think that all people who are intelligent enough to complete training in preaching or evangelism ought to go into those ministries. In the same way, I do not think that all people joining the army ought to become Green Berets or fighter pilots, or else they must be compromisers or failures.

To say that if preaching is the highest calling then I must go into it, actually can mask a self-centered pride that says 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? Conversely, there can be a sort of humility expressed by those who are in ministry, that does not want to tell others their jobs are less front-line in the kingdom of God. It sounds very humble to say “I am not doing work any more important than you.” But it is a false humility. How would you feel if you were on ship with only one pilot, and that person said, “I am no more important than you on this boat.” It would ring false. You all know that without that person you are lost, and in mortal danger. The ship could get to safety if the chef failed to do his job, or if the beds were not made, or if the orchestra refused to play, or if the passengers all got grumpy. But without someone who knows how to steer the ship, it is lost. In the same way, without someone to rightly divide the Word of God and bring it to the people, the church is lost at sea. Of course, we should also say at the same time, “I am no more valuable than you as a person.” But it is simply not true that all jobs are equally critical in the grand strategy of things.

I believe strongly in the Reformed idea of “calling,” and believe that there are many callings, all of which are honorable. Deciding our calling is not just a matter of deciding what is the most strategic calling in the kingdom of God. It should also involve deciding what I am in fact gifted at, what opportunities I have, and where the needs of the kingdom are. For example, if I am going to be a pastor I need to not just ask whether I am smart enough to pass courses in Greek and Hebrew. I also need to ask whether I love people, enough to have them call me in the middle of the night, enough to bear the burdens of all kinds of things told to me in secret, enough to seek out and befriend people with very few social graces and attractiveness. A pastor is a “shepherd” who tends for the sheep and seeks out the lost ones. In addition, I need to ask whether I have a certain degree of control over my sins, so as not to bring scandal on the church when the inevitable temptations come.

Another thing to ask is whether it is better to be an extremely gifted person in a secular or support role, as opposed to an average pastor. Again in the army analogy, if a person is a gifted chef and a weak fighter, would we not want this person making food and not on the front lines? Would we not want our best administators doing the army supply lines? If you are gifted in one area but think you might be an adequate but not gifted pastor, go where the gifts are. Unless you see a need for a pastor or evangelist that no one is filling. In a pinch, an army might press into the battlefield those who are gifted in other things. I firmly believe that calling is never decided in the abstract; it is decided in the context of needs. If there are plenty of lawyers and few pastors, or plenty of Christian rock bands and few missionaries, I should consider going where the need is, unless I am extremely gifted in one of these other areas. Sometimes a burning passion for a certain group of people can be more evidence of a calling than a gift for a particular type of work. In that case I need to do whatever gets me to those people.

An error of the fundamentalists, perhaps their most important error, has been to fail to recognize this need for “calling.” Thus, on one hand, many young men may go into preaching who have none of the gifts other than a good speaking voice, leading to lots of churches with burned out pastors and divided congregations. On the other hand, those not in the pastorate may have little sense of calling to excellence in their work, and only a sense of calling to make money to support the pastor and missionaries, leading to shoddy work with “Christian” labels.

The opposite danger of the Kuyperian view, however, is that those who are not pastors or evangelists can begin to see their work as ends in themselves, and ultimately not work strategically for the kingdom of God at all. It is as if the army started to focus on winning awards for cooking, or winning football games against the navy, or getting promotions for themselves. We would say that when this happens, that the army has lost sight of its purpose, its mission, and will soon lose its effectiveness. When the church fails to see that its overall mission is to “go into the world and make disciples, teaching them to observe everything Christ has commanded” (Matthew 28:19-20), it becomes inward and indistinguishable from just another ethnic group.

Some people I have talked to have agreed with much of this, but still say, “If I felt that winning souls to heaven was the only eternally lasting thing, and the main mission of the church, I could not have any joy in doing music, or science. I want to believe that my works have eternal value in and of themselves.” Here I see a main problem as the “I”. Such people are saying that what is most important to them is their own individual work, not the advance of the kingdom, the universal church, as a whole. Imagine an army supply clerk saying, “If we don’t view supply rooms as ends in themselves, I cannot be happy.” If the army wins the war, the supply clerk will rightly share in the credit of the whole. But the point is not to create supply rooms, it is to disable the enemy. In the same way, a happy army can use artists and musicians to relieve stress and lift up spirits, and scientists to find new ways to win, but the point of an army is not art or science. If those doing art and science lose sight of the goal and fail to think strategically, at best they become dead weights of useless activity, and at worse actually compete with those on the battle lines for resources.

The Bible has a category of things I call “good vanities,” following the book of Ecclesiastes. There are many things that we are told are good, but will not last forever. Should we not do these things? Should the farmer not make food because people will eat it and turn it into excrement which is gone the day after tomorrow? Should the artist not sing because people will forget his song? In a large kingdom, all the elements of what it means to be human in this world should be going on. Yet in a kingdom that has a mandate to advance and conquer enemies, as the kingdom of God does (by the preaching of the Word), all these people cannot forget to ask how their activities affect that main mission. It may not be simple. Maybe learning art and science will help “take every thought captive” in ways that a pastor would not see. Maybe excellent garbage collecting will cause visitors to ask what is so different about this land that it is so clean and neat. (If you have traveled to lands supposedly affected by the Gospel but with terrible problems of uncleanness, e.g. nominally Catholic countries in South America or Southeast Asia, you know how this lack can undermine the claim of being Christian lands.) We can rejoice in a “good vanity” even while submitting it to the overall mission of the church, in whatever that may entail.

In summary, I am not calling for a return to fundamentalism or pietism, as defined in my previous essay. I am calling for a new way that wholeheartedly values callings other than preaching and evangelism, but nevertheless submits these callings to an overall strategic way of thinking about the advance of the kingdom of God. We do not need to believe that works of art and culture, or discoveries of the scientific laws of this present universe, will last forever in order for us to enjoy them and pursue them, if that is our calling. Human souls last forever, and the church must not lose sight of the high calling of influencing souls for good.

I heartily welcome your essay on Kuyperian thought and practice and have enjoyed the discussion it has already created on this important topic. Like you, I have embraced Kuyperian ideas in the past, and would in many ways still consider myself Kuyperian in many ways. I grew up on the mission field (in Japan) where other models of the relationship between Christianity and culture were offered that I found unsatisfactory. Thus, particularly at Calvin College, I found the Kuyperian vision challenging and refreshing. But, I share some of your concerns for the direction in which some of the self-professed heirs of Kuyper are going or have gone. The focus on worldly success as opposed to a Christian witness, the relative lack of focus on evangelism, the temptation to accommodate to the world and not be distinctively Christian, the lack of focus on persecution and opposition are all legitimate concerns. Certainly these are not concerns merely for “Kuyperians,” but to a certain degree are concerns of all Christians. So, in general, I agree that, like Martin Luther’s drunken peasant on a horse, we tend to go from one extreme to the other. Thus, we need a balance in our views toward Christian culture. Though I am in agreement with many of your concerns, I would like to respond to some of the assertions in your essay:

1. First of all, I think it is misplaced to put the blame for these concerns on Kuyper. One of the reasons I haven’t responded to the essay until now is that I was re-reading passages of Kuyper’s writings. As a historian, I feel uncomfortable writing about someone like Kuyper without examining his life and writings. In general, I do not find him in his writings to be guilty of what he (or his successors) are accused of in your essay. I realize that you wrote that “much of this cannot be laid at the feet of Kuyper himself, who might shudder at what some of his followers have done.” If this is so, then I question the propriety of calling it “Kuyperian” at all. Though I heartily agree that the culture and society of the Netherlands and the Reformed Church in the Netherlands are in a sorry spiritual state today, I don’t think they can truly claim to be the heirs of Kuyper. The notion that modern Japan was influenced by Kuyper is, as far as I can tell, mistaken, though Japanese Christianity was very influenced by Modernism and by the Social Gospel movement. Though certainly the Christian Reformed Church and other Dutch-heritage churches might be in need of reform, renewal, and critique, I think they have been more influential than you assert. Just ask the members of the Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria, or the Christians in Japan who 20 years later are still worshipping in the church that my parents planted. Or ask the thousands of students who were influenced by the Christian schools, colleges and seminaries of this Dutch tradition. And, even if your assertion could be true, how could this be adequately assessed? How are we to judge by the criteria“more influential in society”—by the number of Supreme Court justices? In some ways, isn’t this somewhat similar to “focusing on worldly success” in that we focus on “success at influencing the world”? I recognize the need to assess the impact of “Kuyperian” ideas, but I think that your judgment and assessment in this case is too narrow.

2. I think that the designation of the opposing view to the Kuyperian as the “city on a hill” view is also problematic. As you acknowledge, this view is close to fundamentalism in many respects. But even John Winthrop’s use of the phrase in the 1630s is broader than your designation here. And, in Kuyper’s work, Common Grace he has a whole chapter entitled “City on a Hill” (Vol. II, #36) in which he talks about the Church in light of this phrase. I am not saying that you cannot invent a new classification, but I think it is problematic to do so without thoroughly examining the way in which this image has been used in the church by some of the very figures you are dealing with. Interestingly, Kuyper was condemned and expelled by the Synod of the Hague in 1886 for allegedly advocating “sectarianism” because he referred to the church as a “little flock” in the midst of the world (which they interpreted as narrow and sectarian).

3. Though Kuyper does talk about the Kingdom of God, he usually discusses it in reference to the Church. He did reject what he calls the error whereby “people focus on their own salvation instead of the glory of God.” Kuyper asserts that “The Reformed confession—which maintains that all things, also in this world, aim at the Christ, that his Body is the key component, and that in this sense one can say the church of Christ forms the center of history” (Common Grace). Kuyper discusses the importance of special grace and common grace as both originating from God as Creator and both giving glory to God. I think one of the clear differences between the views of Kuyper (and his heirs) and some other views is a focus on God as Creator as well as Redeemer. Kuyper certainly views the Kingdom of God as extending beyond the Church, but he makes a distinction between what he calls the church as institute (or institution) and the church as organism. He criticizes the “national churches” for focusing only on the church as an institution and not recognizing the importance of the active faith of Christians, which shines both through the institution of the church and through what he calls the “extra-institutional influence” of Christianity in society. Kuyper is somewhat vague about the dividing line between the influence of the Church on society and this broader Christian influence. Even his metaphor here (of a lamp or light) contributes to this. He clearly asserts that the light shines out from the church to illuminate all areas and “that illumination will be stronger and more penetrating as the lamp of the gospel is allowed to shine more brightly and clearly in the church institute” (Common Grace) But, then he writes that there is “another circle whose circumference is determined by the length of the ray that shines out from the church institute over the life of people and nation” (Common Grace). Certainly at points Kuyper can be faulted for being a bit vague at points and making claims that could be misinterpreted. In particularly statements—such as “The church as organism may even manifest itself where all personal faith is missing but where nevertheless some of the golden glow of eternal life is reflected on the ordinary facades of the great edifice of human life”—may be poetic, but can be interpreted in different ways. But overall Kuyper does not neglect the special grace of the gospel, and he clearly shows that common grace is greatly influenced by the church and by the “lamp of the gospel.” (Common Grace)

4. Certainly, when Kuyper talks about the Kingdom of God, he includes more than saving souls. But his view of the Kingdom of God and common grace is more complex. A critique one could make of Kuyper is his somewhat triumphal eschatology and connecting this with the progress of the Christian West. In this way, he is very much a man of the 19^th century who did not live through the world wars and events of the 20^th century. Though he certainly acknowledged the strength of non-Christian Western ideas, his general view seemed to be that the expansion of the West around the world would help to spread the light of the gospel and of God’s common grace. Any society, in his view that has been influenced by the light and leaven of Christianity (“a leaven which keeps working and affects all relationships of life…[and] extends to the whole of society.” Common Grace) is far superior to societies such as China and Japan who have not had that light or leaven for centuries. For Kuyper the progress of knowledge and “science” is part of God’s common grace. But, even here Kuyper is more nuanced. He maintains a distinction between two “operations” of common grace—one that aims at the interior, and one at the exterior. Kuyper writes, “The former is operative wherever civic virtue, a sense of domesticity, natural love, the practice of human virtue, the improvement of the public conscience, integrity, mutual loyalty among people, and a feeling for piety leaven life. The latter is in evidence when human power over nature increases, when invention upon invention enriches life, when international communication is improved, the arts flourish, the sciences increase our understanding, the conveniences and joys of life multiply, all expressions of life become more vital and radiant…and the general image of life becomes more winsome” (Common Grace). He goes on to assert that the enrichment of the exterior life will often go hand-in-hand with an impoverishment of the interior—a prescient statement given our society today but one that I think many would find very un-Kuyperian.

5. The notion of the Kuyperian “world view” as one that proposes a philosophy but doesn’t challenge the theory or data (or style or technique for art) is a very astute critique of much of what passes for Christian scholarship and art today by some of the professed heirs of Kuyper. But, I do not think that Kuyper deserves this charge. Though certainly, as you wrote, he loved “science” and the academic world, but he also critiqued many ideas at many levels. Take Darwinism, for one. Kuyper writes “It is impossible to bridge the gulf between the dogma of the Trinity and the pseudo-dogma of Evolution. The Christian religion and the theory of evolution are two mutually exclusive systems. They are antipodes that can be neither reconciled nor compared. Undoubtedly, negative biblical criticism already undermined belief in confessional certitudes among many, but the Modernist theologians at least remained idealists who respected the authority of Jesus’ ethical utterances…But the Evolution-theory respected, spared nothing…If the theory of evolution is true, then all that humanity has thus far imagined, thought, pondered, and believed is a lie” (Evolution). His writings show no hesitation to challenge anything that he views as contrary to the truth of Christianity. In fact, he seems to exemplify in some of his writings what you call an “anti or subversive approach” as well as “awareness, with skepticism.”

6. Lastly, I think that the strength of the Kuyperian approach is that it focuses on the glory of God. The focus on excellence (in all areas of culture) as giving glory to God is a focus that I see as an idea of the Protestant Reformers, not one unique to Kuyper (which I’m sure you would agree with). I think that Kuyper is at pains to assert that Christ is concerned with and should be a real part of every sphere of our lives and our society. I think that the example of Henry Martyn is interesting because I find it hard to imagine that Kuyper would have discouraged him (had he been there) from going to the mission field and translating the gospel for a people who had not received the light of special revelation. On the other hand, if Martyn had decided to remain in academia, I think Kuyper would have encouraged him to glorify God in that field as well. I think we can never truly know the full impact of our lives no matter where God has put us. I often think of the story Os Guinness tells of his great-grandmother who, despairing of raising her children alone after the death of her husband, was going to throw herself into the river when she saw a farmer diligently plowing his fields, oblivious to everything but this duty God had given him. That farmer would never know the impact he had on her life, in convicting her of God’s calling to her to do her best to raise these children God had given her. Though the issue of choosing our path is important in God’s kingdom, I think the more important issue is not what we do but who and what we are where God has placed us.

7. I agree that many in the church—Kuyperian or non-Kuyperian—have such a low view of heaven. In this way, we in the wealthy materialistic West have much to learn from many of the Christians in poorer countries who may understand the joy and expectation of heaven better than I ever will. When people start talking about whether our achievements and cultural works will endure in the life to come, I wonder if they have any notion of what perfection is. That God can be glorified by any of our fallen works is an amazing thing in itself. But, I think the best artists and scientists acknowledge that our world is fallen and imperfect. In particular, artists—like novelist John Steinbeck in Grapes of Wrath—acknowledge that the world is messed up. But, we can acknowledge the traces of good in the Creation even as we see its fallenness. The refreshing thing about Kuyper is that he talks about the unity of God’s creation—something that has been greatly changed by the Fall, but is not entirely gone. Kuyper asserts that the connections in this world are not made by us, but we find them in God’s creation and we can begin to repair and build connections between the disparate elements of humanity. But, finding these “connections” is hard work, and perhaps the heirs of Kuyper (myself included) can be faulted for laziness and for opting for an easy way out that is usually accommodation and conformity to the world. I agree that we can be more subversive as Christians, but, the legalism and narrow worldview of much of fundamentalism is not the way to go. With Kuyperianism, one can look at The Grapes of Wrath and see past the profanity, socialistic apologetic, and despair to the art of the narrative and for the desire for mercy, justice and brotherhood of humanity. Perhaps what I like most about Kuyper is the focus that Kuyper has that the most important thing is the glory of God. When I hear others (and myself if I’m honest) saying, “I can do_________ and still be a Christian” I think that it might be a rationalization or an accommodation to the world, but I also think that it shows that we do not have a good view of the glory of God. Certainly God is more glorified by work well done than by shoddy work. Certainly God gave us gifts like music, art, and sports and when we use those gifts we are enjoying God’s creation and the gifts that he has given us. But, God is glorified through persecution, suffering and sacrifice—a broken and contrite heart. And, one only has to read the beatitudes to see that the things God’s values and ideas for happiness are much different than the standards of the world.

So, what am I trying to say in this rambling response? Though I am not saying Kuyper’s writings are completely without fault in these charges, I do think that he is closer to the balanced view that you propose in your essay. I hope this was helpful, and I would like to hear your response to some of my point. Thanks for your thoughts on this very important topic.

A Balanced View?

I have been fairly hard on the Kuyperian vision. I also am not advocating the fundamentalist/Puritan model. So what is the alternative? Here are several principles for a different way:

1) Geographically near to the non-Christian, not isolated.

One of the key mistakes of the early “city on a hill” Christians was that they geographically isolated themselves.  For various reasons, they left the cities and set up small communities in rural areas. Sometimes this was deliberate, a rejection of cities as evil, and sometimes it was purely pragmatic, a way of supporting themselves by farming. Over time, they became culturally distant from the centers of society.  Even in cities and suburbs, Christians have sometimes ghettoized themselves by pulling back from interaction with non-Christians.

In recent decades there has been increased awareness among evangelicals that we need to live near and rub shoulders with non-Christians. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we become just like them. But we need to speak their language.

Even here, we can not be too simplistic. There is some value in distinctive, isolated communities. The monks of the middle ages and tightly knit Jewish communities are recognized to have produced great art and scholarship. Shakers and Amish have produced great craftsmanship. But in general, the church needs to be missional, and that means going where the people are, not waiting for them to come to you.

2) People and community oriented.

Success in worldly pursuits and being part of a strong community of believers are not mutually exclusive, but we need to keep in mind that sometimes they do conflict, and prioritize relationships and community over success.  The Kuyperian says that an artist going good art is building the kingdom of God, but an artist who is a wreck emotionally and cut off from Christian fellowship is not a healthy part of the kingdom of God even if he produces good art.  Can we agree that it would be better for the kingdom of God if he did less art and connected more with people? I’m not sure all Kuyperians would agree.

We should be about the business of creating communities of Christians, even as we live in the cities and are not geographically or culturally isolated. These communities need to have a strong sense of identity, even while not being ghettos.

Along with this is not losing sight of heaven. Many evangelicals have criticized fundamentalists for “fire escape” theology, of viewing life as nothing more than pulling people from the fire to get ready for heaven. That is true: building the church is more than just evangelism. But let us not forget the importance of evangelism. There really is a heaven, and really are people who may not go there. We will not take cultural artifacts to heaven, we will take people there.

Historically, the times of greatest revival and impact on culture by Christians came at times when people were greatly concerned about, and thought a lot about, heaven. I would argue that being heavenly-minded leads to greater impact on culture than worldly-mindedness. People who know they are going to heaven have no fear; they can do bold things, including speaking truth to power, without fear of losing their small holdings in this world. People who know they belong to a vast kingdom of people going to heaven have a sense of self confidence, instead of feeling like a mouse running around someone else’s house just trying to stay out of trouble.

The proper criticism of fire-escape theology is that it focuses too little on heaven, not too much. It gives you a get-out-of-hell card and then turns its attention elsewhere. True Christianity dwells on the hope of heaven every day, as a way of giving glory and thankfulness to God. That focus on the glories of God then leads us to a full-life experience of walking with God, which affects everything we do, and makes us want to share that joy with other people.

3) Kingdom strategy.

All Christians are not called to work in church ministry, but all of our work should be evaluated through the lens of how it impacts people in the kingdom of God. Perhaps we want to know the truth in science so that we can better explain to others what is true and what is not, to prevent them from being deceived. Perhaps we want to make truly great art, for the sake of sharing with others the deep feelings we have, inexpressible in mere logical propositions and statements.

People who built cathedrals in the middle ages were not just doing them for their own sake. They were building community centers that would last thousands of years. The Kuyperian hero, Bezalel, decorated the tent of worship for the community. By contrast, many artists today are engaged in a conversation only with other artists, hoping to make a name for themselves.

Christians should engage in all the activities of culture— science, art, politics, etc.— but need to see these in the context of a larger kingdom strategy. They are not ends in themselves. That means that I personally may need to step away from some such activity if it leads me to compromise or away from community, or if I have a great opportunity to minister to people in another way. Any good thing becomes an idol competing for God if I say that I must have it at all costs, and that includes a career.

Henry Martyn was a brilliant scholar (chief mathematics wrangler at Cambridge University) in the early 1800’s, who came under the influence of Charles Simeon. He ended up turning down a professorship at Cambridge and becoming a missionary. He died within the decade, but before then he translated the New Testament into both Hindi and Arabic. He reasoned that his influence for the kingdom of God would be greater in that part of the world than in England.  I bless Henry Martyn, and wish we had more people like him. Maybe he would have been a great scientist or mathematician. But caring about people drove him away from it. Would a Kuyperian have recommended that?

4) An “Anti” or “subversive” outloook.

This is probably my most controversial proposal. I think of past successes of groups that engaged the culture and transformed it, or who are presently engaging it successfully. These include the communists, the Nazis, and Islamicists. Earlier there were the Reformers, the modernists, and the abolitionists, and before them, the monks who set up universities and the monks who were the first missionaries to northern Europe. In each case, there was a) a strong sense of community, b) a strong sense of working together on strategy to advance their common cause, and c) a strong sense of wanting to change things, to create something new, not just succeed in the existing system. This last is what I call an “anti” or “subversive” outlook.

One might call this “infiltration.” Strategists work in the existing systems, but they keep a sense of separate identity. They have a long-term view that if they don’t succeed in changing things right away, it is okay. They work by persuading others one person at a time. They strive to be excellent, not as an end in itself, but as part of the larger cause.

Does being subversive or having an “agenda” lead to bad work? Not necessarily. Steinbeck was a communist, who wanted to advance the communist cause with all his books. But Grapes of Wrath is a tremendous book. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is also a great book. So are those by C.S. Lewis. A good message can’t save a bad work (good intentions can’t save bad science in the anti-evolution movement either) but a message does not automatically make a work bad.

Without a sense of being “anti” the prevailing culture to some degree, Christians end up losing their distinctiveness and their originality. They are continually in the role of being apologists to the church for the latest thing the culture is doing or thinking, rather than ones who push the edge of the culture themselves.

For subversives to succeed, they usually need to be better qualified than others. Sometimes they also need to keep some of their views to themselves for a while. But if they are good enough, they can get away with being open about their views, because they are persuasive and do good work. Those who cannot be that good probably should not be in the role of infiltrator. Those who are less qualified but go into the top circles of competition will just end up as followers of the crowd, or worse, confirming bad stereotypes. Not every Christian is called to go into high-profile jobs in academia, the media, etc.

The different subversive groups listed above did not and do not all have good goals; we would say many led to evils in the world, even if they did not or do not see it that way. But their evil goals do not make the concept of being subversive intrinsically evil. As Christians, we believe that the world is not what it should be, and that there is a higher standard to which it should and can conform. That is something we hold in common with all these subversive groups. But our goal is not just for societal change. We believe not just in redeeming “cultures” but in saving real people. Of all people, we should be thinking strategically about how to get others to see the need for something different, not just succeed at more of the same culture.

5) Awareness, with skepticism.

Finally, just a few words on what Christian endeavors in secular occupations might look like. Some people might take this essay as a call for a return to fundamentalism, which might look either like a) working just to make money to spend on evangelism and missions, or b) putting a Christian message into every part of our work. There is nothing wrong with either of those, necessarily. Work for money is completely honorable, even if our heart is not in it—only those who have grown up in the western world in the last fifty years have had the option, and feel the need, to find work that exactly suits their gifts. Also, putting explicit messages into our work might or not be good—who can criticize Handel’s Messiah, or Pilgrim’s Progress? But I am not advocating either of these options in general.

I have already mentioned some aspects of doing work in a secular area. First, pick a place to do it that puts you near non-Christians. Second, pick a place to do it where you can be part of a healthy Christian community. Third, do it in such a way that does not require you to compromise or hide your Christian belief. Be a Christian. Fourth, think strategically about how your work can help people, can advance the work of the church, and can subvert anti-Christian world views.

It also follows, in my perspective, to be well aware of what is going on in the world, whether in science or art or other fields, but to also be skeptical of every aspect, to not take anything for granted. Don’t try to be just like the world, at any level. Be well aware of what is out there, and use some, none, or all, as you see fit, if it is good and noble and true. Know that non-Christians do have many gifts, but also know that world view affects not just what we say about our work, but also can affect what we actually do, at every level. To question, to reject, something the world loves is not to be a fundamentalist. If we live in fear of being called a fundamentalist, or of being called a right-winger, we are still marching to the tune of someone else.

We should also be skeptical of what other Christians tell us. Just because art has a Christian label doesn’t mean it is good art, and just because science is done in the name of creationism (or theistic evolution) doesn’t mean it is good science.

One of the main things that people will say who have made it to the top of any field, is that there are no shortcuts. Good work requires years of training and dedication. Innovation may only come at the end of a long process of learning, if then. Christians should have the patience and dedication to be willing to not take shortcuts. But during that long process, we need to not just imbibe everything, but to ask at every stage what is true and good and noble, and what ought to be rejected. We cannot wait until the very end before we think critically, and we cannot think that just by getting to the top we will somehow automatically be building the kingdom of God.

Having laid out the general tenets of the Kuyperian vision and its contrast to the Puritan vision, I now want to cast a critical eye on it. We have now had over 100 years of Kuyperian theory and practice. How is it doing? How has it worked out? I will break this into two parts, theory and practice.

Theoretical criticisms

My first criticism is the Kuyperian notion of the kingdom of God. Biblically, the kingdom of God is God’s people. God will save his people and take them to heaven. He will not lead truths and beauties to heaven. It is correct to say that all things true and beautiful glorify God, and God gives gifts to all people, Christian and non-Christian, to find truth and make beautiful things, but one just cannot miss in the Bible the strong theme that all the things of this world will “burn up,” that this world is “passing away” and is “vanity,” that we should set our minds on the “things above,” that we are “strangers and foreigners in this world,” etc., etc. The Kuyperian has to do backflips to downplay this strong theme in Scripture. Paul and the Apostles were filled with burning desire to see people come to faith. Jesus spent his time working with people, not painting and doing science.  The Old Testament focuses on the building of a community of people, namely, the nation of Israel.

Fundamentalists, and the Puritans before them to some degree, have typically reacted the other way, in seeming to deny the validity of any work for the sake of truth and beauty, or pleasure and fun. Kuyperians and evangelicals are correct in saying that there is a place for finding “satisfaction in one’s work” (Ecclesiastes 2:24) and doing “whatever your hand finds to do, with all your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10, Colossians 3:23).  The error of the fundamentalists is to fail to realize that there are many aspects of what it means to be fully human, which include curiosity (science), art, building, relaxation and fun. To deny these things any validity is to make us feel less human, and this has historically been a problem for fundamentalists who lose their children who see real value in such things.

But the Kuyperian error is to see such things as ends in and of themselves. In Kuyper’s definition of the kingdom of God, a person is building the kingdom of God by being a good scientist, even if he never speaks to another person about his faith or adds a person to the community of the church. The Bible simply never talks this way. Such things are good, but are “vanity.” To focus on such things to exclusion is to empty.  The whole message of the book of Ecclesiastes is that such things, pursued as ends in themselves, fail to satisfy. Only God himself satisfies. Ecclesiastes says that such things are good, and we should do them and rejoice, but they are nothing by themselves. This is not just the message of Ecclesiastes; there is a whole “vanity theme” running through the Bible. We are fundamentally a people made for heaven, and a people who want to bring others to heaven, and all heaven rejoices, not when a person makes a good Ming vase, but when one sinner repents and is fit for heaven.

I recently read a very Kuyperian book that tried to argue from the Bible that our cultural artifacts will actually accompany us to heaven (D.B. Hegeman, Plowing in Hope; C. Wright also appears to embrace the same view: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/columns/bookoftheweek/itainttheshack.html). In my opinion, the argument is contorted. Ecclesiastes says they won’t even be remembered after a few years in this world!

My second theoretical criticism is of the general Kuyperian acceptance of all that lies below the line in the above tables. Kuyper himself seems to have been quite enamored with the successes of science and did not question the validity of many of the claims being made [note-- J. Hommes notes that Kuyper did oppose evolution; see his essay]. My own experience in science, by contrast, tells me that people make mistakes at all three levels, not just at the top level. Sometimes these are honest mistakes, and sometimes they are errors due to pushing our world view at all costs onto the data and theories.  I believe that a Christian ought to be skeptical and critical of every truth claim made by the world, and made by other Christians. We ought not to adopt anything wholesale from the world without careful examination of every facet.

One obvious example is evolution. Most Kuyperians I have met are theistic evolutionists and hate the intelligent design movement. To them, rejecting any the data of evolutionists or their theories is to make the mistake of thinking that we cannot bring in God at the highest level.  But my own experience is that non-Christian world view influences not just the high levels, but everything all the way down, from data collection to theory making to broad categories of language. In general, my experience is not that strong Kuyperians cravenly capitulate to the world. Rather, my experience is that they simply do not question much of what the world teaches, because they have a very high view of the giftedness of secular scientists (common grace) and a predisposition to accept their views.

But there are other examples. One is evangelical Christian music, known as CCM (“contemporary Christian music”). Many modern Kuyperians shudder at the previous generation’s CCM, because it fails the “excellence” test and is derivative. But the people who started CCM went in with a fully Kuyperian model: learn the techniques and styles of the world, and do just as good or better. They simply “Christianized” it at the top level, with Christian words. Fundamentally, this is the same approach as a theistic evolutionist who adopts the entire materialist evolution story without question, not questioning whether all of the details are really proven, but then puts on top of it with a Christian story line. Both accept the lower levels (data/technique, style/theories) but then add words giving glory to God. The Kuyperian theistic evolutionist will say “but evolution is true!” and the 80’s CCM lover will say “but Barry Manilow’s style is good!” but to outsiders both seem to be taking something wholesale and adding a Christian veneer. They might ask, “Don’t you see anything in it that might be questioned?”

More recently, the younger generation of Kuyperian evangelicals has gone one step further, to remove the Christianness of the lyrics also, while still keeping a Christian identity (U2 being the best and earliest example of this.) They see this as a way of being more excellent in their craft by not being constrained to only one type of lyric. Along the same lines there are Christian metal bands with mosh pits. Some of this music is indeed well done. But it is no less derivative; in fact, it is quite a bit more sucking-up to the world; more imitation, not less. The analogy in evolutionist terms would be a scientist who says we should simply do Darwinian evolution, and dispense with the God-talk altogether, instead of having conferences and books on how God is glorified by evolution.

In the same way, many in the present generation of evangelicals is embarrassed about the politics of the older generation, the so-called Christian Right. Yet the Christian Right was begun largely by Kuyperians influenced strongly by Francis Schaeffer.  I personally met Paul Weyrich, the founder of the Moral Majority, a few years back, and he was quite conversant with Schaeffer’s and Guiness’s version of Kuyperianism, and Francis Schaffer met and encouraged Jerry Falwell to start his movement (see Schaeffer’s The Christian Manifesto). The approach was the same as the above: adopt the techniques and styles of secular politics and use it for Christian ends. Many in the younger generation now want to go one step further by rejecting distinctively Christian goals, and adopt only goals which the world applauds, such as feeding the hungry and helping the environment. More imitation, not less.

It might be that aspects of the evolutionary story are true, and it might be that some Christian emo music is excellent, and it might be that Christian lobby groups are productive on some issues. But I think we ought to question each effort at every level, not only at the top level. We ought to march to beat of our own drummer.

Practical criticisms

Now let me turn to how Kuyperianism has worked out in practice. Much of this cannot be laid at the feet of Kuyper himself, who might shudder what what some of his followers have done. But let’s look at specific ways in which Kuyperianism has worked out.

1) It has led to a focus on worldly success at the cost of Christian witness. 

The pursuit of excellence has thousands of young Dutch-descent Christian students pursuing Ph.D.’s or business success. In the broader evangelical world, Christians want to be the next Christian supermodel (a jarring Kuyperian vision: Carrie Prejean of California walking in a thong bikini in a beauty contest, talking of her Christian world view), the next Christian rock star, the next Christian sports star, etc.

To get that kind of success, you simply must play by the world’s rules. You cannot be Eric Liddell and refuse to play sports on Sunday. You cannot refuse to wear a thong bikini. You cannot be an actor who refuses to say the f-word. You cannot be a biologist who questions any aspect of evolution. You cannot say the emperor has no clothes in the modern art world when a man sells canned excrement and calls it art. You can’t openly question the morality of homosexual acts or abortion.

Now, it may be that you are convinced the Fourth Commandment is not for today, and you may be convinced that there is nothing wrong with showing your body nearly nude, and you may be convinced that saying the f-word is authentic representation, and you may be convinced life originated through random processes.  But what I have seen is many people who aren’t really thinking these things through at all.  Having been in evangelical circles for three decades, I have heard the phrase “You can be a Christian and still ___” over and over. There is a mindset in evangelicalism that doesn’t think carefully about issues and ethics, but takes for granted that what is celebrated by the world must be good.  Any opposition is regarded as “legalistic.” There is, in fact, a celebration of how much freedom we have as evangelicals to do this or that thing which would have shocked an earlier generation.

Part of that is healthy. We should not blindly accept traditions of conservative Christians any more than we should blindly accept the world’s values. We do not want to be reactionary against everything new that the world presents, whether a scientific theory, a new music form, or a new type of communication technology. But what I see as an intrinsic problem in the Kuyperian vision is the general concept of accepting all the tools of the trade, and only at the end blessing the whole structure with Christian presuppositions and language.

I am not saying that no one should go into high-profile fields. Far from it: I would like to see even more there. But I reject the idea that just by being there, and being successful, you are building the kingdom of God. In general, the reaction of the world to Christian superstars is mild bemusement,  to accept the excellence of the person’s work, but not to ponder too much about their Christian beliefs.  It may be that Christians in these roles are, in fact, bringing others to faith. But if they are, it is because they are able to form good relationships at a personal level, and they have integrity in their work that is consistent with their message. The fact of their being a model, or scientist, or sports star, is not itself what brings people to the Christian world view. For many people, the blood, sweat, tears, and compromises necessary to get to that fifteen minutes of fame is not worth the fleeting impact of that fame. Their relationships actually suffer, they never tell anyone of their faith, and they do work they aren’t proud of, just to stay in the game.

Since first writing this essay, several people have written to me to say that modern fame-seeking evangelicals are not true followers of Kuyper. Clearly there are many different influences on the evangelical world. But I remember clearly in the 1970’s people like Os Guiness giving talks at major Christian conventions on Kuyper, telling us to see it as our calling to have success in every secular field. In general, there was a strong spirit that we don’t want to be like the fundamentalists and isolate ourselves in a “city on a hill”(Guiness’s term) and generally be outcasts; rather, we need to go out and do all the good things that the world does.  In intellectual circles this spirit jumped onto the vision of Kuyper.

2) It has led to playing catchup and derivative work rather than distinctively original Christian work. 

As mentioned above, today’s generation is embarrassed of yesterday’s CCM and right wing politics, even though these came out of a similar Kuyperian mindset, with less sophistication. It is a general rule: the more you play by the rules of one generation, the more dated you will appear to the next.  In my mind, anything that starts out with “You can be a Christian and still ___” is intrinsically derivative. (Don’t you think that the next generation will mock tattoos, the way ours mocks the styles of the 70’s and 80’s?)

What Christian music has had a lasting impact and is presently respected in the world? Folk Gospel music from the mid-American prairies, black Gospel, classical church organ music, and Scotch-Irish mountain music. All done by people who had no concept of Kuyperian success. They were simply doing what they liked. CCM, by contrast, is self-consciously adopting the best styles of the culture, and will mostly disappear. “Adopting the best styles of the culture” is code language for “derivative,” in art.

Before there was CCM, there was independent-label Christian music, in the 70’s and 80’s. If you listen to the best of these artists, such as Keith Green, Second Chapter of Acts, and Rich Mullins, they can’t be categorized. They had wildly confrontational words that couldn’t get played on Christian radio today, and they were artistically creative, not formulaic. It is not exactly rock, it is not exactly Gospel, it is just joyful and well done. In each case they were not even trying to get major label fame.

The same criticism comes to mind when I see Christians writing articles celebrating how junk DNA is part of God’s plan for evolution, and we should not reject the idea of junk left over from evolution, right around the time when the world is moving on to a view that everything in the human body actually is fine tuned for a purpose, and all that junk DNA is actually not junk, after all. It would be one thing if we just didn’t have enough brilliant Christian scientists who could really question the existing paradigms. But we do have lots of brilliant Christian scientists. However, the larger part of them disdain the idea of questioning paradigms, as misguided “fundamentalism.” In other words, Kuyperian Christians are actually less likely to question paradigms than non-Christians, because they are concerned about being labeled as a fundamentalist, while the talented non-Christian has no such fears.

Andy Crouch has written about the different stages of Christian interaction with the secular world, from rejection/conflict, to criticism but lack of participation, to wholehearted embracement. This latter stage is no better or more original than the earlier stages. What we need is creativity of our own, on our own terms. To do that, we need to question not only the world view at the top level, but every element of what the world presents us.

3) It has led to less evangelism and less conversion.

While many justly criticize the fundamentalist churches for various errors, let us not forget some of their accomplishments. They sent out armies of missionaries around the world and brought large parts of Africa and Asia to faith in Christ. It was not Kuyperians, by and large, who were leading that charge. (A case can even be made that Japan was adversely affected by Kuyperians who brought teaching of evolution to the first university in Japan, in the 1800’s, though J. Hommes argues that their influence in bringing evolution to Japan was minimal.) Millions of people in the US and around the world were affected by evangelists like Billy Graham operating fully within an evangelism-first mentality.  On the other hand, when the evangelical church in the 1980’s turned to an agenda of transforming the culture first and foremost, through politics, science, music, etc., they did not transform the culture (though it could be argued that a worse slide was held back) and fewer people came into the church. There is no question that evangelicals have done much less evangelism than previous generations, and most church growth has come from shuffling Christians from one church to another. Instead, we are told that watching TV, surfing the internet, and entertaining ourselves all the time is “getting in tune with the culture.” We are constantly preparing ourselves to talk the language of the non-Christian, and hardly ever actually talking to them.

4) It doesn’t take the blessing of persecution seriously.

The Bible is absolutely full of statements about being willing to be persecuted rather than compromise. That is not the language of modern Kuyperian evangelicals. They generalize those statements to apply to sickness, relational distress, or perhaps to persecuted Christians overseas. To actually be mocked for being a Christian is to be avoided.

At the most recent Jubilee conference in Pittsburgh, Gabe Lyons, a marketing expert, presented a plenary talk on focus group studies he had done on the Christian “brand.” One finding was that non-Christians felt that Christians were concerned too much about heaven. His recommendation: we should talk less about heaven, and more about the world. Another finding was that Christians were viewed as too confrontational about abortion and homosexuality. His recommendation: we should engage less in confrontation on moral issues and work more on popular issues like feeding the hungry and the environment. If we do these things, then our marketing image will improve, all men will speak well of us, and there will be revival. How far from Jesus’s words: “woe to you when all men speak well of you!”

We should not have a goal to get people to speak badly about us, a so-called “martyr complex.” But if we honestly think that the way of revival is to have all men speak well of us, we are seriously misguided.  Think of times in the past when Christians made a deep impact on society. They were confrontational (e.g., Luther, Knox, Wilberforce, M.L. King), and mocked by many people as idiots. Yet like the Pharisees, we honor these prophets of the past but reject them in our own generation. We seem to think that the only proper type of persecution is when the persecutors openly admit to being evil. But that never happens. Persecution happens when Christians lose the public relations war, when they have bad “brand identity,” and are seen as fools.  Our view of them only changes after the battle is over.

In the early 1800’s, Charles Simeon preached so strongly at Cambridge University in England that students threw tomatoes at him while he was in the pulpit. Yet he led a movement that sent out thousands of missionaries and brought revival to hundreds of parishes in the United Kingdom. God uses persecution very often. People need to see that there is a difference. When we play exactly by the world’s rules, we don’t come across as presenting anything different.

It is striking that the impact of Carrie Prejean, the thong-wearing Christian Miss California contestant, came not from her winning the beauty contest, but from her losing it, when she was pressed to the wall to affirm homosexual marriage, and she refused. It was her fundamentalist roots that came out and led her to be “anti.” Had she not been asked that question, or had she waffled on it, she would have been just another body in the daily parade of women’s bodies in the media.

Many evangelicals have never heard of Abraham Kuyper, but most have been influenced by him far more than they know.  Kuyper was a Dutch pastor and politician who lived in the last 1800’s up to the early 1900’s. He was initially an enthusiastic “modernist” and was trained in modernism at seminary. Modernism is the school of thought, sometimes also called classic liberalism, which says that science, reason and logic are the hope for the future of mankind, sufficient for solving all important problems, and the old notions of religion and traditional morality must be discarded as things of the past. Kuyper, as a modernist, encountered robust, living Christian orthodoxy in his first experience as a rural pastor in Holland, and was eventually converted.  He still loved science and the academic world (“science,” as he would have defined it, included not just the “hard sciences” but all the reasoned endeavors of the university). He eventually propounded a very definite vision for the interaction of the church and culture, which can be called the Kuyperian vision, though of course others contributed to this view before and after Kuyper. 

The Kuyperian Vision and the Puritan Vision

For more detail and history, see http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-kuyperian.html. Since first publishing this essay, I have learned of at least two different strands of Kuyperian thought which have significant differences. I am mainly going to present the strand presented by people like Os Guiness starting in the 1970’s, and presented to me in the Christian Reformed Church I attended for several years in the 1980’s. While some would say some aspects are a strong departure from Kuyper himself, there are main elements that I think do go back to Kuyper.

The main elements of the Kuyperian vision are the following:

1) Calvinism. The main element of Calvinism which becomes part of the Kuyperian vision is the notion of the “sovereignty of God.” This basically is taken to mean that God cares about every little thing in the world; there are not large parts of the world that are of no concern to him or beyond his control. In particular, the devil is not in control and the world does not belong to him, even though evil is real.

Classically, Calvinism includes the concepts of predestination of individual conversions. But in many Kuyperian circles, this is downplayed and being Calvinist is more strongly associated with the above notion of concern for the whole world.

2) From this notion a general definition of the “kingdom of God” is developed. The kingdom of God, in much classical Christian thought, is equated with God’s people, the totality of all God’s people wherever they are. Kuyper generalized this much further. In his view, the kingdom of God is wherever there is anything beautiful, true, or honorable that glorifies God.

This is a crucial point. It not only implies that non-Christians have true knowledge and that when they do good, they are building the kingdom of God, even if they don’t know it (Kuyper termed this “common grace”). That might not affect strategy that much; it would just be a redefinition. What does affect strategy is the further implication that Christians are building the kingdom of God any time they are doing good work, even if they are not bringing people into the kingdom of God, i.e., converting hearts and making disciples. This contrasts with many Christians’ notion that “ministry” is a higher calling than secular work.

3) Another key aspect of Kuyper’s vision is the concept of “world view” (“weltanschauung”). The Christian looks at everything in the world differently, through the lens of faith. This notion influenced later scholar Cornelius van Til (US born, of Dutch descent) in the early 1900’s to develop his view of “presuppositionalism.”  This outlook says that even given the same “facts,” we can draw very different conclusions because of our different outlooks on the world. Kuyper’s view can be summarized in relation to the following table in regard to science:

“philosophical world view” ————————–

“theories”

“data”

In the Kuyperian view, Christians and non-Christians can agree on the basic data and even on the general theories drawn from the data, but can draw radically different conclusions at the highest level of world view. The Kuyperian sees evangelism as primarily at this level: not challenging the facts and theories of modern science, but challenging the overarching conclusions which are claimed to follow from them. So, for example, a Kuyperian would not typically challenge the facts of genetics and archaeology, nor the theory of Darwinian evolution, but would strenuously object that atheism follows from either the scientific facts or the theory of evolution.

The same pyramid can be generalized to include art:

“philosophical world view” ————————–

“style”

“technique”

A Kuyperian artist would say that a Christian can learn technique from non-Christians (e.g. how to play an instrument, or how to make a film), and also adopt non-Christian styles (e.g. rock, jazz, rap, horror films, romance novels) without accepting that these demand adherence to a non-Christian world view. Similar hierarchies can be made for other cultural endeavors such as law, politics, business, engineering, etc.

4) A last element can be called “excellence.” The Christian honors God by doing the best possible work in whatever field of work he or she has chosen. God is not honored by shoddy work. An implication of this is that Christians do well if they become experts according to all the standards of the secular world. This typically means buying into all the world offers in the two “lower” categories in my above tables, while remaining committed to a Christian world view at the higher level.

Although many do not know the name of Kuyper, his influence is everywhere. For example, the Jubilee conference in Pittsburgh, which is one of the largest evangelical youth conferences in the nation, is thoroughly and openly Kuyperian. Francis Schaeffer, who had huge impact in evangelical circles, had tremendous influence from Kuyper, as well as his friend Os Guiness. One could call, in some sense, the whole evangelical movement a Kuyperian movement, as a movement which started in the 1960’s as a definite counter-movement to fundamentalism.

The dominant contrast to the Kuyperian vision can be called the “city on a hill” vision; it is often called the “fundamentalist” view, though many have held this view who would not identify themselves as fundamentalists. It can be traced to the Puritans, among others, so I will call it the Puritan vision, as the word “fundamentalist” calls to mind a number of other associated foibles. Some key elements:

1) Christians need to keep a distinctive identity, different from the “world” which consists of all non-Christians. As such, they will form an attractive community which others will want to join (the “city on a hill”).

2) If the practices of the “world” impinge on the Christian community too much, Christians must find a way to withdraw in order to maintain their purity and distinctiveness. (“Come out from them and be separate, lest you take part in her sins,” Revelation 18:4, was an early rallying cry.)

3) The primary goal of the church is saving souls, bringing people into the kingdom of God and giving them the hope of heaven.

4) Acceptance by the world as experts or otherwise is not important, and in fact, lack of acceptance or persecution is to be expected; in general, a sense of being “anti” the dominant culture, and “subversive” to it, prevails.

These two positions are not completely mutually exclusive, and there are many possible middle positions that take elements from each. I am going to argue in the next post that we should take elements of each, but for most evangelicals, this means going back more toward the Puritan/fundamentalist vision than most people embrace right now.

I have heard various things from various people. One line is to say that people are reacting against the over-emotionalism of other churches. Raising hands seems “fake” to them.

Ok, sure, there are churches that go overboard. But should we reject biblical practices just because others use them in the context of other things we don’t like? Raising hands is entirely scriptural: see Psalms 63:4, 119:48, 134:2, 141:2, 143:6, Lamentations 2:19, 3:41, Isaiah 1:15, and 1 Tim 2:8. The general symbolism is one of humility and prayer, of being “empty handed” before the Lord and “beseeching” him. It is an “open” body position that makes us feel vulnerable.

We also stand in worship, and bow our heads when we pray. If other churches also do those things in an overly pretentious manner, should we avoid them? Should we not sing, because other churches go overboard with singing?

In fact, I think some people do hold back from singing, for maybe the same reason that others don’t ever lift up their hands. It is not so much from not wanting to be fake, but from feeling “that is not me.” And I think that is really more what is going on with people not raising hands. We have a very “western, academic” culture in our church. It doesn’t feel “natural” to us. In other churches around the world, we would nearly be mocked as the “frozen chosen.” (It is hard to imagine us ever becoming a truly multicultural church if people from other cultures coming to our church feel they are standing with a bunch of static fenceposts!)

I don’t want to force anyone to do something they aren’t comfortable with. But I do want to encourage people to stretch themselves a little. We were given bodies and we are told to worship God with our full selves– mind, body, and spirit.  Using our bodies just a little, to stand, and raise our hands, can help us feel more like our whole person is worshipping God.

This brings me to another line of objection I have heard. Isn’t there a slippery slope? If we say we should use our bodies in worship, where do we draw the line? Should we run around, bark like dogs, etc?

A great presbyterian principle is “decently and in order”. We encourage people to do things together in worship, in unity as the leadership directs, not randomly and in response to whatever feeling we have.

A good principle is this: we should use our bodies, but our minds should direct them, not be led by them. Some churches seem to interpret any feeling from their bodies as “the leading of the spirit” and end up nearly running amock.  We need to decide what is honoring to God with our minds, and then do it, whether it feels “natural” or not. That is a key point: to refrain from lifting hands because it doesn’t “feel” natural, is to be controlled by your body and not your mind, no different from the person who acts on every impulse to jump and shout.

A better reason not not lift your hands would be if you decided that it really isn’t what God wants you to do. But I hope you will look at the Scriptures above, and consider that this fairly worldwide and historical practice is indeed a way to honor God , even if it stretches you out of your western academic mold a bit.

Options For Moving:
We looked into purchasing a space, but it was impossible to finding something in Oakland that we could afford in the current economy. We looked at various spaces, many of which would have greatly increased our budget. For us the Pete is a great option because it lets us stay in Oakland and the price that we have negotiated is well within our means.

Where We Are As A Church:

Organization
A little over a year ago, City Reformed was still a church plant working under the supervision of First Reformed Church of Penn Hills. We are now an organized, self-supporting and self-governing church. We have an Elder Board (charged with praying, planning, and shepherding the church). We have deacons (who are working to serve the needs in and around our church), and we have a Woman’s Council (responsible for serving and connecting women to Christ and each other).
Growth
In the three years I have been at City Reformed, we have doubled in size and complexity. We are now averaging over 200 attendees each Sunday. To put that figure in perspective–we have grown by an average of 40% per year for the last two years. The reason this is exciting is that we love people and we hope to see as many people as possible find a place to connect and to grow with us. While some people might say that growth doesn’t matter, Jesus seems to disagree. His paradigm is that when he gives us something he hopes and expects that we will care for it, and seek to make it grow. We need to remember that as trees grow their branches multiple and their fruit increases, but their roots grow deeper as well. One sign that we are continuing to become more deeply rooted is that we have now seven community groups meeting throughout the city and at least as many smaller discipleship groups.

Challenges
We face many challenges as we grow and as we move to the Petersen Event Center. We know that we have many logistical obstacles such as parking, communion, and nursery-care that need to be ironed out. We know that there are many people that might now attend City Reformed each week, and we want to make sure they know about the move. We understand that there are many things that will be up in the air and will need to be settled after we are in the Pete. We would ask you to remember that we all need to pray and that no one in our church is even close to perfect.

What Can You Do To Help?

* Volunteer. We will need more people to greet and setup, particularly in the first few weeks at the Pete.
* Pray. Lots of things have to happen in the next few weeks, and we know that God hears and responds to our prayers.

Our hope isn’t just that we would survive the move to the Pete, but that we would use the new opportunities that we have been given to worship God, love People and point them to Jesus.
Update: We will hold our first service at the Petersen Event Center on June 14th at 11am.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s, many churches embraced the “social Gospel”, which essentially said that the main work of the church is to improve society and oppose oppression; to do less is not to love as Christ loves. Conservative churches at the time rejected that, but then in the 1980’s and 1990’s, many conservative churches moved into a similar approach of “redeeming the culture” through politics (e.g., D. James Kennedy of our denomination). In both cases, churches became major organizing points for political missions.

Reformed author Michael Horton and others have spoken out strongly against the politicization of the church. They argue that by becoming political, the church loses its focus on the Gospel as the paramount need of our society, and the primary calling of the church.

Here is where I see the danger. Mailing lists and communication networks are the life blood of any political effort. Churches have a lot of people, and it is very tempting to view the mailing list of the church membership and the weekly meeting of all these people as an easy way to get a lot of people involved in a cause. I think we need to hold the line against this temptation, for two reasons.

One reason is that, as Horton says, the church’s mission, its defining purpose, is the worship of God and the proclamation of the Gospel. This includes the proclamation of what is right and wrong in God’s eyes, but correcting the injustices of society is not the mission of the church as an organization. 

The second reason is that pastors and leaders of a church have no particular claim to expertise on political strategy. Even in cases where we can agree we should have clear teaching that certain things are unjust and evil, we cannot claim to have any better knowledge than the next guy what the best way is to change them, any more than the church as a church can proclaim knowledge about what is the best science or art.

Does that mean that Christians should not be involved in politics? Not at all. What it means is that Christians should be involved in organizations external to the church, with their own mailing lists and meetings. Christians should feel free to talk to others about their goals and to recruit others. But at City Reformed we will never turn over our mailing list to a political organization, or use worship time to promote a political cause. We will allow non-profits to put literature out on our information table, however, subject to approval by the leadership of the church.

I see a parallel with ministry for physical needs. Many churches add numerous “mercy ministries” to their church organizations. Yet, again, pastors and elders have no claim to special expertise in running social programs, and turning the church into something like a social services agency distracts it from its highest mission. Yet I hope to see many Christians in our church being active in non-profits, and even creating new ones such as the thrift store being proposed in Lawrenceville.

Both political non-profits and physical-needs non-profits have an important role in our society, and Christians should be involved in our society in both ways, and feel free to recruit others to help, including those outside the church. We do these things as Christians– we do not discard our “Christian hat” when we participate in them– but it is important to not turn the church into an empire of social and political activity. The church’s highest calling is the worship of God and the proclamation of the Gospel, and seeing that worked out in people’s lives, and those who agree on that can come together even where they differ on political and social-needs strategy.

I want to respond to some comments made by the keynote speaker for the night, Gabe Lyons, who is apparently making a name for himself as someone who is applying marketing research and strategy to the church. Overall, I could relate to where he was coming from, and appreciated his zeal for the kingdom, but I see some dangers in how it was expressed.

Gabe’s main point was that he had done marketing research and found that evangelical Christians have a very bad reputation in the world, and while some of it may be unfair, much of the criticism is fair, and we should change some of our ways to be more Christlike.

I generally agree. However, at one point he talked of how we need to not focus on heaven, but on the building of the kingdom in this world. This was followed up after his talk by a fellow giving a book plug, saying that this is a theme of the Jubilee conference, summed up by the book titled “Heaven is not my Home”, by Marshall and Gilbert. I understand the desire of Lyons as well as Marshall and Gilbert to emphasize the cultural mandate, which I certainly believe in, as a physicist, and I have heard the cultural mandate stressed since my undergraduate days. As Christians, we have a high calling to make this world better. But in recent years I have become firmly convinced that to truly fulfill the cultural mandate, we need to focus more on heaven, not less.

Think of how much Scripture focuses on our hope of heaven:

Matt. 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Matt. 6:19-20 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

1Cor. 15:19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

1John 2:15-17 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

And how can the statement “heaven is not my home” be reconciled with statements like these:

Phil. 3:19-21 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body.

Heb. 11:13-14 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.

Can anyone honestly say that it is a valid summary of the above theme of the Bible to say “heaven is not my home”?

My impression is that Gabe was reacting against a presentation of the Gospel which could be called “fire-escape” Gospel– a get-out-of-hell-free card, now you get to go to heaven, and then nothing further said about God’s call in this life. But where I see the error is that the get-out-of-hell-free approach does not actually focus on heaven. It says, quickly, you get to go to heaven, so don’t worry about it, and get on with your life. It does not dwell at all on the glories of being with God, on the way an eternal perspective changes everything in our lives now, on the fading value of storing up riches, etc. If you read the great classics of those who really changed the world, they all had a very heavenly perspective. By contrast, I have been hearing about the how we should not be too heavenly-minded, but rather focus on culture, from evangelicals for 30 years now, and it seems to have dulled their impact, not increased it. As Andy Crouch says in his book Culture Making, evangelicals have gone from retreating from culture, to critiquing it, to simply consuming it. Where I see historically revival happening is when people became intensely concerned about the state of their eternal souls. From time to time I am absolutely awestruck by what it means, to be with God forever, and that changes my whole outlook.

But even at a pragmatic level, I think that a real sense of hope of heaven is of greater benefit to the cultural mandate than a lack of it. Those with a firm sense of the realness of heaven have no fear or frustration. Like the heroes of Hebrews 11, and like the Apostle Paul, they can attempt dangerous things. By contrast, those who are fixated on this world will fear they will lose what they have in this world. When I think of those students from Jubilee going out to change the world, what will they do when they face real opposition, maybe even persecution, for the first time? Will a this-worldly focus carry them through in the face of opposition? Will they be willing to be sawed in two, to live in obscurity on the missions field for decades, or even to change poopy diapers for years as a parent, without a firm hope of heaven? The fact is that much of what we do seems to have no impact, and we do not see the kingdom visibly being built by our works, most of the time. If our hope is in what we do in this world, even good works in this world, then we are much to be pitied, because many times our story is the story of Job, who was righteous but his works were destroyed, or the story of the tired parent changing poopy diapers and feeling it is thankless and endless.

This brings me to a second critique of the Gabe’s talk. He came across to me as presenting a fairly naive view of the world. There was nothing said about what happens when powerful forces come against you in opposition. I’m sure he was simplifying, but it came across as, if we all just become more Christlike, then all men will speak well of us, and we will redeem the culture. For that matter, it came across that he was saying a goal should be to get all men to speak well of us. What about Christ’s saying “woe to you when all men speak well of you” or Paul saying “all who desire to live a godly life will be persecuted”?

Of course we do not have an aim to have all men speak badly of us, but if we are focused on God’s goals, it is unlikely that they will line up with worldly goals all the time. And when our cultural goals oppose powerful interests in this world, they can play hard ball to make us look bad. The idol-makers in Ephesus could whip up crowds against the Apostles. The indulgence-sellers could make Martin Luther look stupid. The slave owners could make Wilberforce look stupid. The industrialists could make William Jennings Bryan look stupid (and it was his opposition to their social Darwinism, not his opposition to biological Darwinism, that made him their enemy). And those who use sex to sell can make those who insist on a Christian sexual ethic look stupid. Notice how Rick Warren, who went to great lengths to be evenhanded in the last election and has been involved in all kinds of mercy ministry, was immediately branded as a gay-hating maniac when he came out for the traditional definition of marriage.

I see many in the church running away from being branded as the Christian Right, without asking whether the bad image is partly due to the opposition. I agree that much of the bad image is due to reality, i.e. superficiality in the church, etc., but I also know that Christians have been genuinely helping with solutions for decades, making crisis pregnancy centers, sheltering homeless, counseling centers for the sexually broken, etc., and it has not changed the image. I’m sure it would not be Gabe’s view, but I wonder if the take-home message for many of those at Jubilee was “don’t do controversial things, instead do things that everybody approves of, like helping the poor, so that we can have a better image for the church”.

I encourage people to read the story of Wilberforce. he played hardball politics and got a lot of people angry at him, out of a sense of eternal values of right and wrong. What I see in the evangelical world is people dropping out of the pro-life movement out of fear of a bad image, not realizing that in politics, if you take any position, the opposition will try make you look bad. The only way to have all men speak well of you is to take only non-controversial positions, which means you are not trying to change the culture at all.

Our hope is that this blog will help us more effectively communicate whats going on at our church. Leaders from City Reformed will use this blog as a space to communicate upcoming events, explain why we are doing things the way we are doing them, and keep people updated on general information about City Reformed.

You can subscribe to this blog, so that you get emails when there is a new post by filling out the form on the right or but clicking the “RSS” link on the right.