This last installment of a Carson summary finishes “Disputed Agendas & Frustrated Utopias.” After speaking of some more sweeping paradigms yesterday, Carson now moves to a less ambitious perspective.
Minimalist Expectations
This view recognizes culture as a storm that we cannot affect, but we help individuals who are being battered by the storm. There is some wisdom that culture cannot ultimately be redeemed until the new heavens and the new earth, but there is surely some temporal good we can do. For example, we can do more to abolish slavery than just rescue individual slaves – or cure diseases, not just individual sufferers. And, Christians can help create culture to make a better world that is passed on to the next generation for the common good.
Post-Christendom Perspectives
Carson gives initial praise to Craig Carter’s Rethinking Christ and Culture and it operates from a post-Christendom perspective. The dividing line for Carter regarding Christendom or post-Christendom is pacifism. The latter are the approved post-Christendom models. The strength of this model is that it discusses what Christians and the Christian community should do, but Carson ultimately has little use for it due to the arbitrary dividing line of pacifism (equating the Crusades with WWII, for instance, as both morally indefensible) and it is ultimately reductionistic.
Persecution
Finally, persecution is a painful reality in the world and, when it is extensive and exhaustive, the blood of martyrs is not the seed of the church. It can be stamped out when the persecution is particularly intense (e.g., Turkmenistan). Persecuted Christians don’t often see themselves as part of the culture, but “other.” However, while some flee for freedom, others stay to try to bring about change. Carson offers that options on how the church should engage in culture are not given to everyone and we must humbly learn from those who are in much more difficult circumstances than most of us find ourselves in.
As useful as all these paradigms and grids may be, culture changes within a generation or two and it must constantly be rebuilt and re-thought.
There is a tension between “This is My Father’s World” and “This World is Not My Home” (in Michael Horton’s words). Both are too reductionistic – as are most options. We need to keep the turning points of biblical theology and flex with regard to how we engage with culture rather than canonizing inflexible paradigms.
Carson’s final words serve as a good summary for his study: “…we will live in the tension of claiming every square inch for King Jesus, even while we know full well that the consummation is not yet, that we walk by faith and not by sight, and that the weapons with which we fight are not the weapons of the world (2 Corinthians 10:4)” (p. 228).
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Overall Conclusions, Part 1
Carson begins his final chapter with his summary of the previous five chapters, summarizing that there is not fixed paradigm that is universally transferable, but our discussions of church and state must take into consideration the key turning points in biblical theology (these have been written previously). Then Carson goes through some more recent paradigms that he calls “Disputed Agendas and Frustrated Utopias.”
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is culturally reactive – even winning some battles in the culture war. This is not a theocracy, but more of a 1950s America. He argues that fundamentalists should not argue that America was based on Christian principles. Rather, it is based on some Christian principles. We wouldn’t want to return to slavery, Carson contends. Hard to argue with that. While this paradigm has social ills that it is particularly passionate about, it neglects others.
Luther & His Heirs
This is the Two Kingdoms view, but Lutherans disagree on how this actually plays out. This view has its strengths, but it can also forget that Christ is Lord over all and that there can be a polarized view of knowledge – a distinction between human reason and divine revelation. Such a sharp distinction can result in letting the government do whatever they want – like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Beyond politics, to draw too sharp a distinction makes “reason” king and doesn’t allow God to speak into His world via special revelation.
Abraham Kuyper
Kuyper had unparalleled success in articulating a view of church and state and actually implementing it well. He argued that all truth is God’s truth and all of creation is God’s, but the consummation is not yet and so there a tension because the recognition that God is Lord of all is not realized, but Christians are called to speak Christ’s lordship into every area of life. He founded Christian unions and universities, not for the purpose of withdrawing, but to speak into the world. Carson thinks Kuyper shifted to a more liberal position once in power – emphasizing common grace over redeeming grace. Also, once he departed leadership there was a massive decline in Christian influence and the church had become full of the unregenerate members due to “presumptive regeneration.” Finally, this Kuyperian paradigm is helpful when you have the piety of a Kuyper, but it fails when it is not wed to personal piety.
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is culturally reactive – even winning some battles in the culture war. This is not a theocracy, but more of a 1950s America. He argues that fundamentalists should not argue that America was based on Christian principles. Rather, it is based on some Christian principles. We wouldn’t want to return to slavery, Carson contends. Hard to argue with that. While this paradigm has social ills that it is particularly passionate about, it neglects others.
Luther & His Heirs
This is the Two Kingdoms view, but Lutherans disagree on how this actually plays out. This view has its strengths, but it can also forget that Christ is Lord over all and that there can be a polarized view of knowledge – a distinction between human reason and divine revelation. Such a sharp distinction can result in letting the government do whatever they want – like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Beyond politics, to draw too sharp a distinction makes “reason” king and doesn’t allow God to speak into His world via special revelation.
Abraham Kuyper
Kuyper had unparalleled success in articulating a view of church and state and actually implementing it well. He argued that all truth is God’s truth and all of creation is God’s, but the consummation is not yet and so there a tension because the recognition that God is Lord of all is not realized, but Christians are called to speak Christ’s lordship into every area of life. He founded Christian unions and universities, not for the purpose of withdrawing, but to speak into the world. Carson thinks Kuyper shifted to a more liberal position once in power – emphasizing common grace over redeeming grace. Also, once he departed leadership there was a massive decline in Christian influence and the church had become full of the unregenerate members due to “presumptive regeneration.” Finally, this Kuyperian paradigm is helpful when you have the piety of a Kuyper, but it fails when it is not wed to personal piety.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Concluding Reflections
You may be wondering why this is appearing instead of Kenya updates. We hit the ground running in Kenya and haven't slowed down. Tonight is our last night in Kijabe. We'll spend the day as tourists in Nairobi tomorrow before heading to London on Tuesday morning. We'll be back home with the kids on Wednesday evening. Once we get home I'll start walking through our two week journey on the blog - with some pictures. But as we were flying to Kenya I finished my summary of the next section of Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited. Enjoy before a steady dose of Kenya.
The church/state relationship is difficult to explore because it is such a broad topic and terms are so flexible. It often ends up being a Christian/state discussion. From this perspective, the starting point is that Christ followers need to ground their identity in their “heavenly citizenship.” It ought to be our primary identity. At the same time, the Scriptures tell us to submit to our governing authorities unless doing so would entail disobedience to God.
Carson agrees most readers of his book would be from democracies as opposed to more oppressive situations that the early Christians found themselves in. It is hard for Christians in a democracy to have an us/them dichotomy that Paul or Luke had. But one way we submit to our government in democracies is to take seriously are part as participants, including doing good to the city. This can be done at several different levels from voting to holding positions of office.
One of the dangers in a democracy, with the goal of doing good to the city and building coalitions (I assume), is to put our values and priorities in secular categories. The effects may be good, but it may indicate a false secular veneer and people think we are fake, or we may be signaling that secular values take precedence and that secularists are correct – theirs is the only position that is “neutral.” This may be a place where the church is separated from the state, but Christians need to engage the public arena.
Carson discusses challenges of Christians living their faith in the state will raise. The issue of funding that might be pulled if religious organizations don’t secularize certain aspects of what they do – even if it serves common ends with state institutions. Even so, the Christian must continue to minister for the good of society. Sometimes it is helping AIDS patients, but at other times it may be lobbying for or against a political issue that the Christian feels is harmful to the society – a casino, for example. The Christian may abstain because of biblical conviction, but they seek to stop it because it has a harmful effect on the broader culture. This is a way of loving one’s neighbor – even if the neighbor doesn’t see it this way.
One of the distinctives of Christianity that comes to bear on how its political engagement will contrast with that of Islam, for instance, is that there is an internal transformation required to become a Christian. With Islam, you can exert your will and become a Muslim. That’s why Islam has a broader vision of a society governed by the Koran. But Carson notes, “In short, we have a high stake in preserving a place for ‘conversion’ that is intrinsically supernatural …, that demands what some traditions call ‘soul liberty,’ and that certainly extends beyond mere practice” (p. 202). Being a significant majority with a pressure to conform to faith doesn’t result in true conversion from a biblical perspective.
As Carson concludes this illuminating and brief section, he makes it clear that regardless of the challenges of navigating these Christian/state relationships, God has called us to do good to our neighbors and to love them in ways that may cross over into government responsibility. Even if we’re told to depart, God has called us to stand firm and do good.
Ultimately, however, Jesus is King of all, but the end has not yet come. So we wait by serving Him through serving and loving our neighbor.
The church/state relationship is difficult to explore because it is such a broad topic and terms are so flexible. It often ends up being a Christian/state discussion. From this perspective, the starting point is that Christ followers need to ground their identity in their “heavenly citizenship.” It ought to be our primary identity. At the same time, the Scriptures tell us to submit to our governing authorities unless doing so would entail disobedience to God.
Carson agrees most readers of his book would be from democracies as opposed to more oppressive situations that the early Christians found themselves in. It is hard for Christians in a democracy to have an us/them dichotomy that Paul or Luke had. But one way we submit to our government in democracies is to take seriously are part as participants, including doing good to the city. This can be done at several different levels from voting to holding positions of office.
One of the dangers in a democracy, with the goal of doing good to the city and building coalitions (I assume), is to put our values and priorities in secular categories. The effects may be good, but it may indicate a false secular veneer and people think we are fake, or we may be signaling that secular values take precedence and that secularists are correct – theirs is the only position that is “neutral.” This may be a place where the church is separated from the state, but Christians need to engage the public arena.
Carson discusses challenges of Christians living their faith in the state will raise. The issue of funding that might be pulled if religious organizations don’t secularize certain aspects of what they do – even if it serves common ends with state institutions. Even so, the Christian must continue to minister for the good of society. Sometimes it is helping AIDS patients, but at other times it may be lobbying for or against a political issue that the Christian feels is harmful to the society – a casino, for example. The Christian may abstain because of biblical conviction, but they seek to stop it because it has a harmful effect on the broader culture. This is a way of loving one’s neighbor – even if the neighbor doesn’t see it this way.
One of the distinctives of Christianity that comes to bear on how its political engagement will contrast with that of Islam, for instance, is that there is an internal transformation required to become a Christian. With Islam, you can exert your will and become a Muslim. That’s why Islam has a broader vision of a society governed by the Koran. But Carson notes, “In short, we have a high stake in preserving a place for ‘conversion’ that is intrinsically supernatural …, that demands what some traditions call ‘soul liberty,’ and that certainly extends beyond mere practice” (p. 202). Being a significant majority with a pressure to conform to faith doesn’t result in true conversion from a biblical perspective.
As Carson concludes this illuminating and brief section, he makes it clear that regardless of the challenges of navigating these Christian/state relationships, God has called us to do good to our neighbors and to love them in ways that may cross over into government responsibility. Even if we’re told to depart, God has called us to stand firm and do good.
Ultimately, however, Jesus is King of all, but the end has not yet come. So we wait by serving Him through serving and loving our neighbor.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Pray for us!
We leave for Kenya today. Please pray for our trip. I’ll try to update either here or on facebook. If you want to find me on facebook, my name is Justin McElderry, Hometown: Ravensdale, WA (always home, even if I live in Orange County, CA). Check in here or there for our Kenya updates.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Historical & Theological Reflections, Part 2
Yesterday we looked at an overly-broad international picture of church/state relations. Now we’ll do an overly-simplified scan of the American options currently put forth.
One (Dodaro), leaning on Augustine (many claim him, even as they disagree with one another), says there can be no justice apart from being Christ-centered. Therefore, a culture must be Christ-centered. Another (Markus) claims there are three spaces – sacred, profane, and secular. It is different from our secularism, however. Secular in his view consists of those things that meet needs and order society. The last Augustine claimant (Johnson) argues that Augustinians must move beyond tolerance, but not claim neutrality because it strips us of what we genuinely hold to. Instead, we tolerate (or better, love?) differences and await the Heavenly City for unity.
Another “mediating” position (Stout) shows how liberal secularists administrate the public arena while they are at the same time part of that arena. He argues for a “thick” tradition that allows for different views and communication. In the end, Carson doesn’t think, however, that he escapes the affirmation of liberal secularism, however.
Next are those who reject Constantinianism in its various forms. Some call for total abandonment of the wider culture (Amish) while others think Christians should engage and do good at all levels of culture, but not do it in such a way that it is a “distinctively Christian product or stance” (p. 179). Others think the church should be the church and it is against the church’s purpose to even have a philosophy of the state.
Others (Stassen & Gushee) try to bring disparate views together – and Carson thinks they do a pretty good job. For instance, they argue that just war adherents and pacifists should focus on their common ground of minimizing violence, not justifying making war – or discrediting it. Carson notes that many books like this one are eager to slam the US, but they ignore the abuses of organizations they laud, like the UN and their “spectacular ‘Oil for Food’ scandal” (p. 182).
The next view (O’Donovan) does not argue for a strong Constantinian model, but it recognizes that Christ is risen and triumphant and all governments are under His feet. Governments are “secondary witnesses to God’s own act of judgment” (p. 183). O’Donovan prefers minimal government, but he argues that the church helped during the Constantinian era to minimize government abuse.
Finally, while there is plenty of Christian left attacking the Christian right (and vice-versa), the most vociferous attack against Christianity and the erection of the wall of separation are the secular “far left,” according to Carson. Carson lists several and notes all Christians are lumped together – from Timothy McVeigh to Tim Keller (one author puts them in the same camp) and what they believe Christians think about the state would be laughable except for the fact that people read these books and believe them. Even the most politically active and engaged believers I know would find these views absurd and not representative of what they believe. Those who seek the “wall of separation” want religion to be purely private and some even think Christians should not be allowed to run for public office!
One (Dodaro), leaning on Augustine (many claim him, even as they disagree with one another), says there can be no justice apart from being Christ-centered. Therefore, a culture must be Christ-centered. Another (Markus) claims there are three spaces – sacred, profane, and secular. It is different from our secularism, however. Secular in his view consists of those things that meet needs and order society. The last Augustine claimant (Johnson) argues that Augustinians must move beyond tolerance, but not claim neutrality because it strips us of what we genuinely hold to. Instead, we tolerate (or better, love?) differences and await the Heavenly City for unity.
Another “mediating” position (Stout) shows how liberal secularists administrate the public arena while they are at the same time part of that arena. He argues for a “thick” tradition that allows for different views and communication. In the end, Carson doesn’t think, however, that he escapes the affirmation of liberal secularism, however.
Next are those who reject Constantinianism in its various forms. Some call for total abandonment of the wider culture (Amish) while others think Christians should engage and do good at all levels of culture, but not do it in such a way that it is a “distinctively Christian product or stance” (p. 179). Others think the church should be the church and it is against the church’s purpose to even have a philosophy of the state.
Others (Stassen & Gushee) try to bring disparate views together – and Carson thinks they do a pretty good job. For instance, they argue that just war adherents and pacifists should focus on their common ground of minimizing violence, not justifying making war – or discrediting it. Carson notes that many books like this one are eager to slam the US, but they ignore the abuses of organizations they laud, like the UN and their “spectacular ‘Oil for Food’ scandal” (p. 182).
The next view (O’Donovan) does not argue for a strong Constantinian model, but it recognizes that Christ is risen and triumphant and all governments are under His feet. Governments are “secondary witnesses to God’s own act of judgment” (p. 183). O’Donovan prefers minimal government, but he argues that the church helped during the Constantinian era to minimize government abuse.
Finally, while there is plenty of Christian left attacking the Christian right (and vice-versa), the most vociferous attack against Christianity and the erection of the wall of separation are the secular “far left,” according to Carson. Carson lists several and notes all Christians are lumped together – from Timothy McVeigh to Tim Keller (one author puts them in the same camp) and what they believe Christians think about the state would be laughable except for the fact that people read these books and believe them. Even the most politically active and engaged believers I know would find these views absurd and not representative of what they believe. Those who seek the “wall of separation” want religion to be purely private and some even think Christians should not be allowed to run for public office!
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Historical & Theological Reflections, Part 1
This next section, before Carson hits some conclusions deals with some key historical and theological issues surrounding the development of democracy, different ways Christians have balanced church and state issues, and the heritage of other religions, particularly Islam. We’re going to reorganize Carson a little for the purpose of post length. We’ll look at the Wall of Separation in general and then look at Western views of separation and then a little at Islam. The next post will be about the varied American views on the interplay between church and state.
The Wall of Separation
Carson argues that the American and French Revolution, while having some similarities and being close in timing, have a 180 degree view of religion. The American experiment separated church and state to protect the church from government encroachment and establishment on a national level. States were allowed, it seems, to establish churches based upon their preference. The French sought to eradicate the church from public life. It seems we have moved, culturally – at least in some opinions – to a more French approach. A key point in this turning is the “wall of separation” in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
Internationally, the interplay between church and state is different. England has a state church, but as the culture secularizes, disestablishment of the church is a growing possibility. On the other hand, former communist countries embrace the freedom to bring religion into the public sphere to teach morals in schools (e.g., Hungary).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, observing church/state relationships in America saw the tendency to merge democracy and Christian faith, which he thought a dangerous step. He held to a “two kingdoms” view of church and state. Separate spheres that have their own realms of rule. Frenchman Jacques Maritain loved the American notion of separation (freedom “for” religion) and pleaded that it not be turned into the French freedom “from” religion. Carson fears we have gone the way of the French – or we’re heading there quickly.
Finally, Carson looks to the Muslim world. While some thought religion would wane in the modern world, it has not – and Islam is one of the reasons. Essentially, the Muslim does not value “religious tolerance” in the sense we do. It is “functional atheism.” Carson gives a few basic points that serve as an introduction to his discussion. They will conclude this post on the varied (and obviously broad and overly-simplified) church/state relationships in the world.
The Wall of Separation
Carson argues that the American and French Revolution, while having some similarities and being close in timing, have a 180 degree view of religion. The American experiment separated church and state to protect the church from government encroachment and establishment on a national level. States were allowed, it seems, to establish churches based upon their preference. The French sought to eradicate the church from public life. It seems we have moved, culturally – at least in some opinions – to a more French approach. A key point in this turning is the “wall of separation” in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
Internationally, the interplay between church and state is different. England has a state church, but as the culture secularizes, disestablishment of the church is a growing possibility. On the other hand, former communist countries embrace the freedom to bring religion into the public sphere to teach morals in schools (e.g., Hungary).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, observing church/state relationships in America saw the tendency to merge democracy and Christian faith, which he thought a dangerous step. He held to a “two kingdoms” view of church and state. Separate spheres that have their own realms of rule. Frenchman Jacques Maritain loved the American notion of separation (freedom “for” religion) and pleaded that it not be turned into the French freedom “from” religion. Carson fears we have gone the way of the French – or we’re heading there quickly.
Finally, Carson looks to the Muslim world. While some thought religion would wane in the modern world, it has not – and Islam is one of the reasons. Essentially, the Muslim does not value “religious tolerance” in the sense we do. It is “functional atheism.” Carson gives a few basic points that serve as an introduction to his discussion. They will conclude this post on the varied (and obviously broad and overly-simplified) church/state relationships in the world.
…Islam has (a) no heritage of “Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” (b) a rather different view of the nation-state, which is clearly secondary to the ummah, the people of Islam, (c) nothing quite like a national church, still less a denomination, in some Western categories, makes much sense, (d) a sense of historical grievance stemming form the decline of its own influence during the past century and half or so, and (e) a rising sense of power stemming from the “successes” of its own radical elements, from the fiscal power it exerts because of rising oil revenues, and from its demographic advantages in Europe and elsewhere” (p. 191).It is hard to tell which direction Muslim religion/state relationships will go, but in many instances, it is hard to distinguish between the two. There is a strong level of Constantinianism built in, but time will tell how things develop.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Survey of Biblical Priorities, Part 2
Different Styles of Government, of Reign
If you read Matthew 20.20-28, you’ll see that there was a political expectation – even near the end – when it comes to Jesus’ reign. It’s a great passage. Be sure to read it. In it, Jesus rebukes the way of the world when it comes to authority. Instead of striving for prestige and praise, seek to serve and sacrifice for their sakes. This is the attitude Jesus had (Philippians 2.5-11).
Transforming Life … and Social Institutions
Christian belief may seem odd and even antisocial at times, but it can also be strangely attractive for some. At the same time, it can be subversive and transform social institutions. Philemon didn’t speak against slavery, but it planted the seeds that would eventually destroy the institution.
In the end, Jesus wins
Tension is inevitable because there is a contradiction between the world and the gospel. But that doesn’t mean, as the world would have us believe, that the gospel is a private truth. It is personal, but it is not private. It is public truth that will oftentimes lead to conflict, but we need to speak the truth, knowing that Jesus ultimately wins.
Summary of the Diversity of Biblical Themes
The church is a “transnational community” under a God who has placed human governmental authorities in place that they should obey – unless it conflicts with what God has called them to. And if it means conflict, the church can take comfort in the fact that God will win in the end.
These basic principles allow flexibility depending on the stance of the government. As change happens within believers, it is going to be beneficial to the state or cause the state to eventually persecute the church.
[Carson concludes by stating there are things Christians should do that are distinct from what the church should do. Someone commented on this in an earlier post and I’m a bit puzzled by how Carson breaks this down. I’ll have to look back because I’m not sure how he draws the distinctions so clearly. ]
If you read Matthew 20.20-28, you’ll see that there was a political expectation – even near the end – when it comes to Jesus’ reign. It’s a great passage. Be sure to read it. In it, Jesus rebukes the way of the world when it comes to authority. Instead of striving for prestige and praise, seek to serve and sacrifice for their sakes. This is the attitude Jesus had (Philippians 2.5-11).
Transforming Life … and Social Institutions
Christian belief may seem odd and even antisocial at times, but it can also be strangely attractive for some. At the same time, it can be subversive and transform social institutions. Philemon didn’t speak against slavery, but it planted the seeds that would eventually destroy the institution.
In the end, Jesus wins
Tension is inevitable because there is a contradiction between the world and the gospel. But that doesn’t mean, as the world would have us believe, that the gospel is a private truth. It is personal, but it is not private. It is public truth that will oftentimes lead to conflict, but we need to speak the truth, knowing that Jesus ultimately wins.
Summary of the Diversity of Biblical Themes
The church is a “transnational community” under a God who has placed human governmental authorities in place that they should obey – unless it conflicts with what God has called them to. And if it means conflict, the church can take comfort in the fact that God will win in the end.
These basic principles allow flexibility depending on the stance of the government. As change happens within believers, it is going to be beneficial to the state or cause the state to eventually persecute the church.
[Carson concludes by stating there are things Christians should do that are distinct from what the church should do. Someone commented on this in an earlier post and I’m a bit puzzled by how Carson breaks this down. I’ll have to look back because I’m not sure how he draws the distinctions so clearly. ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
