Is that sabre-rattling I’m hearing already? Do claymores rattle?
Now, very broadly speaking, and I mean broadly, I equate Calvinism per se with what is/was seen in Scotland from the time of its Reformation onwards. And I view Neo-Calvinism[1] with what is/was seen in the Netherlands and some other parts of Europe from the time of its Reformation, but more especially in the Netherlands in the late 1800s to the mid-1900s. The former (i.e., Scottish Calvinism) being culture destroying (e.g., in the arts, the Gaelic language, and from its lack of hymn-writers and great composers [probably on account of the promotion of - though truly beautiful as it is in its own right! - exclusive psalmody without musical accompaniment} etc., and the latter culture enhancing (Rembrandt et al, all the great hymnwriters and composers {including all the English and Welsh ones}, etc.)
 |
| The Return of the Prodigal Son, 1668 |
I hear it said that “politics is downstream from culture.”
Like Francis Schaeffer used to always do, I suppose we need to define our terms.
Romans 13 governs our definition of politics – in that it is basically about
promoting good and deterring evil in every area of society, from the individual,
the local, municipal through national. (I’ve lifted the following basic but
useful definition of culture from the Net): Culture = “the ideas, customs,
and social behaviour of a particular people or society.”
The Church in Scotland, in its politics, i.e., in its promotion
of good and deterring evil, for all the good it did in its past, also impacted Scottish
culture negatively – by hamstringing linguistic, artistic, musical development, etc. yes, by stifling culture rather than cultivating it (as per
Holland in the good old days).
So, the Church (i.e., Christians), with its salt and light
(Matt. 5:13-14), influences culture which, in turn, influences politics, which
influences how we all get to live our lives. However, like the mini tsunami of the Severn bore, in our own day we see an
inversion of this. The Church now seems to be downstream to politics and
culture and is being poisoned. (When we were kids we were taught not to drink
water from a burn/creek downstream if it had a dead sheep in it! Drinking upstream
from dead things is far better for health. But what went wrong with the Church
that she now imbibes from a poisoned chalice? How does the Church fix it? Do we
retreat, sit back and pray and let God fix it or is there something the Church
is supposed to be doing to fix it as well as praying?
 |
| Image from Web |
Australian Christianity seems essentially to be disengaged
from politics. As a Neo-Calvinist living Down Under, as I verbalise these
observations, I’ve even heard someone say to me that I sound just like those
American Evangelicals! Yet, the American Evangelicals are in the death-grip of culture-dodging-Earth-escaping
Dispensationalism – those with the “why polish brass on a sinking ship” type of
theology. Then, there are those who like-minded with the Dispensationalists, i.e.,
those Amillennialists, the ones that hold to the immanent return of Christ and
the “it’s all going to burn up anyway” type of theology. (Is anyone
hyperventilating yet? Try the paper bag solution!)
Bottom line to my extremely broad-brushed pontifications? I’ve
adopted a Covenant Theology approach that is both Postmillennial and Christian
Reconstructionistic.[2]
Let’s just call it Neo-Calvinism for short. To be sure, there will be those who
hold to different nuances in these areas, but basically all will hold to the famous
Kuyper quote:
"Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to
be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the
whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over
all, does not cry ‘Mine.’"[3]
As redeemed individuals, as the Church, i.e., as Christians,
we are to be about the business of redeeming the societies in which we live,
community by community, nation by nation. Hence, why I am Neo-Calvinist. In
other words, I have built my worldview upon a Three forms of Unity, Westminster
Standards type of theology, i.e., Covenant Theology – which is a theology that
holds to a TFU, WS view of Law and Gospel. This I implement with an optimistic “Christ,
not Satan, will progressively win the Earth before His return” type of an eschatology.
This means that the “Last Days” may go on for thousands of
years before Christ returns. Therefore, we Christians must plan and must work
towards the future, be it educating our children, building and architecture,
agriculture… yes, all that cultural stuff! Thus, (as it seems to me) Christianity,
like mustard seeds and yeast cultures grows in society and influences it best
by adopting and cultivating a Neo-Calvinist understanding and approach among
Christians (who dwell and participate in society) rather than stifle it as per ye
olde Scottish Calvinist approach. (Count to ten if your heart is starting to
race!)
Without meaning that we use a fawning winsomeness when
Gospelising, think of the old proverb that we get more flies with honey than vinegar:
Whereas, Neo-Calvinism = honey with its hoes, lawnmowers, ploughs, pruning
hooks etc. approach to culture, Scottish Calvinism = equals vinegar with its “tying
up the weans’s swings on Sundays” etc. approach. Whereas, a smile begets a
smile, a screwed-up face will stay like that if the wind changes! One
influences culture. The other stunts it.
Yes indeedy, I have used huge generalisations in my endeavour to provoke you to sample the food for thought I have given you, but’s it’s either a “Keep off Grass!” of ye olde Scottish Presbyterianism or a “Newly Planted Seedings. Please Keep off Grass” approach of the Neo-Calvinist. Which one do you think would help to better grow a God-honouring culture which in turn would influence Godlier politics?
“Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
 |
| Image from Web |
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,Neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isa. 2:2-4).
[1]
Neo-Calvinism is broadly associated with Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), theologian, journalist, and Prime Minister of the
Netherlands (1901-5). It is also called Kuyperian Calvinism or Kuyperianism.
[2] Of
the three, Covenant Theology, Postmillennialism, and Reconstructionism, perhaps
the most maligned and misunderstood is Reconstructionism. In simple terms, Covenant
Theology is the view that Scripture is not piecemeal but revelation and progressive
applications on Earth in historical time of the eternal covenant that the
members of the Triune Godhead made in eternity past. Postmillennialism is simply
the view that God’s Word reveals the optimistic view of the progressive success
of God’s Law and Gospel among the nations prior to Christ’s return. Reconstructionism
has to do with the Biblical view of the implementation of God’s Law and Gospel
in the lives of redeemed individuals and nations. Essentially the applications
of the summary of God’s Law are spelled out in detail in, e.g., the much-neglected
Westminster Larger Catechism Q&As 91-153. These can hardly be considered
controversial. See also the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards
for a greater understanding of the Gospel as per Covenant Theology.
[3] James
D Bratt, Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, (Eerdmans Publishing, 1998),
488.
No comments:
Post a Comment