The Role of the Church in Society
As I have continued to grow as a man and a Christian, I have found myself in one of the most profound intellectual and spiritual shifts in my life. This change has prompted my move from broad Evangelicalism to Reformed Presbyterianism within the church, and a shift from being a staunch Republican to a Libertarian politically. Maybe I’ll write more about this later. But for now I will summarize an ongoing discussion that has influenced my views greatly: the role of the church in society. There is an ongoing debate between a two-kingdom theology and a theology of transformation within the church right now, and it profoundly effects how Christians are to behave in a civil society. Let me explain:
Two Kingdoms vs. Transformationalism
The theology of two kingdoms is a historical position in the church espoused in the church by the likes of Martin Luther, and John Calvin to name a couple. Essentially two-kingdom theology espouses a sharp distinction between the Kingdom of God as expressed currently in the church, and the Kingdoms of men now expressed in the secular State. This view insists that God providentially rules over both, but he rules over both differently. He governs the church through his special saving grace, the proclamation of the Word, the faithful administration of the Sacraments (Communion and Baptism), and the excercise of biblically sanctioned church governance. The primary role of the church in this construct is to remain faithful to God’s rule by being faithful to the ordinances of Scripture. Conversely God rules over the secular realm and the Kingdoms of men providentially through his common grace. Admittedly the State is characterized by a perplexing duality wherein is capable of great evil in a fallen world (for which it will be held liable in the Final Judgement), but it also serves to restrain evil through the rule of law so that humans can live in peace in this world. Since we live in a fallen world the State’s rule is far from perfect, but God’s creational goodness is not absent from He as it administers its rule. In this age between the advent’s of Jesus, that is the way of things and we should expect no more.
Transormationalism asserts that the primary role of the church includes bringing about a broad sweeping change in society and ultimately usher in the rule of Christ. The Dutch statesman Abraham Kuyper (b. 1837 – d. 1920) was the progenitor of neo-Calvinism and the architect of a broad vision of the Christian life that encompassed life in the church as well as the State. He famously stated the Christ rules over “every square inch” of creation. Though confessional Calvinists, and Lutherans among others would not deny this, they do not follow Kuyper in what this means. Kuyperians and neo-Calvinists see far more continuity in how God rules in the church and the state than do their two kingdoms counterparts. Kuyper’s political views were strongly transformational. He saw a tightly knit relationship between church and State, as the church would be an agent for change for the good of society.
So What’s the Rub?
Simply stated the two kingdom model asserts that the churches role in society is to proclaim the gospel and call individuals to repentance and faith in Christ. Beyond this the church is to be concerned with its own affairs. Hence the church is not primarily concerned with the overall transformation of society. Certainly a secondary effect of gospel proclamation can be societal transformation, although it can have the opposite effect of the State becoming hostile to the church as its doctrines might be viewed as subversive to the rule of the State itself as is evidenced in the prolific persecution of Christians in certain regions of the world. Notwithstanding social transformation lies outside of the fundamental mission of the Church in the world.
Conversely, the transformational model that characterizes a majority of evangelicals, liberals, and Roman Catholics (among a few others) in the US, takes a concerted role on the transformation of the state. Admittedly some of the movements of social change that the church has been involved in have truly bettered America, arguably some have not. However one of the most devastating effects of this transformational approach is the disintegration of Christianity into a nominalism as the church has been reduced to a cultural phenomenon. This deterioration has eroded our confessional distinctions as many Christian segments are broadly known by their political affiliations and not by their distinctive beliefs.
A Vision of Civic Good
Can’t Christians view civic involvements in politics, business, education, the arts, etc. as good vocations in and of themselves, as products of God’s goodness in sustaining creation? God gives sunshine and rain to the righteous and wicked alike, all of us are beneficiaries of his common grace as he rules over creation. Must we externally impose the rule of Christ upon those who do not name Him as Lord? Do we assume that we who are simultaneously sinners and saints even have the capacity to rule on Christ’s behalf in the absence of his physical presence? I propose that cultural transformation is a distinctly human enterprise, encompassing the diverse body of humanity who are bound to so many different expressions of faith and practice. I believe that the civic realm is at its best when freedom is upheld and human rights are not trampled on. Isn’t that the concern of all men? This may mean, as I stated in my previous post on gay marriage that I refuse to deny these fundamental human rights to those who choose to excercise their freedoms in a way that I disagree with.
My great fear is that the prevailing view of a Christian Nation espoused by so many is in its final expression as oppressive as the Inquisitions and Crusades where divergent beliefs were not only not tolerated but expunged through force. This is nothing less than a radical departure from the Biblical faith. This vision of a Christian Nation ultimately betrays the Constitution that we all hold so dear and that was bought and is upheld by such great sacrifice.
Look how well a Kuyperian model of Christian transformationalism has worked out in the long run for The Netherlands. All European state church models have failed miserably. It worries me that the evangelical community and the broader Christian community in the United States thinks a Christianized government would truly affect biblical change. The only change that will come about is a more secularized church, not a more Christianzed society.
Great point Drew. The Netherlands is an interesting case within the failure of Christian Europe. I am with you that Christianizing our government cannot effect broad biblical change. It seems to me that this kind of change is far more organic as the church does what the Bible calls it to. I take a high view of Scripture, but I do not believe that it should be taken as a treatise on political theory as it pertains to human government. To take it that way is frankly a bastardization of its clear testimony to God’s work in salvation history culminating in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The centrality of the cross ought to be our highest concern.
However I am not quite clear on what you mean by a more secularized church. Do you mean that the church should embrace the reality of the secular sphere? Please explain.
The attempt to Christianize the government, if history has taught us anything, will more than likely result in the church looking more like secular society and not the other way around. As was the case with the state churches in Europe. Ultimately, all of the state churches became secularized versions of their former selves.
Thanks for clarifying. I think we are in agreement here.
Here’s a question to ponder in this then, “to what degree, within a two kingdom view, should the individual believer be involved in the secular state?” A subsequent question to that is within the two kingdom view how does one understand a secular calling and it being lived out “transformationally,” i.e. for the common benefit and good of man? It also seems that this view would be very distinct from the prevailing “missional” movement within evangelicalism? How does gospel proclamation as a responsibility of the church relate to the “letting our good works shine before all men” within the two-kingdom v. transformational debate relate? Good works do seem to be a form of obedience the church is captive to, and yet do those not effect transformation within broader society? Maybe some of these ideas are new to me, but some clarification would help… where are good resources to broaden my horizons?
Sam, I see this working in a few ways:
1. An individual believer should be involved in the secular state inasmuch as their various stations in life call them to; their job, hobbies, social obligations etc. If that calling were to extend to a role in government then the Christian who is a leader should aim for fair and equitable governance as a good thing in an of itself.
2. Every vocation, assuming it isn’t sinful, is good. Farmers help us by producing food, policemen help us by protecting us from crime. These need not be “transformational” to be very good and God-honoring. There may be some vocations that are transformational, like an inventor, an artist who transforms the way people look at life, or a politician who addresses a prevailing social ill. However transformational they may be they are still vocations and should be approached with all diligence and excellence – that seems to me to be very God-glorifying. However I don’t see any vocation that ought to usher in some sort of theocratic transformation of society.
3. Yes this framework is different than many missional frameworks (maybe not all) that begin with the aim of transformation. The mission of the church is to proclaim the Gospel and instruct believers to be obedient to the commands of Christ. Transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the work of the church. Some of the missional approaches are systemic in their aims as they seek to transform social institutions. To be fair though many in the missional camp are faithful in gospel proclamation.
4. Good works are the evidence of faith for any believer. What those good works are, how they manifest themselves, and how transformational they are will vary in each individual believer. I just don’t think that the local institutional church should take social transformation as it mission, even though it’s individual members might engage in transformational activities. Again I see this most often played out in the believer’s vocation and common life activities.
As far as some resources:
- David Van Drunen has an excellent article in the most current issue of Themelios (34:3 p.322)
- Darryl Hart’s blog has a lot of discussions. He’s a fairly prickly guy who loves to stir the pot, but he has a lot of good things to say:
http://oldlife.org/ his interview with Mark Dever is excellent. I think Monergism has a few of his lectures, they are great as well.
- R. Scott Clark’s blog is also a great place for 2k discussion:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/
Jed, I agree with much of what you wrote here, However, “Transormationalism asserts that the primary role of the church includes bringing about a broad sweeping change in society and ultimately usher in the rule of Christ,” is something I think is misleading and the cause for debates at the mere definitional level rather than the substantive level. There are hardly any transformationalists that would assert that “the primary” role of the church is to transform society. That’s a straw man made by quick shooting 2Kers. No doubt some transformationalists think this, but that isn’t transformationalism *per se*, it’s simple a *model* of the project, and some models are better than others. More thoughtful transformationalists would agree with everything you said about the church and locate the agents of transformation as *Christians*. No doubt there’s much more to say about this, but I thought it would be prudent to correct a harmful and uncharitable caricature of transformationalism.
Paul,
Fair enough. This was written as I was just beginning to think through the issues. Were my statements too broad and guilty of mischaracterization for some in the transformational camp? Probably. Feel free to assert the varieties of transformationalism (or yours specifically). I’d definitely give it a fair hearing. I wouldn’t say it was uncharitable though. As to the *some* you refer to who do see this role as primary, it is a pretty large some, but probably most conservative Reformed adherents don’t land here.
We recommend these sites for more info on Kuyper(ianism):
http://web.archive.org/web/20080609024158/http://www.lgmarshall.org/Reformed/kuyper_lecturescalvinism.html
http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/
Also, contra Drew, trying to argue against the soundness of neocalvinist principles on the basis of contemporary Dutch society is seriously problematic. The Netherlands today has little (if anything) to do with the implementation of Kuyper’s views.
Jed, I’d still disagree that a large number of “transformationalists” see “the primary job of the church is to bring about sweeping historical changes.” But since it’s a numbers game now, I’ll wait for the sociological and statistical evidence for your claim. So, I do think it was uncharitable in so far as I don’t think it is a majority view and also fails to make mention of the more sophisticated versions, of which should be people’s primary concern, rather than wild eyed, crazy fundamentalists who may or may not assert that “the primary” job of the church is to transform society. I would have thought they they would have thought that may be “a” job, but not the primary job.
I don’t have the time or desire now to present a sustained case for my understanding, suffice it to say that it claims that the changing agents are regenerate Christians who thoughtfully engage culture after having rested and fed on Christ at the beginning of the week. The “worldviewism” they support is at the meta level (so, there’s no talk of a “Christian” way to turn a wrench or swing a hammer), and the belief that there is a truth about the matter (whatever that matter is, say, abortion, for an easy to understand example, but even political matters, for a more extreme example) and that man can know this, so relativism is denied.
Paul,
This is from the transformationalist par excellence:
“One desire has been the ruling passion of my life. One high motive has acted like a spur upon my mind and soul. And sooner than that I should seek escape from the sacred necessity that this is laid upon me, let the breath of life fail me. It is this: That in spite of all worldly opposition, God’s holy ordinances shall be established again in the home, in the school and in the State for the good of the people; to carve as it were into the conscience of the nation the ordinances of the Lord, to which the Bible and Creation bear witness, until the nation pays homage again to God.” – Abraham Kuyper (“Introduction to Kuyper’s Thought” – D. Naugle: http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/2004/08/introduction-to-kuypers-thought.html). While that isn’t my bag, I can truly respect Kuyper for these ambitions, disagreement notwithstanding.
If your feathers are ruffled over me lumping in neocalvinist transformationalists with the broader transformationalism found widely in mainstream Evangelicalism and Liberal Protestantism, I get it, and that certainly wasn’t my aim. Unfortunately I am no statistician or sociologist, but historically this unrelenting aim to Christianize society in one way or another is a pretty fair reading of history. Check out DG Harts “Lost Soul of American Protestantism” and “Deconstructing Evangelicalism”.
As for the uncharitable charges I won’t have that here. You are more than free to disagree with me (I am wrong a lot). This is a place for civil, spirited discussion of issues not character pot-shots.
Jed, where in that quote does it say “the primary role of the chruch is to enact positive social change?”
That’s a *model* of transformationalism, not transformationalism *per se*. I have admit that there are model-specific objections to transformationalism, but none of them are a project objection.
My feathers were ruffled over this claim, “Transormationalism asserts that the primary role of the church includes bringing about a broad sweeping change in society and ultimately usher in the rule of Christ.”
Uncharitable is a scholarly term, not a pejorative one. There’s nothing uncivil about it. It means that you’re not employing the “principle of charity” when discussing disparate views, a term of art within the scholarly community. It is a methodological presumption whereby we try to understand the view under discussion in its strongest, most persuasive from before subjecting the view to evaluation. It is a respected principle employed by all scholars, including R.S. Clark, Michael Horton, and Darryl Hart. I will not be back to comment anymore as you are apparently easily offended and I just don’t have the ability to avoid offending you considering that an acceped, non-pejorative, civil, well-known methodological principle was considered to be rude and uncivil.
Thanks for the Hart references, I’ve read all of his books.
Paul,
A few remarks:
The fact that this post was written some time ago, while I was just begining to sift through these issues from a reformed perspective seems to have escaped your notice. I am currently conversing with transformationalists and their source lit to correct the ways where I have oversimplified and/or mischaracterized their views. That material is forthcoming.
If you are looking to this blog for scholarship, you’ve come to the wrong place. I envision this space as a good bar-room conversation over contemporary issues (humorous, passionate, intelligent, and even snarky speech are all in play). However, throwing high-fallutin accusations toward your buddy at the bar who is discussing issues as a means to work through them of a lack of charity is a good way to incite a bar room brawl. It’s just bad form. If you are a scholar, and want to employ scholarly language, then I would encourage you to pursue that level of conversation where it can more traditionally be found. Horton, Hart, Clark, et.al. are scholars, get your scholarship from them, not me, I am a waiter who will have taken the better part of 15 years to complete a bachelor’s degree (another story for another day).
If these standards I am trying to keep for my little corner of the blogosphere are disagreeable for you, then feel free not to comment. If you have good ideas, or some disagreements, fine, let em’ rip, cause I’d enjoy reading what you have to say. Just drop the silly accusations, that’s all.
Jed,
1. You should have just said you overreached after my first comment.
2. I’m about 1000 times stronger physically that I am mentally, so not concerned about the bar fight
2a. I wasn’t expecting scholarhip, I merely pointed out how I used the term to defeat your charge of “uncivility.” Your response is reactionary rather than interactionary.
3. I don’t consider the accusation silly, and maturity takes constructive criticism (here’s hoping that won’t be the better part of 15 years).
Anyway, if I comment here again, I’ll be sure to find words that are used in bar room discussions (not sure how many bars you’ve been too!) so as not to offend your sensitivites (p.s. make sure you don’t read any of the reformers, they would have got into a lot of bar fights).
Now, you buying the next round?
[...] The Role of the Church In Society [...]
On the Future of Two Kingdom Theology « Jed Paschall's Blog said this on August 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm