Why the supposed failure in the Netherlands Dr. Trueman / George Grant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy, I'm afraid I have no idea how what you said connects with what I said. Theonomy, general equity, cities of refuge ... I'm really not sure what that has to do with the idea that the same person should probably not be both a minister and a magistrate simultaneously.
 
Don't both functions as ministers of God reward good and punish evil? Just in differing spheres of responsibility and also on levels of what is to be doled out? I don't know if Kuyper remained in his function as one who administered the Sacraments, Church discipline, along with his civil ties. Did he confuse the offices? Or did he recognize their stations and let the Church deal with Church discipline and the State deal with State discipline under God's law? They have differing functions and capacities. I am sure Geneva consulted with Calvin and the Elders on civil matters as a Ministers of the Gospel. Shouldn't the state consult the Word of God?

I was mostly referring to your Matthew Henry quote.
 
Ruben, also I don't think anyone is looking for a Vicar of Christ on Earth. Christ already holds his position and defined things. I believe the Confessions reflect that. That is why there are separate offices. Even in our Church Government.
 
Well things certainly aren't getting any clearer. But Henry's position that ministerial work requires the whole man, able to concentrate on that vocation to the exclusion of others, is not an anomaly.
 
One of the things that annoys me about the whole Kuyperian/Neo-Kuyperian/E2K conversation is that both sides flatly ignore the Covenanter view (or even just plain old 1646 WCF 23) and act like Kuyper or WSCAL are the only two options here. When in my estimation both Kuyper and E2K get it wrong.
 
Thanks Ben. I am not as familiar with Kuyper and need to understand him better. But that is a side issue here. I am a Covenanter.
 
But even then the Minister must minister God's word to the Magistrate.

Of course; the whole counsel of God includes instructions for judges to judge justly, and that whole counsel is exactly what the minister must give himself to proclaiming. That does not mean, of course, that there are not things fit to be done which it is not fit for the ministers to do. The apostles gave themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word even in preference to oversight of the distribution of church resources. Paul could even put preaching above baptism, which is clearly within the scope of a ministerial calling.
 
Duty is ours. Results are God's. We are the people of means, and God is the God of making those means positively effectual (as we perceive it) or not, as He so pleases. He has prescribed means that we are to take up, regardless of our thinking as to how the execution of those means will procure something, one way or the other. God doesn't need our "help"; He commands our obedience.
Josh, I wish I was so eloquent with words. You sit and listen and speak. I am more like a Peter who will be rebuked by His Lord.
 
One of the things that annoys me about the whole Kuyperian/Neo-Kuyperian/E2K conversation is that both sides flatly ignore the Covenanter view (or even just plain old 1646 WCF 23) and act like Kuyper or WSCAL are the only two options here. When in my estimation both Kuyper and E2K get it wrong.

Is this, in part, because neither side (or at least the Presbyterian one) holds to the original wording of the WCF 23 concerning the magistrate? To put it another way, since the wording of the Confession here has been changed in most of the American versions of the WCF, it is any wonder that solutions are sought elsewhere?
 
Duty is ours. Results are God's. We are the people of means, and God is the God of making those means positively effectual (as we perceive it) or not, as He so pleases. He has prescribed means that we are to take up, regardless of our thinking as to how the execution of those means will procure something, one way or the other. God doesn't need our "help"; He commands our obedience.
:amen:
 
DG’s critique at Old Life of the bombastic claims about transformationism is akin to one I have made frequently in the classroom about talk of the [singular] ‘Christian worldview’: such things are, by and large, code for the expression of the concerns of the middle class chatterati in a blandly Christian idiom. As far as I know, for example, no conferences on the transformation of Christian toilet cleaning or turkey rendering have yet been successfully organised.

This is where DG’s history of Calvinism is interesting. I was struck by his account of Abraham Kuyper. Here was a (probable) genius and (definite) workaholic who had at his personal disposal a university, a newspaper and a denomination, and also held the highest political office in his land. We might also throw in to the mix that he did this at a time when European culture was far more sympathetic to broadly Christian concerns than that of the USA today. And Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society. Just visit Amsterdam today, if you can bear the pornographic filth even in those areas where the lights are not all red.


Forgive me for sounding curmudgeonly here but I heard last week from a PCA friend who cannot find space to rent for his church on a Sunday because of the PCA’s stand on gay marriage. And this is south of the Mason-Dixon, not Boston or Seattle or New York. Yes, it is great that stockbrokers are finding Christ; and I am sure there are some for whom the fact there are Christian artists and Broadway producers is also an encouragement (are there any Christian loo cleaners out there in the Big Apple? ); and Tim Keller’s occasional spot onMorning Joe is an interesting, if somewhat harmless, phenomenon. But the culture is not being transformed at any point where it really counts, where it makes a real difference for pastors and people on the increasingly mean streets of the secular world as they seek to be quietly and peacefully faithful to the Lord. If anything, it is accelerating in the wrong direction.


This is hardly surprising to anyone with any sense of history. Keller is no Kuyper and does not have at his disposal any of the institutional or political or cultural resources of which the Dutchman had so many and so much. And, to put it bluntly, Keller is the transformationists’ best shot today. It does not matter how often we tell each other that our celebrity transformationists are making headway, such claims are only so much delusional hype. A Broadway play and a couple of nice paintings do not help the man who cannot rent space to worship on the Lord’s Day. Indeed, I wonder if any of these transformationists have ever asked themselves whether what we are seeing are not in fact transforming inroads into the culture but the modern equivalents of bread and circuses designed to gull the gullible — meaningless trivia, conceded by the wider culture, that make no real difference; where and when the stakes are higher and actually worth playing for, no quarter is, or will be, given.


Surely it is time to become realistic. It is time to drop the cultural elitism that poses as significant Christian transformation of culture but only really panders to nothing more than middle class tastes and hobbies. It is time to look again at the New Testament’s teaching on the church as a sojourning people where here we have no lasting home. The psalms of lament teach us that it is only when we have realistic horizons of expectation will we be able to stand firm against what is coming. If we do not understand that now, we are going to be sorely disappointed in the near future.

Richard,
In all due respect brother, I can eat this up and spit it out refutation thought by thought. It might sound ungracious if I do. I wouldn't have any intent on being ungracious. There is a lot wrong with this stuff. There are some things that have a ring of truth to them. But there is so much wrong with this. Trueman says some pretty off the wall stuff in my estimation. But I am not one prone to hero worship either. So he won't get much of a defense from me.

DG once challenged me about what my business was. I told him. I am not just a keyboard flunky. We actually do ministry here. All the way from the top State Capitol down to the beggarly streets and prisons where I am closer too. I have very well to do friends to very poor friends. And yes, we believe Christ makes a difference in peoples lives even when they aren't in the Church because He is Lord of all. Maybe Trueman needs to come to Indiana and visit for a bit so that he can view things from a Different angle. Maybe he has been in the Tower too long.

Randy, Trueman has a British accent; your argument is invalid. ;)
 
I'm a little curious as to what people think Trueman means by cultural elitism. Or what they would point him to as an instance of something so trending toward a recrudescence of Christian influence that his friend unable to rent a place for worship because of his views can be safely dismissed as a minor glitch. But I'm more interested in the first.
 
I'm a little curious as to what people think Trueman means by cultural elitism. Or what they would point him to as an instance of something so trending toward a recrudescence of Christian influence that his friend unable to rent a place for worship because of his views can be safely dismissed as a minor glitch. But I'm more interested in the first.

I appreciated his remarks about elitism because I come from a church where many of us are at or below the poverty line in the US. We are not artists and playwrights trying to engage the culture, we are a church of receptionists, construction workers, gas station attendants, nursing aids and teachers. For the most part we have little worldly influence but we make up the everyman of Philadelphia. I really think that conferences geared at the artists miss us. I want to know how I live as a Christian in the world as a nurse. Too much of what is sold as transformationalism is geared to people way above my pay grade.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little curious as to what people think Trueman means by cultural elitism. Or what they would point him to as an instance of something so trending toward a recrudescence of Christian influence that his friend unable to rent a place for worship because of his views can be safely dismissed as a minor glitch. But I'm more interested in the first.

I appreciated his remarks about elitism because I come from a church where many of us are at or below the poverty line in the US. We are not artists and playwrites trying to engage the culture, we are a church of receptionists, construction workers, gas station attendants, nursing aids and teachers. For the most part we have little worldly influence but we make up the everyman of Philadelphia. I really think that conferences geared at the artists miss us. I want to know how I live as a Christian in the world as a nurse. Too much of what is sold as transformationalism is geared to people way above my pay grade.

"playwrights"

I think the emphasis on the arts and culture in these conferences is there because there are more variables involved than say, being a toilet attendant; they are perceived to have an influence on the way people think and act, depending on whether they are corrupt or Christian; and even although we may not be Christian artists, we all make use of the arts and culture to some extent.

But living as Christians in more "mundane" or "menial" occupations shouldn't be forgotten - our Lord was a carpenter, Adam was a gardener, Peter, Andrew, James and John were fishermen, David and Amos and Moses were shepherds, Luke was a doctor, Lydia was a seller of purple (businesswoman), Paul had been trained as a tentmaker, etc, etc.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Duty is ours. Results are God's. We are the people of means, and God is the God of making those means positively effectual (as we perceive it) or not, as He so pleases.

It can be said that "...Josiah failed to effect any lasting transformation of society...." No leader can be faulted for leading in a Godly manner when they are in office but only God can effect lasting transformation.

Exactly correct. Trueman stands in judgment of God's working out the fruits of Kuyper's work, finds it wanting, and fallaciously concludes that pressing Christ's claims in all areas must be misguided.
 
If I am understanding correctly, I actually think Dr. Trueman is making a very specific point about people he calls 'chatterati'? (I have met people who at least aspire to be culturally elite, and I don't honestly believe anyone here is it.) He is saying that if Kuyper with better gifts, more resources, in a better time, didn't succeed, the optimism of this particular group of people that the arts are going to usher in the eschaton (those I have spoken to assign a quasi redemptive function to certain artsy/upper class activities, but not to for instance, nursing or toilet cleaning) is a bubble that is probably going to burst.​ And when it does, the simple word of God is going to bear us through.

I have been pressed with my 'duties' by people who tend toward chatterati-ism. The 'one thing needful' is minimalised, and lack of zeal for a particular upper-middle class hobby is seen as a spiritual failing.

Dr. Trueman may not have phrased everything in the best way: people often don't. But I think his point about Kuyper is meant to be fairly limited and simple, applying in a very narrow way to a particular group of people.

edit:
I think the emphasis on the arts and culture in these conferences is there because there are more variables involved than say, being a toilet attendant; they are perceived to have an influence on the way people think and act, depending on whether they are corrupt or Christian; and even although we may not be Christian artists, we all make use of the arts and culture to some extent.

'Though I speak with tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I am nothing.'

It is not the greatness of the act, but the love we do it with, that is significant, and that transforms society.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little curious as to what people think Trueman means by cultural elitism. Or what they would point him to as an instance of something so trending toward a recrudescence of Christian influence that his friend unable to rent a place for worship because of his views can be safely dismissed as a minor glitch. But I'm more interested in the first.

I appreciated his remarks about elitism because I come from a church where many of us are at or below the poverty line in the US. We are not artists and playwrites trying to engage the culture, we are a church of receptionists, construction workers, gas station attendants, nursing aids and teachers. For the most part we have little worldly influence but we make up the everyman of Philadelphia. I really think that conferences geared at the artists miss us. I want to know how I live as a Christian in the world as a nurse. Too much of what is sold as transformationalism is geared to people way above my pay grade.

Eric, you should win a prize for having grasped the point. It's a little ironic that the chatterati are often the people least capable of doing that.

Duty is ours. Results are God's. We are the people of means, and God is the God of making those means positively effectual (as we perceive it) or not, as He so pleases.

It can be said that "...Josiah failed to effect any lasting transformation of society...." No leader can be faulted for leading in a Godly manner when they are in office but only God can effect lasting transformation.

Exactly correct. Trueman stands in judgment of God's working out the fruits of Kuyper's work, finds it wanting, and fallaciously concludes that pressing Christ's claims in all areas must be misguided.

Well, Rich and Josh are correct. But if we take the fact of Keller's relative prominence as a sign that the golden age is about to begin, it might come as a surprise when persecution breaks out. We do not know what a day may bring forth; but hoping for the best should not preclude preparing for the worst. Keller et al notwithstanding, on a societal level at the moment the trend is not towards a society more purely reformed by the word of God.
 
Last edited:
There is a huge difference between duty and source of optimism (or hope). What makes the Netherlands such am interesting example is that you have a combination of an historic Reformed (not just evangelical) church, an explicitly Christian head of State, legislation designed to promote Christianity, and a theology of reconstruction that has led, in a very short time, to one of the most pagan first world nations on the earth.
 
a theology of reconstruction that has led, in a very short time, to one of the most pagan first world nations on the earth.

What do you mean by "theology of reconstruction", and when you say "led", are you suggesting causation?
 
a theology of reconstruction that has led, in a very short time, to one of the most pagan first world nations on the earth.

What do you mean by "theology of reconstruction", and when you say "led", are you suggesting causation?
Not suggesting causation. Post hoc, not propter hoc.

By "theology of reconstruction," I mean a theology that seeks to reconstruct the cultural and world through (but albeit not solely through) political means.
 
Having some connections to the Netherlands, I believe there is truth to what Trueman wrote. But a stronger critique of transformationalism might focus on the trajectory of the churches that embraced Kuyperianism rather than simplifying the complex influences that shaped the history of a nation.

Attempts by the church to transform culture seem to have led to the transforming of the church by the culture.
 
Having some connections to the Netherlands, I believe there is truth to what Trueman wrote. But a stronger critique of transformationalism might focus on the trajectory of the churches that embraced Kuyperianism rather than simplifying the complex influences that shaped the history of a nation.

Attempts by the church to transform culture seem to have led to the transforming of the church by the culture.

What about "Pillarisation" in the Netherlands? Would that not lead to isolation from the rest of society? I can appreciate the need for Christian schools, but not e.g. Christian trade unions.



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top