And then there’s the question about transformation and redemption that I have about that same first chapter, which begins great, but then left me quite disappointed. Kevin, you say that Jesus and Paul don’t talk about community transformation. Not a lot of Reformed theologians would be quick to agree with that, particularly those influenced by Abraham Kuyper, whom you never mention in the chapter. You put the theonomists on the one side and the social gospellers on the other, but you never recognize that there are those who believe that an implication of God’s sovereignty is that Christians witness in both word and deed (and not just using words when necessary), and that God claims every sphere of life, and that Christians should be salt and light not just on Sunday, but at work, home, etc. Also, the idea that “we are not partners in God’s work of redemption” would be rejected by the majority of Reformed theologians of our shared continental Reformed tradition. God has accomplished redemption on the cross, but he works it out in history (just as his decrees are eternal, but the execution of the decrees temporal, and accomplished through means). Calvin’s comm. on Col. 1:24 talks about how Paul is a “partner with Christ in this thing,” i.e. in the sufferings of Christ, and that we are “partakers of the cross of
Christ.” So there is a once-for-all suffering of Christ, but also a continuing suffering of Christ in his body the church: “As, therefore, Christ has suffered once in his own person, so he suffers daily in his members, and in this way there are filled
up those sufferings which the Father hath appointed for his body by his decree.” Calvin denies that Paul’s ministry is the redemption of the church (in contrast to Roman Catholic teaching about the saints, purgatory, etc.) But should we with just a blanket statement deny that there is a sense in which we as the Church partner with Christ in the application of his redemption to the world, and that he uses us as instruments in the application of his redemption? What about salt and light? What about the good yeast? What about the cup of water to the least of these?
Your interpretation of Matt. 16:8 also seems reductionistic to me, and I say this as one who is very sympathetic to what you and Ted have been writing (I’ve told my congregation from the pulpit to read your books). It sounds a bit gnostic and too otherworldly to my ears. Gates of Hades/Death is not just Jesus saying we go to heaven when we die, “I’ll fly away, etc.” but certainly he means the forces of death that have been unleashed on the creation since the fall of humanity. And the hope of eternal life is a hope not for clouds and harps, but a new Creation. Certainly Christ is the Redeemer; certainly all that happens through us is his doing and to his praise; but he does use his people in the application and working out of his redemption.
I say this also as one who is very critical of the transformationalist wing of the CRC; my colleague Calvin van Reken (Calvin Sem.) has written eloquently about how the left wing of the CRC has turned Kuyper’s ideas into a social gospel that identifies the gospel with left-wing politics nad neglects the main thing, i.e. calling people to faith and repentance in Jesus Christ; so I am very sympathetic to the main point of that first chapter, but I think there is another place among the extreme positions of theonomy (which is not historically Reformed [think Karlstadt] and should not be lumped in with the Kuyperian tradition), leftist social gospel, or a kind of Gnostic soul-saving which just tries to save people from the sinking ship that is the world. That chapter left me with a strong sense of the latter option, and I think there is a better, more balanced, more biblically faithful option that still puts robust evangelism first, yet still recognizes that Christ’s bride is a partner in the work that he is doing, and through whom and sometimes despite whom he accomplishes the application of his redemption.
While we are denominational cousins, I am not familiar with what impact or influence Kuyper’s thought had or has on the RCA; so I wonder if that is a factor. I’m not happy with what some of my CRC colleagues have done with Kuyper (The Institute for Christian Studies being a prime example–but also even Dordt College as another example of some of the less beneficial influences of both Kuyper and Dooyeweerd, evidenced by their emaciated religion program, all in the name of redeeming everything through “Reformational” philosophy…thank goodness that’s fading away). But even as a doctrinalist-confessionalist, I wouldn’t reject Kuyper out of hand, but rather work to reign in the aberrant application of his ideas.
Which is all a long way of saying: what do you think of Kuyper?
Blessings, and keep up the good work. It’s encouraging for those of us who sometimes think we’re alone in questioning the latest ecclesiastical fads, and who bear the scorn of colleagues who think we just don’t get it and only want to channel John Owen.
Dr. Raymond A. (Randy) Blacketer
Neerlandia Christian Reformed Church