Here’s a fascinating article called “The Whole and the Heart of the Gospel” from Ray Pennings in Comment Magazine. Pennings outlines four Reformed approaches to “the proclamation of the gospel and seeking the peace of the city.” He labels the four approaches Neocalvinist, two kingdom perspective, Neopuritan, and Old Calvinisism.

The gist:

So to summarize the discussion within Reformed circles today: The neocalvinist says the fundamental presuppositions underlying the debate need to be changed if we are to have meaningful engagement. The two kingdom perspective responds that it won’t happen; when we try to engage in discussion, we end up calling things Christian that really aren’t, resulting in pride and a misrepresentation of the gospel. The neopuritans say that that is why we should avoid a systemic approach; we should focus more on the individual needs of our neighbors and show them, both in ministries of mercy as well as by positive examples, that faith makes a difference. The Old Calvinists say that in all of this activity, we are losing our focus and getting dirty as we dig around in the garbage cans of culture to retrieve a penny or two of value from the bottom. We and our culture need heart-surgery, not band-aids.

In his conclusion, Pennings’ does not side with any of the four approaches. Instead he encourages us to eschew easy answers.

Neither I nor the church of which I am part pretends to have embodied the full range of biblical teaching as it bears on this challenging issue. As our culture is changing from one in which there was a majoritarian underlying Christian ethic (at least superficially) to one that more reflects a pre-Constantinian model, the questions of the relationship between the church and the peace of society will need to be rethought, as the “easy” answers of the past decades will be exposed as inadequate. It is my prayer that this generation may be found faithful and equipped by God’s Spirit to wrestle with and to live out the teachings of God’s word in the midst of these challenging times.

The article is not long, but I found the four categories to be helpful. Read the whole thing.

Thanks for the good feedback on two kingdom theology v. neo-Kuyperianism. As I expected those committed to either position felt like I didn’t do the best job representing the best of their position. Which I figured to be the case since I was dealing in generalities and possible tendencies.

But it seems to me there is a lot both sides might be able to agree on:

1. At the end of the age, not just will our bodies be resurrected, but the whole creation will be renewed. God will bring a new garden/city to us for our enjoyment.

2. Even presently, God’s kingdom is breaking in and growing in mysterious and surprising ways.

3. In this age, we will always be strangers and aliens in this world.

4. Because of the effects of original sin in non-believers and the presence of indwelling sin in the believer, all utopian schemes for world reform are doomed to fail. We should not expect that all wars will cease, all poverty will be eradicated, or all suffering will be stopped in this life.

5. It is good for Christians to be involved in their communities working for justice and the “good of the city.” Christians are to be “culture-makers” in whatever sphere of society they find themselves.

6. Belief in cosmic renewal must not supplant the central importance of personal redemption.

7. Good deeds can adorn the gospel and are fruit of the gospel. But good deeds by themselves are not the gospel. People need to hear the good news that Christ came to save sinners.

8. At minimum, every Christian must be ready to give an account for the hope that we have.

9. Unless we are born again we will not see the kingdom of heaven. It is those who repent and believe who will be saved. Therefore, evangelism and gospel preaching must be forefront in our hearts and minds if truly care about people and believe what Jesus says about the eternal suffering of the wicked and unbelieving.

10. Common grace is a fair inference from Scripture. The need for and power of saving, redeeming, converting, sanctifying special grace is of central concern in the New Testament.

11. Every square inch of the universe belongs to Christ, whose Lordship will often be contested and denied despite our best efforts.

12. The church is an indispensable part of God’s plan for the world. In fact, most of the verses that talk about caring for the poor or helping the needy pertain explicitly to Christians helping Christians.

So what do we (probably) not agree on?

1. What does God call the church as church to do and what is simply the responsibility of faithful Christians?

2. Is a church with a lot of programs that engage the world and aim at the community a church after God’s own heart or a distracted church not focusing on its true calling?

3. Does the fact that God’s ultimate plan is to renew the whole cosmos mean we are commanded to transform our communities and change the world?

4. Should we expect or desire that the laws of our nation be governed by Christian laws, or even explicit biblical commands? Or is a government justified in allowing some sins to go unpunished?

5. Should Christians try to redeem culture or is this a theologically misguided enterprise?

Thanks for helping me think through this important issue. I reread part of Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisted yesterday. I commend it to anyone interested in this whole area of discussion. Carson concludes with a sympathetic, yet critical assessment of Kuyper that I found very helpful. One of the salient points of the book is that Christians must pay attention to whole storyline of Scripture: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Re-Creation. If we ignore creation we will not bother to care about the world nor will we see anything good in it. If we ignore the fall we will be too optimistic about the world’s chances for self-improvement and too prone to baptize every seemingly good idea as “kingdom work.” If we ignore redemption we will lose sight of the centrality of sin, Christ, the cross, and the needed for repentence and faith. If we neglect re-creation we will think of salvation as nothing but fire insurance. Carson makes the case much more lucidly than I do, but you get the picture. Keep the whole narrative in mind: that’s good advice and can spare us a lot of mistakes.

Let me start with some important disclaimers: 1) I realize I am about to generalize. No one fits into these categories absolutely. 2) My generalizations are probably most appropriate to white middle class culture. I don’t claim to know as well what the cultural dynamics are in other communities. 3) I’m not going to argue that one of these two cultural ideals is better than the other. Now please keep reading.

It seems to me that there are two competing cultural ideals in the church scene in North America: the hip and the hearty.

On the one hand, there is hip culture. Hip people like films, go to coffee shops, and wear scarves. They listen to Sufjian Stevens and NPR and shop at Trader Joe’s. They rent movies that make you think and cry. They like to walk around in nature. They value diversity. They are concerned about the environment and social justice. They are into the arts. The problem with the world, in the eyes of the hip, is lack of love and understanding. Hip people are urban, or aspire to be. Hip people are ironic and sometimes cynical. They get their news from Jon Stewart. They probably voted for Obama.

Then there are the hearty folks. Hearty people eat fast food, aren’t into organic food, and don’t know what fair trade coffee is. They listen to pop, country, and talk radio, and shop at Wal-Mart. They rent movies where you laugh and stuff gets blown up. They like nature because you can farm it or hunt things in it. They are concerned about abortion, the family, and honoring our soldiers. They are into sports. The problem with the world, in the eyes of the hearty, is that some people are bad and our morals are getting worse. Hearty people are straightforward and sometimes insensitive. They get their news from Fox. They probably voted for George W. Bush.

Hip is this:

Hearty is this:

Hip and hearty are styles, but they are also identities. I think one of the reasons many people loathed Bush was because he was a “hearty” Texan, about as un-hip (by my definition) as you can get. It will be interesting to see if the hip, urban Obama gets the same reaction from the hearty crowd as Bush got from hipsters. What the elites saw in Bush were not only policies they didn’t like, but a whole persona and demeanor that represented the exact opposite of the way people should be.

So what’s the point? I’m not arguing that hip and hearty are mutually exclusive. I’m not arguing that everyone fits neatly into one category or the other. I’m not saying hip and hearty are only about styles. I’m not saying they aren’t sometimes just about styles. I’m not arguing for a moral relativism that ignores the strong and weak points of each. I’m not claiming to have somehow risen above hip and hearty myself and reached some transcendent cultural ideal.

The point is that the church needs to reach out to both cultural categories without selling out to either one. Admittedly, Ted Kluck and I poke fun at the hipster culture more than the hearty in Why We’re Not Emergent, but this in an effort to show that being “missional” should be about more than just engaging other Bono and Matrix fans. The danger on the other side, however, is that we make fun of “hip” to the point that we become suspicious of people in that category (or they become suspicious of us). That would be trading one sin for another. If emergents say, “Hey, church, your hearty culture doesn’t resonate with our hip culture,” then I want to say, “Good point, but your hip culture isn’t holier than hearty culture.” But then someone needs to remind me, “True, but don’t write off the hip as silly self-importance. They’re people too.”

People in both categories need to learn to be themselves and not some stylized version of Mr. Metrosexual or Alpha Male. People in both categories need to open their hearts to those in the other. Most importantly, people in both categories need to make sure the gospel they are preaching is the gospel of sin and salvation and not the false gospel of cultural identification.

My buddy Ted Kluck mentioned this video on his blog. It’s pretty funny.

I admit it’s funny because I like McDonald’s more than I like coffee shops. (I can get a filling meal at McDonalds for the same price as a thimble of hot chocolate at Starbucks). Some people don’t like the ad because they think it makes fun of jazz music, facial hair, and reading poetry. I like the ad, not because I think it makes fun of these things, but because it makes fun of the haughtiness that sometimes comes with these things. McDonalds has cheap greasy food, the atmosphere is utilitarian, and their coffee is pedestrian. But, hey, some people like burgers, fries, frugality, and bad coffee.

I mention all of this because so much that passes for spirituality these days is nothing more than middle class, 20something coffee culture. If you like jazz, soul patches, earth tone furniture, and lattes, that’s cool. But this culture is no holier than the McNugget, Hi-C, Value City, football culture that most people live in. Why does incarnational ministry usually mean hanging out at Starbucks instead of McDonalds?

Jesus came to save Grimace and Hamburglar too.