The Gospel Coalition

Since God saved me 14 years ago, I have spent much of my intellectual energy thinking about Christ and culture, the church and the world. One of my favorite quotes comes from D.L. Moody who, when asked to describe the role of the church in our world, said, “The place for the ship is in the sea, but God help the ship if the sea gets into it.” In other words, the place for the church is in the world, but God help the church if the world gets into it. Clearly Christians are called to think long and hard about who we are, why we’re here, and where we’re headed. This inevitably forces us to think about all of the issues, both deep and wide, surrounding the church and it’s proper role, purpose, and place in this world. 

With this in mind, I have been posting portions of my ongoing conversation with my friend and former professor, John Frame. Dr. Frame and I have had numerous conversations about this issue over the years and I am grateful to him for his willingness to help me think through the issues.

Once again, yesterday, I had to ask him a couple of questions and he was kind enough to send me his answers. My questions had to do with the two-Kingdom approach to Christ and culture, or what Niebuhr defined as  “the Christ and culture in paradox” position (see my post yesterday for a brief explanation of this position).  As I was reading up on this two-kingdom approach yesterday, I had sent John this note:

How does Augustine’s emphasis on the two cities and this quote from Calvin differ from the two-kingdom approach?

“Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone [of confusing Christ and culture] let us first consider that there is a two-fold government in man: the one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking of the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority. (3.19.15)”

It seems that the two-kingdom approach uses this to justify their position. In other words, they say they are simply building on Augustine and Calvin in coming to their conclusions. What do you say?

Furthermore, I was reading Michael Horton today (a two-Kingdom guy) and he says, “The proposal I think our forebears would offer us is to adopt a position roughly equivalent to a combination of the “Christ and culture in paradox” and the “Christ transforming culture” paradigms. Adherents of both positions need each other, because this is my father’s world, and yet this world is not my home.” How would you respond to this?

This was his response (again, he gave me permission to post this):

The Calvin quote (and I think similar quotes from Augustine) deals more with “church and state” than with “Christ and culture.” Notice Cal’s reference to “the political  kingdom.” Certainly there are biblical distinctions between the church and state. The civil officer should not rule the church, and the church elders per se have no civil power. The church has no recourse to force (the sword). I would say also that there is a legitimate distinction between church and marketplace, church and art museum, church and theater, etc.

But I still insist that Christ is Lord of all spheres, and that in every sphere we should ultimately seek to serve him. I think sometimes people use the church/state, church/marketplace, etc. distinctions to minimize the Christ/culture relation, as if culture is something neutral, as if we can simply accept secular standards in the arts, sciences, politics, etc. I think that is a confusion.

I’m happy to hear Horton say that we must combine these paradigms. The way I would combine them is by making the distinctions between church and state, etc., within an overall transformationalist framework. But I’m not sure that would be acceptable to Mike and others in this tradition.

This is related to the question of natural law in ethics. Mike’s colleague, Dave Van Drunen, insists that our main ethical revelation is natural law. I think this raises questions re: sola Scriptura. I believe that Scripture is sufficient in all spheres of human life. This doesn’t mean that Scripture contains all the knowledge we need to have (for car repairing, plumbing, art, or even ethics). It does mean that Scripture is sufficient to give us all the divine words that we need for any human activity (including car repairs, plumbing, and ethics).

So the attempt to isolate some spheres of human life as “secular,” and therefore somehow immune to the demands and the grace of Christ, seems to me to be fundamentally mistaken. If people want to make distinctions within the general Lordship of Christ, I won’t necessarily oppose that.

Phew! I hope your mind is informed, your heart is enlarged, and your will is bent as a result of thinking these things through.