Sunday, July 11, 2004
Two more cents
Well, at the risk of being redundant and not at all original, I have a little more to say on the piety within Neo-Calvinism discussion, which continues to brew. Special thanks to Andy and Rob for their recent input.
Rob correctly notes that the apparent lack of piety spreading through certain reformed circles is not because of something inherent within reformed theology itself, and has suggested that perhaps it is a problem putting steak before milk.
"To place it within the metaphorical context of the discussion the problem revolved not around the quality of the solid food, but the shaky foundation of spiritual milk that many young Reformers today seem to be inheriting. I should like to note as well that while Academics tend to be thoroughly ingrained with the latest "steak on the bobby" they're work would be thoroughly inauthentic without first having tasted that spiritual milk, which, though perhaps more simple, is the foundation for solid food to follow."
Well, Rob may be on to something here, and I'd like to follow that here, and add on a little bit. I'd like to make this challenge that perhaps this practice within Neocalvinism and other reformed traditions, may be inherent. Perhaps it is not a inherent theoretical problem. Consider this: Kuyper, on more than one occasion had breakdowns where he suffered from exhaustion. Looking at his credentials, it would probably be fair to say that Mr. Kuyper could be classified as a "type A" personality. The problem I find when discussing topics with neocalvinists is the regular referencing other people; "Well, Kuyper wrote..." or "the Belgic Confession says..." or so on. I do not wish to devalue the work of Mr. Kuyper, which I have not read, but I must make the caution that the attempt to create a bunch of Kuypers within Neocalvinism can quickly become problematic. This is where the steak before milk problem arises.
While I would like to believe Kuyper would support a deep pietism within every Christian, so, as Rob put it: "How is that we can turn out brilliant minds set to defend Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd with all of the fire and vigour of a Churchill, but whose private moral and spiritual lives are as hot as week old fettuccini." How does the "in here" get neglected in favour of the "out there"? Well, I'm inclined to believe that the root comes with example of Kuyper, who attempted to be politician, theologian, pastor, educator, etc. all at once. Yes, the Lordship of Christ should be taken to every sphere of life, but it must be done as a collective body of believers. Let's not forget what Paul teaches:
"If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" ~1 Cor. 12:17-21.
Too many Neocalvinists have an "out there" emphasis not because of an inherent theory, but an inherited practice. The solution may be more gift identification an development, so that each member has his/her calling made known, and therefore have their engagement of culture more focused and directed, instead of a hectic, chaotic attempt to share the gospel in every forum. Kuyper's example in theory may be a good (that's up for debate, but we'll save that one) but his example in practice is not as solid, and his walk can be used to show what happens when the "out there" takes precedence.
Now that should spark some discussion...
Rob correctly notes that the apparent lack of piety spreading through certain reformed circles is not because of something inherent within reformed theology itself, and has suggested that perhaps it is a problem putting steak before milk.
"To place it within the metaphorical context of the discussion the problem revolved not around the quality of the solid food, but the shaky foundation of spiritual milk that many young Reformers today seem to be inheriting. I should like to note as well that while Academics tend to be thoroughly ingrained with the latest "steak on the bobby" they're work would be thoroughly inauthentic without first having tasted that spiritual milk, which, though perhaps more simple, is the foundation for solid food to follow."
Well, Rob may be on to something here, and I'd like to follow that here, and add on a little bit. I'd like to make this challenge that perhaps this practice within Neocalvinism and other reformed traditions, may be inherent. Perhaps it is not a inherent theoretical problem. Consider this: Kuyper, on more than one occasion had breakdowns where he suffered from exhaustion. Looking at his credentials, it would probably be fair to say that Mr. Kuyper could be classified as a "type A" personality. The problem I find when discussing topics with neocalvinists is the regular referencing other people; "Well, Kuyper wrote..." or "the Belgic Confession says..." or so on. I do not wish to devalue the work of Mr. Kuyper, which I have not read, but I must make the caution that the attempt to create a bunch of Kuypers within Neocalvinism can quickly become problematic. This is where the steak before milk problem arises.
While I would like to believe Kuyper would support a deep pietism within every Christian, so, as Rob put it: "How is that we can turn out brilliant minds set to defend Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd with all of the fire and vigour of a Churchill, but whose private moral and spiritual lives are as hot as week old fettuccini." How does the "in here" get neglected in favour of the "out there"? Well, I'm inclined to believe that the root comes with example of Kuyper, who attempted to be politician, theologian, pastor, educator, etc. all at once. Yes, the Lordship of Christ should be taken to every sphere of life, but it must be done as a collective body of believers. Let's not forget what Paul teaches:
"If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" ~1 Cor. 12:17-21.
Too many Neocalvinists have an "out there" emphasis not because of an inherent theory, but an inherited practice. The solution may be more gift identification an development, so that each member has his/her calling made known, and therefore have their engagement of culture more focused and directed, instead of a hectic, chaotic attempt to share the gospel in every forum. Kuyper's example in theory may be a good (that's up for debate, but we'll save that one) but his example in practice is not as solid, and his walk can be used to show what happens when the "out there" takes precedence.
Now that should spark some discussion...
Comments:
Post a Comment
God Save the Queen.
Girl-So-Stunning
