One of the following announcements recently appeared in the bulletin of a United Reformed church (URCNA). The other, while based on real accusations, I made up for this post in order to make my case. Take a wild guess as to which one of these corporate practices some URC congregants were encouraged to rally against:
Signature Table: McDonalds Corporation uses profits from your hamburgers and meal purchases to support gay events and has contributed at least $20,000 to be a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and organization that is working to pass gay rights legislation, including same sex “marriage” and legislation that would prohibit Christian schools and other employers from terminating employees for reasons of perverse sexual behavior. Next week after the morning and evening service, you will have an opportunity to sign a letter of protest to McDonalds.
Or
Signature Table: The Nike brand shoes that you buy are made by exploited workers in Indonesia. Workers in Nike factories in Asia are mostly underage children who are paid wages insufficient to meet their basic needs, are not allowed to organize independent unions, and often face health and safety hazards. They encounter sexual abuse, starvation, malaria, football-sized rats, fist-sized cockroaches, and massive burning of toxic shoe rubber. Next week after the morning and evening service, you will have an opportunity to sign a letter of protest to Nike against their deplorable practices.
It is probably clear which one actually appeared in a UR church’s bulletin and which one is made up. Many “conservative” Reformed folk would probably scratch their heads if they came across the second announcement, wondering why on earth the church would have us be involved in such a non-churchly matter. But what makes the first more churchly?
I am not trying to make the case that the set of values in our churches need to be expanded to include more causes to get behind; my point is that neither one of these sociopolitical items should be decried at church. I wish it wasn’t easy to figure out which announcement was in the bulletin of a confessionally Reformed body because one might expect the first to appear at a fundamentalist Bible church and the second at a so-called “progressive” congregation. Neither one of these (alleged) corporate practices should capture the attention of a congregation as it gathers to worship on the Lord’s Day. Encouraging and facilitating social and political activism is not a function of the Church of Jesus Christ.
The Confessional Outhouse 
This might surprise you, but I agree…. to a point. I was actually having a discussion with a friend of mine earlier this week about this very same thing. What I agree with is that it doesn’t belong in our “Worship.” Obviously, all things we do in life is to be “worship,” so I’ll make the distinction between capital ‘W’ and lowercase ‘w.’ The congregation gathering for Worship shouldn’t have the social and political activism in between the invocation and the benediction.
But, even from your world view, I would think that the fact you believe that all of the church members are citizens of the second kingdom, right? So why shouldn’t a particular congregation organize a type of activism, as long as it isn’t part of the official Worship service?
So, who was this written to?:
kazoo
If you haven’t written an official letter of protest to your elders, but are only venting here on this blog, well, shame on you.
Here is the signature table I would like to see for the CRC and all other “reformed” denominations.
Signature Table: the church library has invested in the Left Behind Series books and donated Calvin’s Institutes to the seminary rummage sale/ fundraiser. The women’s study at our “bring back our reformed roots CRC” is also holding a Beth Moore study on Daniel, a pre-trib dispensationalist author and book study. Please join us for a pre-rapture party, all others join us in writing a letter to the elders.
And yes, these books and bible studies are in the CRC bulletins/ websites. Thankfully this Sunday will be my last at a CRC. I am taking recommendations on where to go until we move.
Rick,
This helps to show how captive our circles are to rightist culture. Social gospel is only bad when it’s the other guy’s social gospel.
Kazoo,
The point at which your agreement ends it sizeable. That all of life is worship is contestable. Your “worship as no man’s land” is fairly common way to cross one’s fingers. But the principles of two-kingdom, as I understand them, would actually keep statements like this quite out of any Synod, classis, congregation and narthex. If you want to protest Nike or McD’s do it on your own time. The church is not an activist group. Once again, your theonomy skirt is showing, and it reveals a Methodist ecclesiology over against a Reformed and Presbyterian one.
Proverbs 31:8-9 is the charge to Christ on behalf of his people. Believe it or not, it was not written to the pro-life movement to protect the unborn or to Green Peace on behalf of the whales. Social gospels have ways of circumventing the Christo-centric nature of the Bible. What was that I keep saying about theonomy’s blind spot for messianic fulfillment?
Rick,
This helps to show how captive our circles are to rightist culture. Social gospel is only bad when it’s the other guy’s social gospel.
Kazoo,
The point at which your agreement ends it sizeable. That all of life is worship is contestable. Your “worship as no man’s land” is fairly common way to cross one’s fingers. But the principles of two-kingdom, as I understand them, would actually keep statements like this quite out of any Synod, classis, congregation and narthex. If you want to protest Nike or McD’s do it on your own time. The church is not an activist group. Once again, your theonomy skirt is showing, and it reveals a Methodist ecclesiology over against a Reformed and Presbyterian one.
Proverbs 31:8-9 is the charge to Christ on behalf of his people. Believe it or not, it was not written to the pro-life movement to protect the unborn or to Green Peace on behalf of the whales. Social gospels have ways of circumventing the Christo-centric nature of the Bible. What was that I keep saying about theonomy’s blind spot for messianic fulfillment?
Echo,
I called the church and talked to the pastor, left behind series is now removed. Wow! If I knew it was that easy I would have called the half dozen other CRCs w/ this garbage.
Echo,
I can’t help but to still wonder which you consider yourself: Fundie or Presbie? One thing to keep in mind is that Presbies tend to want to do things in more churchly manners, which is to say, before one “pens his letter of protest” he actually looks for support: it is more important to the Presbie that he finds like-minded souls than running his mouth about all he finds lamentable (blogs can often be a helpful outlet). Fundies usually work from individualistic grids and can be found writing letters and stirring up dissention, etc. All that ails my CRC needs to be met with a unified voice, not disparate ones barking and howling. Alas, even when that unified voice is not found, one still must cringe at acting like a Fundie and avoid it all costs.
Please explain the nature of your wagging finger.
bark, howl. where is the unified voice?
Social Gospels that deny the Gospel is no Gospel at all. Gospels that ignore society on the other hand….
Well, you finish the sentence. I’m sure we’ll finish it differently.
However, PLEASE correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the Catholic outlook on life where there was the religious calling which was the higher calling, so going to the monastery or the priesthood was one of the most noble things to do? But, on the other hand being a lowly farmer or carpenter was just secular work and not so noble? Isn’t that the religious/secular outlook on life of the Catholics that the reformers denied and changed? Didn’t the reformers read “Do all things as unto the LORD” as that which refuted the Catholic dichotomy, and therefore I as a computer technician am in an occupation that is just as noble as a pastor. All things that we do is worship. But don’t go calling me a “methodist.” I’ve got enough negative labels attached to me that I accept without needing these others as well. LOL
kazoo
Oh and by the way, Christ fulfilled love for me, so does that mean I don’t have to love? Christ protected the defenseless for me, so does that mean I don’t have to? Christ refrained from murder in my stead, so does that mean I don’t have to?
That seems to be the logical conclusion of your idea of fulfillment, and if so, then you’re right, I’m blind to that nonsense. 🙂
But keep trying my friend.
kazoo
Pingback: The Self Fulfilling Prophecy of the Amillenial 2 Kingdom Camp « The Reformed Standard
“…my point is that neither one of these sociopolitical items should be decried at church.”
Nonetheless, both should be decried by Christians, which really brings us to what you mean by church. If you intend to restrict it to the place we gather on Sunday mornings, then I agree, let’s attend to the worship of the triune creator God. But surely you’re not suggesting that Monday through Saturday ought not be filled with descrying injustices according to the wills of free Christians.
A month ago we bantered on about how much of what you’re writing can’t be reduced to “quietism.” Well, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
I thought the statement about looking and so forth had something to do with a ‘smell,’ and not a duck…
kazoo
But, Chris, what do you do with:
Believers whose sense of what is just and unjust are at odds and who both want to represent heaven? We should work toward being of one mind theologically, not ideologically. As it is, various doctrines of the Atonement are able to co-exist while we divide over moralized politics. I have no problem with division (and unity is a soft sell), but these things have to be per the right categories.
As far as your “quietism” charge, just as there is a difference between being active and activism there is a difference between being quiet and quietism (we are actually called to living a quiet life, you know, not a decrying one). In order to help make the larger points along these very same lines, that was a distinction I uttered to my father on the sixth fairway last week (real Presbyterians play golf, you know). He descends theologically from classic American Liberalism. Much of what I say grates his own sensitivities and he resists much of it, but he actually gets it more than he doesn’t. Maybe that is a function of how Liberalism is quite on the wane and its adherents are seeing the folly of its ways; maybe it’s a father just trying to come to grips with how the golden era hasn’t come to pass and a son who hasn’t passively accepted his New School assumptions (doesn’t everyone believe that true religion has obvious implications and direct relevance to the cares of this world????).
I’m all for calling ducks ducks, Chris. So tell me how your views are so different from New School thought or even the Liberal tradition. Because from where I sit, you and dad have a lot in common. For what it’s worth, pappa-duck has no qualms using the dreaded L-word to describe himself.
Good stuff, Zrim.
I almost quoted 1 Tim. 2:1–3 just so you’d recognize that I wasn’t discounting that biblical injunction, and so you’d get the drift that I wasn’t confused as to what I was suggesting your views amount to—practically speaking. To be clear, I don’t think you’re merely advocating the quiet, Christian life. From what I gathered from our last discussion, it seems your views may be susceptible to the “why-polish-brass-on-the-shinking-ship” accusation.
What I’m saying is: who cares even if the ship is sinking? Polish the brass. And polishing the brass, in the luxurious West at least, might simply mean attending to the mundane—Word and sacrament—in the middle of a sensationalist and consumer-ridden culture. “The believer’s cross is, like that of Jesus, the price of social nonconformity” (Yoder).
To be sure, the waters get muddy. No one Christian or denomination has a corner on determining what is just or unjust. But certain sociopolitical items can be viewed as just or unjust when a certain consensus has been reached. Denying this simply betrays one’s secta una sensibilities. Nonetheless, diversity (I think you preferred the word division) is indeed a good thing. And as far as I can tell, there’s little difference between theology and ideology; they’re reciprocal. Most theological items are nonessential, thus I have little concern to “work toward being of one mind theologically.” Even less so ideologically. That’s muddy, but there’s a few clear spots in there.
Regarding New School/Old School, I’m no Presbyterian, and I’m proud of that too. I’m a Lutheran who hasn’t gotten over his infatuation with the biblical covenant theology of Vos, Ridderbos, etc. I share a few things in common with the the Old School, and hardly anything with the New School, as far as I can tell. If I had to be Presbyterian in the 19th century, though, then I’d like to think I’d be sitting around the table with Schaff and Nevin. Oh, and precisely because the L-word is dreaded and demonized, not least in the circles in which I find myself, I’ll not be claiming that label anytime soon.
“…doesn’t everyone believe that true religion has obvious implications and direct relevance to the cares of this world????”
“Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (Jas 1:27).
The fact is, there are obvious implications and direct relevance, and the apostles of our Lord and Savior spell it out for us in more ways than one, thanks be to God.
Chris,
Speaking of foul, why do I feel like we are flirting with a game of duck-duck-goose?
I spent enough time in Fundie-Dispy systems to gather that brass polishing doesn’t include attending Word and sacrament. To them, that’s a dead religionism.
I think you may be confusing Dispy world-flight piety (informed by Gnosticism and pietism) with a proper otherworldly piety, such as one might find in the mainstream of the Reformation versus the Radical Reformation. Dispies of this species retreat from the material world in order to groom the inner life. But I’m not a spiritualist. To the chagrin of my Fundie-Dispy family and friends, I consider myself a very worldly Christian (they use the word “carnal” and it’s not meant as a compliment). So when I hear this polish charge (which I also get from my Dutch transformers) I really don’t register with what is being said. I think the distinctions between good and bad kinds of both this-worldliness and otherworldiness actually help clarify things better than references to polish.
Ah. Herein lies some of our major differences then. This accounts for volumes. This is the sort of thing I found so vexing in the traditions of both my own rearing and those I converted into.
Here’s the thing, Chris: Were I to believe what you do here then I have no idea what I am doing bothering with any form of religion. If there is no point to working toward one mind theologically I might as well go back to being an unbelieving secularist. So I will ask you the same thing I asked my father when he decided we all needed religion and dragged us back to a Liberal church: why do I need any of what is being said when I can figure it out on my own? There was no distinction made between theology and ideology. And usually when that happens the latter wins. And at the end of the day, it’s all just a glorifed ideology. To be honest, I’d rather kick back Sundays than make all the effort to be told stuff I can figure out on my own.
Here is a piece that MR actually published back when they had their “Reformation Diaries” section. It seems relevant to this exchange.
Alright. So you made it through the fiery brook of relativism and are now comfortably couched in confessionalism. I can track with that. But it doesn’t make me happy. I’m the disgruntled confessionalist sitting in the corner who’s suspicious that all his buddies are resting their laurels on a rather insubstatntial foundation of intersubjective agreement. This, along with (primarily) God’s faithful hand is what keeps me from reverting to existential atheism. Certitude just has never been my gift. It finally occurs to me that epistemic presuppositions have been lurking behind this discussion all along.
And I thoroughly enjoyed the MR link: I’m very tired of entering churches and not hearing the gospel. At least a good many of the Lutheran pulpits still get this right.
Chris,
My Calvinism tells me that suspicion is a good thing, especially when it comes to particular forms of certitude. But sometimes it really is just thinking too much. Sometimes what one man perceives as “resting their laurels on a rather insubstatntial foundation of intersubjective agreement” is another’s inner testimony of the Spirit. As much as I feel your pain, sometimes one just has to “let go.” After all, I have no idea how 2 and 2 make 4 but my trust in the reality of that sort of formula helps me every day; and Sunday comes every week and you have to do something.
“And I thoroughly enjoyed the MR link: I’m very tired of entering churches and not hearing the gospel. At least a good many of the Lutheran pulpits still get this right.”
Maybe some of the “one’s who get it right” could counsel with the LCMS here who likes to raffle off cars and cover the 8 principles to recovery on sunday. Not a grievance particular to LCMS mind you, I’m just bitter. Where are these good LCMS churches? I already know where most of the decent L/G presbyterian ones are,(nestled along Pacific coast hwy- life’s hard). I’m developing a Fodor’s of faithful protestant churches.
Sean, I know exactly of what you speak. But for some reason, I’ve been blessed with some good gospel preaching in Lutheran churches, mostly notably Immanuel Lutheran (LCMS) in Brandon, Florida, and Living Savior (WELS) in Valrico, Florida. Also, I’ve been to a few good ELCA congregations: Good Shepherd in Cincinnati (before Pastor Pete left) and (on a fluke while traveling) Ascension in Colorado Springs.
I attend a Reformed church now, and it’s hit or miss.
Sorry all, I’ve been detained with other matters. I can’t believe this post is still on top.
Echo, who said this was my church?
And, this type of thing has come up at my church – and believe me, the Elders are the first to know about what I think, not the world via blog.
Give me a little credit – I’m not that stupid (even though I look that stupid)
sean,
“I’m developing a Fodor’s of faithful protestant churches.”
this is great idea, i sometimes wish i would have blogged about our church search in GR. i may blog my church search experience in Cali.
Rana,
It’s mainly tongue-in-cheek, but I really am putting together a personal list for my own travels. I don’t imagine it’s going to be very long. Shame, I wish it weren’t that way.
Rick & zrim,
Would you say that it is perfectly fine with you if the church militant were completely impotent and irrelevant as it pertains to society?
kazoo
Rick,
Just curious…what’s the background on the pic in this post?
Kazoo,
Yes, but not in the way your loaded question means it. But I do think there is a profound mystery in how something can be at once militant and also “completely impotent and irrelevant.” The Cross comes to mind, the foolishness of the gospel and all that.
Zrim,
I just did an image search on “signature petition” or something like that and found an image that looked about right.
Kazoo, I desire to go to church every Sunday to hear the Gospel preached, partake in the body and blood of Christ and see some kids receive the sign and seal of the covenant. Maybe I don’t understand your question – but I like Zrim’s answer.
Rick,
Thanks for the response. I think that should answer Zrim’s question.
E
I think some of my Elders are tired of me. I need to be selective these days. If you keep voicing your displeasure with things on a regular basis – people start tuning you out.
I rejoice in all the good stuff, and they need to hear about those things too.
Rick,
Maybe we’ll have to join TURC so we can try the Presbie approach together. It will give your writer’s cramp some ease and maybe I’ll find more success than I’ll ever hope to at Calvin.
Maybe I’m way too Old School to a fault, but I think silence still beats protest when one cannot locate like-mindedness. I’d rather be a disgruntled Presbie than a nuisance.
Zrim,
Join TURC and I’ll immediately nominate you for elder.
Sometimes I wish I had a direct tunnel from my living room to the church
auditoriumSANCTUARY so I can skip thefoyerNARTHEX liturature. Oh, and don’t give me a bulletin either.I think I will be trying the silence approach. Save it for the big stuff.
My only point was that the silent approach does not allow for gossip behind their backs on a blog. (But you’ve already said that you weren’t grumbling about your elders behind their backs. Nonetheless, that was my point.)
Immediate nomination for elder? Now I know TURC is no place for me (that must have been your sneaky way of keeping the Zrimec family out). I mean, do you really want someone who points out that their proper names are actually the narthex (not foyer) and sanctuary (not auditorium), or is cheeky enough that when told to meet in the “Fellowship Hall” he waits in the sanctuary while everyone gathers in what he calls the “All-Purpose Room”? Kidding, I’ve never done that. I don’t have the guts.
The tunnel thing was funny. Good one.
noms, noms, noms. The funny thing is that I’m usually careful to use the right names for things – I just had a lapse and couldn’t remember if sanctuary was appropriate or not (I kid you not. Long day). Narthex totally slipped my mind.
The point is: I like the sanctuary, not big on the narthex.
You’d make a good elder in the URC, but yeah I suppose folks need to get to know you first.
Echo, I think we’re clear, I get your meaning, I dig, we’re good.
Echo,
I have found that grumbling and gossip aren’t particular about what medium is employed.
It’s sort of like the whole theonomic idea of Christian statecraft versus non-Christian statecraft, which labors under the illusion that sin can be kept more at bay by Christian efforts.
Sorry Zrim,
So you’re saying that theonomy thinks that sin can be kept more at bay by Christian efforts? Am I reading that right?
kazoo
Kazoo,
I think so, yes. The implication of your post (linked below) is that if we “just did it God’s way” all would be happy, healthy and whole. This is a form of prosperity gospel that could use a high doctrine of sin.
The other interesting effect your theonomy has is how it tells Jesus to come down off his cross. Like I said, whatever misguided fears of a “broken down society” which seem to fuel so much of the thenomy movement as evidenced in your post, telling Jesus to come down ought to give you a lot more pause in comparison.
Wow. I definitely think you have it wrong on so many points here. I responded to your comment about the cross over in the thread.
It’s not the sin so much that we are to be concerned with, but the crimes that afflict our fellow man. A society that outlaws and punishes murder is a ‘better’ place for the citizen, including the little defenseless unborn baby.
Where theonomy is concerned regarding society and government in general, isn’t the sin, but the moral actions that the society allows and encourages and the immoral actions that the society disallows and punishes.
kazoo
Kazoo,
What makes theonomists think believers are somehow more concerned or better equipped for law and order? I’d rather have Jack McCoy prosecuting the wicked than a theonomist persecuting and punishing sinners. There is a big difference.
Lots of countries outlaw murder and have never cracked open a Bible. The ancient far east is the oldest civilization on earth and has been fairly well ordered for centuries.
Why does anyone needs the Bible to order society? What happens to the unborn seems to keep being your litmus test. What do you do when you locate a secular society somewhere in time and history that follows your understanding and criminalizes abortion?
Zrim,
I mean this with respect, but it seems pretty clear to me that you don’t really understand theonomy. I bring up murder often because it is a very universal agreement that it is morally wrong. Then I throw in the unborn just to poke at you a bit.
To answer your question, I would rejoice to know that a secular society in the past criminalized abortion. Somehow by God’s common grace and by natural revelation, they understood and obeyed the one moral standard that murder is wrong and should be punished. It doesn’t do a think to harm theonomy.
I’m hopping back over to your other comment to respond to that one now…
kazoo
Kazoo,
You’re right, I don’t get theonomy. But you say that like it’s a bad thing.
Seriously, Jeff, charges of not understanding usually have more to do with agreement than understanding. My bet is that you fairly well understand W2K but simply don’t agree. Agreeing is a more difficult project than understanding. I know folks who understand Christianity pretty well but aren’t persuaded about its claims. Like it or not, understanding is not the key here.
Fun fact: CVT did what he could to distance himself from the lunacy of theonomy and regretted the works of Bahnsen and Rushdooney, even as the latter figures thought CVT didn’t realize he was actually a theonomist and kept claiming him as their patron saint. Seems you guys can be like dogs with bones in your misguidance.
Zrim,
I completely understand and agree with you that much of a problem can be agreement and not understanding.
The reason I say that it seems pretty clear to me that you don’t understand it is because of some of the things you say about it or ask about it. Many of your statements regarding it either explicitly state that theonomy teaches something that it doesn’t, or implicitly infers that theonomy teaches something that it doesn’t. So, based on your statements, that’s why I say it seems that you don’t understand.
Now, I’m fine with someone completely understanding and then disagreeing. That’s fine with me, but if you want to argue against a position that I don’t hold, but you think I hold it, then there are new problems introduced, don’t you agree?
One more caveat, I think I alluded to the possibility that one of your statements above might have been a conclusion you have drawn from your understanding of theonomy. If that is the case, then yes, it would be a matter of agreement. Maybe you fully are aware of what specifically theonomists have taught, but then you would want to argue that it logically follows that “theonomists want to bring in the kingdom with the sword.” (paraphrase).
So, anyway, I appreciate the interchange.
Blessings my brother,
kazoo
Kazoo,
I think a lot of this has to do with maybe your assumption that I want to argue properly. I don’t. I don’t fancy myself something I am not, like a pseudo-apologist, etc. I’m just a ham-blogger is all.
There are a lot folks who tell me I don’t understand them, Jeff. So be it; dust from sandals, you know? I’ll be the first to admit there is plenty I likely don’t get. If we all worried about understanding the other guy to his satisfaction we’d all go a bit nuts. I know what I know about theonomy, maybe not to your contentment.
But feel free to keep coming ’round the OH. We have lots of munchies even if we don’t always agree on how it all tastes.
HAH! ROFLLMAO
I have got to keep this quote from you around. I think it will come in handy quite often when in an argument with you. Great stuff:
kazoo
Kazoo,
Above all else, I value making folks laugh. Glad to have been a help.
Why have a blog if you don’t want to argue? I thought that was what blogs were for? 🙂
Ron,
Don’t look now but you’re appealing to natural law, that is, if you actually can’t locate the biblical law for blogging.
Seriously, I thought the intent of blogs were sort of up to the bloggers. Oh well, I guess that is something else I don’t understand. But something tells me this is another version of, “If you don’t care like me then you don’t care,” only it goes like this, “If you don’t engage like me it’s pointless.” Sorry, guys, but (again) read the About tab for the OH (“I rather conceive of the Outhouse to be a place of rumination and reflection amongst nearly like-minded people where certain assumptions are in place. By like-minded I mean those who have been persuaded in confessional Reformed orthodoxy and take certain things for granted. The Outhouse is less interested in debating the finer points of confessional Reformed orthodoxy, like Calvinism [or popular contemporary controversies], and more interested in reflecting upon the broader implications of it in our day over against the implications of the larger Household [a concept explained below]. Another forum might be better suitable for those who wish to join the cacophony of cracker-jack apologists, exegetes, evangelists, theologians and social critics.”)
I have little interest in spending oodles of time finding out I believe what I believe and lots of others don’t. It reminds me of my mainline upbringing where we spent huge amounts of energy to learn what we already know. Plus, my sanctified but un-transformed mind can’t keep up with people who are smarter than me, and it really gets winded with those who take themselves seriously instead of their ideas.
In other words, you’re only interest is in making assertions and not being required to defend them. That is not biblical. Proverbs 18:17
Well now you’re just ruining all the fun, Ron. Sheesh, ya try to be honest with a guy…
“Sheesh, ya try to be honest with a guy…”
That’ll learn ya.