No one
ever questioned this theological framework until some of us actually began
to apply worldview Christianity to particular social issues. This is what we
were taught to do, from our first reading of Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures
on Calvinism to Francis Schaeffer’s How Should We Then
Live?
Those
students who were interested in cultural Christianity were directed to
Kuyper’s 1898 Lectures on Calvinism. It was here that we were told
we would find a fully developed, comprehensive, biblical world-and-life
view. Kuyper’s brand of Christianity has been described as the “only modern
exception” to the tendency of Christians either to abandon social action in
favor of piety or to abandon piety in favor of social action.1
The
“Kuyperian” tradition “was at once pious and socially influential.”2 “As Abraham Kuyper said, there is not
one inch of creation of which Christ doesn’t say ‘Mine.’”3 In his Lectures on Calvinism,
Kuyper discussed politics, science, and art, but it was more than the familiar
five points of Calvinism. Curiously,
economics and law were absent from his discussion.
Reading Kuyper was like reading a
repair manual that was all diagnosis and little if any instruction on how to
fix the problem. Here’s a sample:
That in
spite of all worldly opposition, God’s holy ordinances shall be established
again in the home, in the school and in the State for the good of the people;
to carve as it were into the conscience of the nation the ordinances of the
Lord, to which the Bible and Creation bear witness, until the nation pays
homage again to God.4
Everything that has been
created was, in its creation, furnished by God with an unchangeable law of its
existence. And because God has fully ordained such laws and ordinances for all
life, therefore the Calvinist demands that all life be consecrated to His
service in strict obedience. A religion confined to the closet, the cell, or
the church, therefore, Calvin abhors.5
This is marvelous biblical
world-and-life view rhetoric, but there is almost no appeal to the Bible
in Lectures. Broad principles are set forth, but a specific biblicalworldview
is lacking. As one soon learns after reading Kuyper, there is little that is
distinctly biblical in his cultural position. Kuyper, along with Herman
Dooyeweerd (1894–1977), is best known for the concept of sphere
sovereignty and what is now being described as principled pluralism.
Writes pluralist Gary Scott Smith:
This position rests upon
several major tenets. God built basic structures or institutions into the
world, each having separate authority and responsibilities. He established
state, school, society, workplace, church, marriage, and family to carry out
various roles in the world, and He commands human beings to serve as
officeholders in these various spheres of life.6
What
standard are these officeholders to use in the governance of these various
spheres? This is the essence of the debate. The disagreement is over how we
should be involved and what standard we should use in our
establishment of a developed social theory.
Principled Pluralism
A contemporary
application of the Kuyperian worldview can be found in the writings of
numerous “principled pluralists.” These Christian advocates of the Kuyperian
model argue that “a biblical view of civil government must rest . . . upon
general principles taught throughout Scripture.”7 The emphasis is on “general principles”
and not “isolated prooftexts.” From these “divine norms,” the people will
“experience peace, justice, and righteousness in their fullness.”8
But exactly
how should the Christian define justice and righteousness?
Is it just and right to tax the citizenry in order to fulfill
the general demands of justice and righteousness, say, in caring for the
poor and educating the people through an educational system controlled by the
state because it is financed by the state? Liberals and conservatives espouse
justice and righteousness. Whose definition is correct? Whose solution should
Christians follow if the pluralist is correct when he maintains that the
Bible cannot be appealed to for specifics, since the “tares” must be tolerated
until the time of the “final harvest”? By what standard are
Christians required by God to decide these issues?
Where
does the Christian pluralist go for his specific norms? They
are few and far between in the pluralist’s world. For example, in Gordon J.
Spykman’s defense of principled pluralism, there is little appeal to the
Bible, even under the heading “Biblical Foundations.” He mentions general norms, but there is no
worked-out judicial system.
Our view of society should not
be derived from isolated passages scattered throughout the Bible. Such a
piecemeal approach assumes that the Bible is a collection of timeless truths
with built-in, ready-made applications for every situation. Rather, the
Scriptures present principles and directives that hold for life as a whole in
every age. We must therefore rely on the comprehensive meaning of the
biblical message. Though couched in ancient forms, the Scriptures
carry with them universal norms that should direct the lives
of Christians and shape societies they live in.9
This is
doubletalk. Let’s rephrase the first sentence in this quotation: “Our view
of the Trinity should not be derived from isolated passages
scattered throughout the Bible.” How about our view of the deity of Christ,
the resurrection from the dead, and justification by faith alone? Could the
same be said for “the family” and “the church”? It was an isolated passage in
Romans that brought on the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Luther’s cry
was that “The just shall live by faith alone” (Rom. 1:17). Are the doctrines of justification
and sanctification different from the doctrines of law and the civil magistrate?
The Westminster divines did not think so. Biblical passages are cited throughout
the Shorter and Larger Catechisms.
Spykman
tells us that when “the Reformers spoke of sola Scriptura, they
did not mean that Scripture is God’s only revelation. God also reveals His will
in creation and providence. In fact, the creational word remains His
fundamental and abiding revelation.” It’s true that special revelation
(Scripture) is not God’s only revelation. But if general revelation is enough, then why did God
give us the Bible? Adam and Eve, prior to the fall, were given special
revelation regarding the maintenance of the created order. John Frame drives
the point home:
Natural revelation was not
sufficient before the fall of Adam. Even in Paradise, as
Cornelius Van Til used to say, our first parents learned truth, not only from
their senses and reason from God’s revelation in creation, but also from the
divine voice itself. According to Gen. 1:28-30, God did not leave it to our
first parents to find out his will on their own, by scrutinizing natural
revelation. Rather, he spoke to them in his own words, giving them the
fundamental task of their existence. Indeed, it is this passage, often called
the “cultural mandate,” that defines culture for God’s people.
Spykman
continues: “God gave the Scripture to correct and reinforce His original
revelation upon our minds, redirecting our attention to its meaning, refocusing
the intent and purpose of creation. God’s message is always the same, but it
comes in different modes. Its author does not contradict Himself. Though
revelation comes in various forms, its norms are constant. The word holds, even
when men do not discern or obey it.”10
Spykman
agrees that general and special revelation present the same message.
If this is true, then we should expect to find the same laws in the creation
order as we find in the Bible. For example, not only should we find
prohibitions regarding what a society should do with men practicing sodomy,
but we should also be able to find the same sanctions. Since both general and specific norms are found in
the Bible, general and specific norms can be found in creation. They are one
and the same! If the Bible was given to reinforce God’s original
revelation, then why not begin with the Bible, since the original
revelation is itself in need of reconstruction? Christian pluralists refuse
to begin here. Why? My guess is that the Bible is just a bit too clear and
specific.
God has directed his people to seek his law, not through their own
study of the creation, but through his written word. To be
sure, nature does reveal some of God’s ordinances (Rom. 1:25, 32; 2:14f.). But Scripture never suggests that
nature contains a richer or fuller revelation than the written word. On the
contrary: In Romans 3:1-2, the Jews,
because of their acquaintance with Scripture, are said to have a tremendous
advantage over the Gentiles who (according to the preceding chapters) had only
general revelation. Scripture, says the Apostle Paul, is sufficient “that the
man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work” [2 Tim. 3:17]. Adding to God’s word is as much
an act of human presumption as subtracting from it (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18).11
Because of its lack of a specific and absolute biblical
ethic outside the confines of ecclesiastical courts, Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty
has been taken to its logical conclusion in his native Amsterdam. In time, the
distinctive Christian witness was so diluted by competing worldviews that
little remained of Kuyper’s influence. In Amsterdam, prostitutes parade their
female assets in shop windows for eager “clients.” Of course, this is not what
Kuyper intended, but it is the logical outworking of his common-grace system:
no biblical civil law.
1.
Irving Hexham and Karla Poewe, Understanding Cults and
New Religions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 126. [↩]
2.
Hexham and Karla Poewe, Understanding Cults and New
Religions, 126. [↩]
3.
Douglas Groothuis, “Revolutionizing our Worldview,” Reformed
Journal (November 1982), 23. [↩]
4.
Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, [1931] 1970), iii. [↩]
5.
Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 53. [↩]
6.
Gary Scott Smith, “Introduction to Principled Pluralism,” God
and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. Gary
Scott Smith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989), 75. [↩]
7.
Smith, “Introduction to Principled Pluralism,” 76. [↩]
8.
Smith, “Introduction to Principled Pluralism,” 76. [↩]
9.
Gordon J. Spykman, “The Principled Pluralist Position,” in God
and Politics, 80. [↩]
10.
Spykman, “The Principled Pluralist Position,” 82-83. Emphasis
added. [↩]
11.
John Frame, The Amsterdam Philosophy: A Preliminary
Critique (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Harmony Press, n.d.), 31. [↩]