2K Discussion Points?

An interesting point-counter-point has developed.  It seems like a good place for discussion to start, and it still makes me think I don't fit either group.  However, it appears to be a series of points based off solely Van Drunen.  I still think the 2K/Transformationalism is a spectrum  or a sliding scale.  But, it is a nice thing to read if you want a starting point for discussion.

That is not to say I think it is great.  Because I also think that the Counter-Point is occasionally squarely and unhelpful.  Take points 8-10.

Point 8 lays out the 2K claim that Lex Talionis governs the Common Kingdom.  Point 9 then admits that it is flexible, imprecise, and capable of softening.  Point 10 is then "Principles of Mercy and Forgiveness do not govern the common kingdom".  Straight forward enough.  The Counter-Point is "Principles of mercy and forgiveness do operate in the common kingdom, if one understand the common kingdom to include families, personal relationships, etc."

Now that is unhelpful in my opinion.  First, "govern" and "operate" are not exactly parallel.  Saying one governs does not mean that the other cannot operate.  Second, Point 9 admitted that mercy and forgiveness can and do operate, they just don't govern.  At least that is how I read  Point 9.  So, I feel that sometimes the guy wants to disagree and make a point and does so in less than upfront ways.

Still, it is a place to start the discussion.  Enjoy the reading.

Two Kingdoms Escondido Theology Wrap Up

I ought to come back and offer some concluding thoughts on the Frame book.  Let me start by just stating again that if you are wanting a book to deal with 2K in a serious way from a Transformational view point this is NOT your book.  If you are looking for a book that is a deep insight into Frame's hostility toward his former employer then this book is worth the money.

So in my quest to look into 2K deeper this book was not all that helpful.  It did point out one very big problem in trying to learn more about 2K Theology, and that is Westminster West itself.  Let me explain.

The book is called Escondido Theology, and it is a common name for the 2K teaching because those guys are pushing it and publishing about it.  However, it really clouds the issue.  Mainly because the Westminster West guys teach and push other things that are not necessary to 2K theology, and often not even related to 2K theology, yet because it is often called Escondido Theology they get mashed up together.

The full title of Frame's book is "The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology".  The problem is the Escondido theology and Two Kingdoms really can be two separate issues.  And in my opinion, often are.  Go back to the introduction.  No, not the first introduction.  Not the second or the third.  The one entitled Author's Introduction.  Frame gives a big list of grievances.  They include several points that are what we would call Redemptive-Historical Preaching.  A few more are simply about traditional worship.  There is at least one about the interpretation of the Sabbath.  And a couple more about the "absolutizing" of a certain traditions and declaring them to be the only Reformed tradition.  He does actually have a few about 2K such as whether or not the cultural mandate is fulfilled in Christ or by us still today, and whether or not the Christian has a mandate to seek change in the political order.  But the majority are simply lies like saying that Escondido teaches "We should take no interest in our inner feelings" or that "Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones are not Reformed".

Frame does not prove most of these points, and thus his book should be considered a failure.  But more importantly, Frame spends a lot of time on the worship complaints and the Absolutizing complaints.  These have nothing to do with being a "Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology" as the sub-title advertises.  Frame does not deal enough with the Two Kingdoms.  And it needs to be separated out from some of this other stuff.  Horton's book on worship has nothing to do with Two Kingdoms.  And I can agree that Recovering the Reformed Confessions seeks to absolutize certain positions that the Reformed world has never agreed upon (no hymns for example and framework creation).  I can agree that Redemptive Historical Preaching is off in its understanding of preaching (although I think Frame does not deal with it fairly in this book).  So, in a lot of ways, I am not in line with the Escondido Theology.  But Frame does little to convince me to be a transformationalist.

If anyone out there knows of a decent book criticizing Two Kingdoms, let me know.

Escondido Theology Chapter 8

Chapter 8 was easily the most pointless of the entire book. It is a review of three books about worship. The title of Frame's book is The Escondido Theology, but the subtitle is A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology. This chapter on worship has nothing to do with Two Kingdoms. And this is a major point. I think we ought to start seeing a difference between the Escondido Theology and Two Kingdoms.

I say that not because I disagree with the three books reviewed. The only point Frame makes that I find even remotely on target in this chapter is that he points out that a book by Marva Dawn entitled Reaching Out without Dumbing Down claims to be a new path through the worship wars, and it really is nothing new. Marva Dawn argues for traditional worship without being up front about it. Frame does not like this because Frame favors new stuff in worship. I don't like it because they ought to just say out loud that the traditional way is right and then argue for it. We don't need a new way through the worship wars we need to win them. But then Dawn is not associated with the seminary, I don't think. The book did get a nod from Horton's worship book A Better Way.

The most interesting stuff came in the review of D.G. Hart and John Meuther who co-wrote With Reverence and Awe. Here Frame seems to deny the idea of a dialogue form of worship. He does not come out and say so, but seems to have his "snark" on full blast when complaining that Hart and Muether believe reformed worship does require that form. I think that Hart and Muether are right, and in fact, it is hard not read the Reformers are requiring it in worship. Modern worship has no support among the Reformers. Now, Frame refuses to actually interact much in this chapter. Rather he complains and then directs people to his book Worship in Spirit and Truth. He does make sure to add that Hart has failed to overthrow the argument of Frame's own book. No bias there I am sure. Overall this 6 page chapter adds nothing to the book, and really should have just been left out. One gets the idea it was not left out because Frame refused to leave his pet subject alone.

Another Bayly Bros Excursus: A case study

The Bayly Bros really hate the 2K Theology. They show it again in this post on Escondido Theology. This post is the epitome of all that is wrong with this debate. This post makes Frame look sane and in control of himself.

Just take the name "2K Sanhedrin". Wow. Horton, VanDrunen, and the others are modern day examples of people who put to death Stephen and whipped Peter and John? Really? That is insane. I still don't understand this vitriol.

But the majority of the post is a screed against Reformed ministers as a whole for not speaking out against social ills and basically calling the Escondido crowd liars for pretending it is a real problem. That is clear from this line: "These R2K men working hard to gag Reformed pastors and elders really have no one at all to gag. And they know it." I find it hard to believe that these guys manufactured this stuff. But I guess the Bayly Bros know best.

They insult all of us by calling us cowards and claim there are no men who preach against the ills of such things as abortion. Never mind the RCUS has passed something specifically stating that God will not long hold back judgment on a country that slaughters its young. But I guess that does not make the Bayly Bros point, so they get to ignore it. I know pastors who write letters to papers, and make phone calls, and yet the Bayly Bros think such men don't exist. There is nothing like someone throwing around insults of cowardice without actually having any proof.

But more important to our current line of investigation is the picture of the Christian ministry painted by the Bayly Bros. It is not just abortion they think should be denounced from the pulpit. In addition to abortion he mentions euthanasia, picketing nursing homes (that have been "Third Reichified"), and politics in general. Perhaps an argument can be made for some of this, but then they go to NSA wiretaps and possible data mining. This I don't get. Preaching against NSA wiretaps. Preaching against data mining. Now, I can agree that these wire taps are against the Constitution. But let us not confuse the Constitution with the Holy Word. What text should one choose to condemn such behavior? Surely not the "be quick to listen" verses of James. That might be taken wrong. And what application is there for the people in the pew? What exactly are they going to do? Not pay their taxes in an attempt to send the NSA out of business? Throw away their cell phones?

This is the sort of extreme behavior that make the 2K guys look very attractive.

Escondido Theology Chapter 7

Chapter 7 is a review of A Secular Faith by D.G. Hart. Hart is of course one who often gives as good as he gets, so one might could expect some fireworks. I am not a fan of this new type of communication where the one with the sharpest barb wins, but perhaps it is just because I am not so good at it.

Frame does make an odd attack at the beginning where he points out derogatorily that the Escondido group is mostly historians. He does not explain why this is awful, but clearly implies it. It is even stranger because Frame admits the book is an excellent history book.

Hart's book hits on the most upsetting aspect of 2K theology to most people: politics. Hart states "that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless in solving America's political disputes" (Hart pg. 11). Although he does admit influence from the church on society but one that is mostly "indirect and unintentional" (pg. 233). Frame obviously takes issue with such an idea and especially the idea that this is the historic reformed position. It fits with Frame's absolutizing accusation against the Escondido theologians. Frame further complains when Hart allows for implications and motivations taken from Scripture for secular activities, which is apparently different from teachings or commands. This Frame rightly points out would make it hard to enforce if it truly is the only acceptable position when you are dealing with implications and motivations.

The interesting part of Frame's critique comes in interacting with Hart on the Biblical text especially in John. John 18:36 where Jesus says that HIs kingdom is not of this world is the first major battle ground. Hart takes this as evidence that Christ's kingdom is indeed different from the secular political kingdom since he is saying it to Pilate, a Roman official. Frame counters with counting up the references to "world" in John chapters 14-18, which he totals at 43. Most refer to the earthly physical realm, not politics. Frame then argues that Jesus is saying that the Kingdom is from the Father above the earthly realm rather than Hart's assertion that the kingdom is of a different character entirely. The reading and understanding of this verse has great implications for other places in John such as 15:19 and 17:16 where the disciples are said to be "not of the world". Does this mean the disciples are to be of another character entirely or are they from the Father above. Can you see the difference now of Frame's Transformationalism? The kingdom is not of a different nature, it is just from a different origin. Hart would rather it be of a different nature than the human politics and human power. Frame goes on to discuss the Kingdom coming to earth in places like Luke 17:21, where it is said to be amidst them already. For Frame this kingdom coming to earth is simply coming from the Father, but can come in the same manner as an earthly kingdom. It is not different in its nature, only its source. Thus, Christian political parties are a good thing because they help usher in the kingdom. Christian labor unions can be good because they too bring the Kingdom of God from the Father. Hart sees unions and governments as not instruments capable of bringing the Kingdom because the Kingdom of God is not of the same nature as earthly kingdoms. It comes about through foolishness of preaching and through the power of the Suffering Servant. They end up being wildly different.

The second biblical discussion is about "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" in Matthew 22:21 and Luke 20:25. Hart sees this verse as a 2K separation. Caesar is a pagan and yet his government is legitimate and to be lived under and submitted to even in taxes, an odious thing. Frame thinks the passage teaches rather that God is the ultimate ruler of everything and has simply granted Caesar some of it for a time and that is why he is to be submitted to at all. In fact, Frame points out that simply because it might be legitimate does not mean that is the ideal way to live. In other words, Frame is saying that Jesus's silence about transforming the government to a Christian one means nothing, but Hart is saying Jesus is silent, and it means everything. For why would Jesus be silent if he meant for us to try and transform the government?

One other part that needs to be noted is that Hart does state the Bible is the guide only for "church life" and politics is supposed to be guided by "reason and prudence". Frame attacks this as a reduction of Christ's sovereignty and Bible's place in a Christians life. And I have to say here I agree with Frame. It is hard to read II Timothy 3:16-17 as a guide only for church life.

But Hart is militating against the use of Scripture for a particular political stance, and really what Biblical text can you point to for a program of reducing taxes? What about opposing Social Security? Or supporting it? Hart in fact points out that Christianity is an intolerant exclusive religion, how then can it support a government that is tolerant of differing faiths if transformationalism is true? And here I think Hart is right. Frame of course disagrees and actually says "I do in fact believe that in a general sense government should be theocratic. . . . [acknowledging] Jesus Christ as king of kings." (Frame pg.265). And there you have the main difference. I think it comes back to Hart's "implications and motivations". But we ought to be able to fellowship with someone who has a different political opinion than we do. I am not sure Frame' view allows for such things. Churches ought to be all of the same political persuasion, the Christian political one.

This chapter was very good for the biblical arguments, but I think Frame goes to far afield when he advocates government spreading the Kingdom of Christ.

Escondido Theology Chapter 6

It has taken me a little longer to post this review because I believe this chapter is a very important one in the book. In this chapter Frame deals with Michael Horton's Covenant and Eschatology. This is a 42 page review of Horton's book, but 32 of the pages deal with Horton's first chapter. This I think is important as it shows a methodological difference between the two camps. Horton in his book argues for five methodological tools, and Frame takes them one at a time.

1. Post-Reformation Scholastics
Horton wants to take seriously the Reformed Scholastics. Frame argues that Horton does not do so and points to the volume of quotes from others. This also fits nicely into Frame's mantra that the Escondido Theology is absolutizing a portion of the Reformed Heritage and claiming it as the only orthodox solution. I do think also that this applies to others in the Escondido group. There does appear to be an affinity for 17th century theologians of the Reformation. One thing that I think Frame and Horton both do not do justice to is that the Reformed Scholastics were Scholastics because of a method that they used. The Scholastic Method. I think it is probably better to just view this as 17th century Reformers rather than actual Scholastics. Too often that term is used broadly to mean the latter portion of the Reformation, but it is not really accurate to do so. Frame is rather brief here.

2. Redemptive Historical/Eschatological Method
Horton here speaks of a Promise-Fulfillment methodology where we see the centrality of God acting and God speaking. Horton sees it in contrast to Platonism. We see the present age and the age to come as opposed to Plato's two worlds. Horton brings in Theology of the Cross and Theology of Glory. Theology of Glory being an overrealized eschatology here and now in the present and the Theology of the Cross being an already-not yet mentality. Frame points out this is related to Horton's emphasis on visualization (Theology of Glory) and proclamation (Theology of the Cross). Theology of Glory and Theology of the Cross just set Frame off anytime they are used, and here is no exception. Frame does see glory for us here and now, and sees the link between glory and the cross. Frame also sees an ontology in the Bible, and it is the Creator-Creature distinction. Frame then speaks of Presuppositional apologetics and the critique goes on from there. However, it is not clear to me that Horton actually rejects Presuppositionalism. In fact, I know VanDrunen affirms it in several places. So this critique seems more of a Frame overreaction to terms he does not like than an actual critique of something in Horton. True, Horton does not specifically bring up the Creator-Creature distinction here, but he also does nothing to suggest he rejects it.

3. Analogical Mode
This was a weird section to read. It seems to me that this is one of the places where Horton is coming down on the side of VanTil against Clark, without ever directly speaking to it. Horton claims our knowledge is more dissimilar than similar to God's knowledge and it is not univocal, but rather analogical. If my understanding of the Clark-VanTil Controversy is right, this is one of the disputed topics. Horton fails to define analogical which is enough to lose me. I need a good definition, and not one that is simply a negative, but one that contains positive light. Frame one would think would be in agreement here with Horton, but not so much. Frame argues for some sort of similarity in knowledge. Saying "God is good" is affirming something real, something we can know. Not just in how God is different, but in something about God himself. Not perfectly or absolutely, but it is still knowing God. Horton seems to agree with Clark's "certain degree of falseness" in our knowledge and speech about God. I think Frame may actually be right here.

4. Dramatic Model
Horton here wants a "history-centered" method as opposed to "text-centered" one. Frame spends a lot of time nit picking at such things as how unfocused words like "centered" are, but in reality he has no major objections. Frame does eventually admit this. He could have trimmed about 5 pages off the book, if he had just said that up front.

5. Covenant Context
Horton here moves on into the Covenant as an important methodological understanding. We are in covenant with God. He speaks and acts in covenant. Thus, the covenant becomes a very important thing for us to understand. Frame points out that Horton follows Klein on covenants. And this again is a major area of disagreement between Frame and the Escondido group. Frame believes that we are saved by grace in all the covenants, and that in all the covenants there are rewards that we merit. He points to Matthew 5:46, 6:4, and 10:40-42. And as I have pointed out earlier Horton has no problem with Shepherd. So, on this point, I tend to agree with Horton. I am not sure how Frame would line up his view with the Heidelberg Catechism's answer that even our best works in this life are tainted and stained with sin, but it would be interesting to know.

The rest of Frame's chapter covers quickly Horton's book. It boils down to two main problems. Frame continually hammers the lack of emphasis on the Creator-Creature distinction, which again I cannot find denied anywhere. Frame just thinks it ought to appear. And then the aforementioned analogical debate. Frame does I think hold to an analogical knowledge, but one with a univocal core (pg.234). This way we are able to actually affirm truths about God. Although Frame does work in a shot at the Law/Gospel distinction of Horton in the last page or two.

Ovearall the amount of time Frame spends on this is striking. I believe that a lot of Frame's objections stem from methodological differences. The disagreements about the Covenant Context appear to have a major impact on this debate. The analogical problem leaving a "degree of falsehood" in all we say and understand about God is a bit troubling. So, I think Frame has pointed out an epistemological problem, but the Covenant dispute seems more important in this Two Kingdom debate. VanDrunen states a couple of times in his book that a consistent view of Justification by Faith will lead one to a Two Kingdom understanding, and while Frame would obviously reject that point, Frame does bring this doctrine back to the forefront of the debate with his critique of the Covenant Context. An interesting chapter to say the least.

Escondido Theology Chapter 5

Chapter 5 I am just going to briefly touch because I will admit I have never read Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue. This is easily the most scholarly chapter as Frame shows a great deal of respect for Kline. Frame also views Kline as the fountain head of the Escondido Theology.

Interestingly despite a great deal of respect for Kline, Frame believes the Absolutizing (rejecting other views as Reformed) even comes from Kline. He explains that Kline's reaction to the Shepherd Controversy and opposing the Theonomy of Greg Banshen. This is the beginning of the problem for Frame. Kline goes to Escondido, and the faculty ends up preferring Kline's view of things to Frame and the acceptance of divergent views that was characteristic of Philadelphia.

One can see the influence of Kline in Escondido. The acceptance of Framework hypothesis for example. Frame argues that the Two Kingdoms owes a lot to Kline, and maybe so, but even Frame admits it was around with Luther, so Kline is hardly a lynch pin in that equation. Kline held to a post-fall split between Cult and Culture (cult being worship). Culture was a common activity for both the believer and the unbeliever, cult was only for the follower of Christ. This is how Kline ties into the Two Kingdoms, and Frame rejects it claiming "We can find no passage (or biblical principle) that suggests that our cultural labors are anything other than an offering, a living sacrifice, to the glory of God." (pg.171).

Frame rejects Kline's reading of Genesis 9. Kline does not believe Genesis 9 reinstates the Cultural Mandate. Frame, of course, disagrees. Frame's argument really has two prongs. One is that he believes it is simply the natural reading to see Genesis 9 linked to Genesis 1. The main part of the argument (at least here) is that holiness is a matter of degrees. This is a concept I had not really thought of before. Frame uses the illustration of the temple. There was the Most Holy Place where the Ark was kept. And in relation to that everything else is profane. However, the room next to it was known as the Holy Place, and there the was altar of incense and the showbread. And of course the temple itself was seen as a holy place as a whole. He points out that holy ground occurs where God makes an appearance like the burning bush. Thus, for Frame holiness is a matter of degree. This goes against Kline who sees a strict difference between sacred and profane, cult and culture. Frame uses it to claim that everything must be done for God's glory, and everything is in some sense then a holy activity. This really seems to be the underlying point of much of Frame's chapter. The sharp distinction is rejected in favor of degrees of holiness and spirituality.

Again, this chapter is probably better if you had read Kline's work, but I am not planning on doing that so you have to just bear with me. This chapter makes the most effort to interact in a scholarly way. And it is done with a pleasant tone with the obvious exception of the Appendix. This could be seen as a funny joke, but considering the rest of the book, it comes off more as mocking. It is a chart to help you come up with your own Klinian Terms. Just mash any two terms together and viola! Apparently Kline must have been big on this. It adds nothing, and I would have thought a decent editor would have taken this out.

For me (remembering my limitations) the chapter hinges on the discussion about holiness as degrees. And while I am ready to concede that Judaism has degrees of holiness, I am not sure that it is right. The temple may indeed have a Most Holy Place and the Holy Place, but the temple itself is a type pointing to Christ. The question becomes whether or not there is any holiness outside of Christ? And then whether or not that means our service in daily jobs is a degree of holiness simply because the temple had holy places? Frame pushes the idea often of a strict and broad definition of worship with the broad definition being basically equal to service. That way by definition all of life can be said to be worship. This sort of requires a view of degrees of holiness because that statement is only true if we take the broad definition of worship. It also requires a rejection of 2K and Kline's theology because with the broad definition of worship there can be no separation of anything in worship. But if we just agreed to use a different term for the broad worship category (like maybe service), would this rejection still be so mandatory? I feel a little like his terms lead him into certain conclusions.
And just as importantly if the Heidelberg Catechism says even my best works are stained with sin in this life, can they rightly be considered sort of holy? Would we not be able to look at one another say, "I am more holy than you"? Because holiness is a matter of degree and thus the statement is completely possible.

I will say this that Frame has given me something to think about in this chapter. And again, if you have read Kingdom Prologue you will probably benefit more from the discussion.

Escondido Theology Chapter 4

This chapter Frame examines David VanDrunen's A Biblical Defense of Natural Law. This chapter does not quite contain as many clearly choppy responses, and I think it reflects the fact that Frame does not quite have the problem with VanDrunen he has with some of the others. In fact, Frame admits up front that he agrees with VanDrunen's view that Natural Law exists. He also seems to agree with the traditional interpretation of Romans 2, and thus agrees with VanDrunen on that point as well. Frame has some quibbles about VanDrunen's discussion of the image of God in Adam, but nothing really major. Primarily the disagreement lies in the application of Natural Law, namely in the Two Kingdoms and how Scripture fits into Natural Law.

VanDrunen seems to argue that Natural Law is governing of the civil or secular kingdom, and the Special Revelation is the governing of the spiritual kingdom or the church in particular. At least that is how Frame sees it and Frame disagrees with this point. I am not quite sure that is a fair representation of VanDrunen, but it is the representation he gets in the book. In the end, Frame just does not see a biblical distinction of Two Kingdoms. Dividing the religious and the civil (or secular) is rejected by Frame. He argues that even political matters have spiritual aspects. He gives an example of a political ruler who is evil and tyrannical. That ruler idolizes the state and is out for his own gain and pride. Thus, he is committing spiritual sins. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom are listed and their false worship a reason for their evil. Thus, Frame believes that there are not two realms, but rather only one. Although I think it is debatable whether VanDrunen is speaking of realms or rather rule. VanDrunen never denies that unbelievers are guilty for rejecting Christ and asserting themselves. In my understanding VanDrunen argues rather for things that are common or simply human, which includes then a natural law from the image of God, and by the way from God, and then another set that is distinctively Christian. And in world that includes both believers and unbelievers the distinctively Christian cannot be imposed on activities that are simply human. One can expect your plumber to live by Natural Law, but not fix your sink to the glory of God. I am over simplifying but that seems to me to be part of the argument.

Frame runs into problems on page 135 in my opinion. He states, "It either comes from the wisdom of God or the wisdom of the world, and these are antagonistic to one another (I Cor. 1:20-21)." This is the sharp distinction that Transformationalists posit in their rejection of Two Kingdoms. The wisdom of the world is wrong and must be replaced by the wisdom of God. But Frame on the same page backtracks when he examines the line of Cain. "That is not to say that everything in Cainite culture was bad. . . . Music and Metalworking are certainly good activities. But these activities should have been done to the glory of God, within the family of God." Here is part of the problem I think Two Kingdoms avoids. If it is of the wisdom of the world it is bad. Cain's line includes many things that then should be rejected as bad. Metalwork and music among them. In VanDrunen's model metalwork and music are simply human activities and so can be learned even from unbelievers.

Frame briefly touches on the main exegetical debate, in my opinion, the covenant with Noah. VanDrunen argues here is a covenant with all mankind. Noah's covenant is not religious or for the church only such as the covenant with Abraham. Rather this one includes a sign common to all man (the rainbow), blessings for all mankind (no more flood), and rules for social behavior and justice (capital punishment for murder). Frame counters that the only family alive was Noah's and thus it is not with humans in general, but with the church. He points out the sacrifice made by Noah and how that was a specifically religious act. And while the blessings are for the world in general, Frame argues this is true with all the covenants of the Bible. Thus, it is of the same nature as Abraham's covenant. Although Frame does not account for the presence of at least one clear unbeliever in Ham. One's understanding of Genesis 9 seems rather foundational for the difference between the Transformationalist and the Two Kingdom-ist (if I can make up a word).

Frame's problem is not with Natural Law, but with two kingdoms. Frame admits a distinction between Church and State, but not one between Christ and Culture (pg.146). Frame does point out that VanDrunen should have dealt more with the suppression of truth in unrighteousness of Romans 1, which is a fair point. VanDrunen did mention it, but never really goes into detail. In light of Frame's main objection being to the Two Kingdoms it would have been more helpful if Frame and critiqued Living in God's Two Kingdoms rather than the defense of Natural Law. But the publication date of both books made that impossible. Still this chapter made the debate appear to be one of application of an agreed upon Biblical principle of Natural Law. Hardly the cause of such division as we see across the Reformed world today.

Escondido Theology Chapter 3

Frame moves on to R. Scott Clark's book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions. Again the tone is quite upset, and one can easily see the complaint about the Absolutizing nature of Escondido theology rather easily in this book. In fact, it is a much more effective criticism here than with Horton who walked back the title of the book in the first few pages. Clark's book revolves around the Quest of Illegitimate Certainty or Experience, and there is no walking it back or toning it down.

Interestingly, Frame often makes the claim that the Escondido Theology is done by historians rather than theologians. This critique seems unfair, but again with Clark's book, it might actually be true.

Clark attempts to hold forth the Confessions as the only legitimate ground for the church. Where they are silent, so too should we be silent, and where they speak, we must speak. Sounds good in theory. However, I agree with Frame that Clark fails at his own system and really falls down into a subjectivism and then makes it the absolute model for being "reformed". For example, Clark believes it is illegitimate for churches to require a certain belief on the days of creation despite the fact that the Westminster does say "in the space of six days". But Clark then goes on to state that churches ought to have two services every Sunday despite it never showing up in any confession, and they ought to sing only the words of Scripture despite that never showing up in a Confession. Clark does try to argue that it is a legitimate inference from the Regulative Principle of Worship, which does show up in Confessions, but then could we not also argue Six Day Creation is a legitimate inference from every confessions' discussion about creation and then also the 4th commandment? Of course we could. Frame does not use these exact examples, but does point out the inconsistent application of Clark's own view. It ends up being nothing more than the absolutizing of Clark's subjective take on things. Frame tends to focus in on things like Clark's rejection of Transformationalism, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Confessions, neither is the Two Kingdoms view (which Clark never directly argues for, but Frame believes is assumed in the book). Rather than viewing this as a place of liberty and any attempt to demand one over another as a Quest for Illegitimate Certainty, Clark views Transformationalism as part of the problem in the reformed churches today.

Frame spends most of the time defending himself, as Clark does quote Frame occasionally and basically labels him as unreformed. Most of it revolves around Epistemology, and the discussion in this section is interesting. I do think Frame has placed his finger on a troubling aspect of Clark's thought. Clark believes that there is a "degree of falsehood in human speech about God" (pg. 130 in Clark's Confessions and pg. 98 in Frame's Escondido). Here I side more with frame, that while human speech can never full exhaust God nor explain it in the way God knows things, I do not think that implies "a degree of falsehood". We can truly know, I believe. And if there is always falsehood in our speech about God such as "God created the heavens and the earth" then we cannot truly know what is true and what is false. I may not know exactly how God accomplished it or fully understand the power behind such a magnificent act, I do not think that makes the statement even slightly false.

I don't always agree with Frame in his critique. Clark I believe is right in the beauty and joy of strict Confessional subscription. Frame here worries that it limits too much, but I disagree and side more with Clark. Why Clark would then go on and advocate a new Confession to be written is beyond me. If the old Confessions are not wrong, and it is so wonderful to adhere to, I see no need for a new one. Still, Frame here tends to lump strict subscription into the dangerous Absolutizing tendency of Escondido theology, but I don't think they are the same thing.

In the overall scheme of things, Clark's book does not address a large portion of the Escondido Theology. It revolves around the main point of Absolutizing a certain tradition, mainly the 16th and 17th century (and only portions of that!). Discussing anything outside of that tradition is not Reformed or illegitimate. This makes people like Jonathan Edwards and Martin Lloyd Jones unreformed. Clark's book is narrow in its focus, but I think Frame does a descent job in criticizing it.

An Excursus on the Bayly Bros

I am still composing the next chapter review. Frame is getting into serious reviewing now, so it take a little longer. But, I read something on a blog that was sort of related and kind of upsetting at the same time. So might as well blog about it.

The Bayly Bros blog is a Transformationalist blog. They have a post comparing Ron Paul and R2K Theology in a rather disparaging way. It is this sort of thing that is rather hard to understand. Why the venom? Why the vitriol? And where is the proof?

The point of their post is that R2K people are sissy-boys just like Ron Paul. Ron Paul won't condemn homosexual marriage with federal legislation, so according to the Bayly Bros he is running from a fight. Same thing about abortion. I can understand that these are issues that the Bayly Bros want to fight about. And they want that fight on a federal nation wide level. Fine. I can respect that. But does that mean Paul and his libertarian friends (describe by them as silly girls) really not want any fights? Or does it simply mean that Paul is fighting his fight, a fight to make the federal government less important. It is simply just not the same fight the Bayly's want to have. I am sure Paul feels just as strongly about his fight. It is matter of what is important. And the groups disagree, but I think that hardly makes one a fighter and one a sissy. Is Ron Paul probably unrealistic about the government today? Absolutely. Is he fighting a fight he will not win? Yes. Is he wrong? That is a separate issue. After all the success rate on Gay Marriage and Abortion is much better on the state level. Maybe if the Bayly's really wanted to win they would aid Paul, and then they would win some battles. Maybe.

The blog almost makes the R2K point for them. Here is the Transformationalists Bayly Bros calling everyone else names. If you don't fall into lock step with them, then you are a coward who doesn't want to stand up for Jesus by fighting abortion and gay marriage. Because we all know that Jesus would much rather support the Marriage amendment to the Constitution than argue governments should not have anything to do with marriages at all. The Bayly Bros at least give the impression that Christianity is defined by a political position. Manly Christianity is not possible without politics. Just preaching from the pulpit not enough anymore. The ballot box as a means of grace. The Kingdom of God advanced through Christians in the White House, except that the Bayly Bros just called the only remaining Christian, confessionally speaking, a sissy and not deserving of their votes. Details, details.

The other thing that really bothers me is that the Baylys will call R2K men feminized Christianity and then give a hat tip to Doug Wilson. Really? Those guys writing about justification by faith are bad, but the guy teaching justification by works is a good guy. Come on!

I may end up agreeing with Transformationalism, but I can promise you it won't look like the Bayly's view of Transformationalism.

Escondido Theology Chapter 2

The meat of Frame's critique starts with a look at Michael Horton's Christless Christianity. Horton has a response out, but Horton is reviewed three different times.

Frame immediately takes umbrage with the title. Frame sees the Christless as part of the absolutizing tendency he finds so bad at Escondido. This is all in spite of the fact that Horton immediately states that the title is an overstatement and it is more of a direction rather than a current condition in the evangelical church. Frame notes the clarification, but it does little to lessen the criticism.

Frame takes a few things in Horton's book differently than I did. Horton not wanting to "translate" the gospel is something that Frame finds repugnant. I took this to mean that Horton was against trying to be hip and trendyin how we deal with Scripture and our attempts to make the gospel pleasing by hiding the bitter and unpleasant truths, not as a refusal to apply it or make it understandable or even in modern languages. Perhaps here Frame has legitimate gripe about Horton not being clear enough in defining terms, but as Horton points out in the response, Frame makes a large complaint out of something that Horton does not really believe.

I think a lot of the differences between Frame and Horton can best be illustrated with Joel Osteen, who is a frequent target in Horton's book. Ask yourself, do you believe that Osteen and his teachings are beyond the pale of Chrsitianity? Are they Christless? Frame's answer in this book is a clear no, Osteen is within the pale of Christianity. Horton's is a pretty emphatic yes, Osteen is beyond the pale (or at least trending that way fast). I agree with Horton on this one. And so does the Library of Congress for the record since they place Osteen's book in the Self Help section not the Christianity section. But let me illustrate further with some of Frame's discussion.

On Pg. 45 Frame quotes Horton claiming Osteen is "law-lite" and an "upbeat moralism" with "no justification". Frame likens this emphasis of Horton on using the Law to condemn with the Lutheran controversy about whether or not the law should ever be preached to believers. He accuses Horton of not using the Third use of the law for believers and a lack of teaching on sanctification. But more than that Frame defends Osteen even further stating that Scripture does tell us how to be happy in this world referencing the blessings promised and particularly Josh 1:8. Not directly stated, but implied is that Osteen's preaching One's Best Life Now is therefore a biblical concept and not outside the pale of Christianity. Perhaps even something Frame thinks Horton could learn a little from it.

This ties into Frame's major problem with Horton (in my opinion) and it comes from this statement made in Horton's Christless Christianity:
The central message of Christianity is not a worldview, a way of life, or a program for personal and societal change , it is a gospel (pg.105).
This is Horton's main point. Preaching then should primarily be the announcement of Christ and the retelling of His gospel. After all it is the central message. Horton does not deny Scripture speaks on finances and marriage and other things, but it is not the main point. This accounts for Horton's view of Two Kingdoms, worship, and preaching all of which Frame critiques in this chapter. Frame rather responds:
"the Bible presents a a worldview that is utterly unique among all the religions and philosophies of the world . . . And if the gospel is to be presented to them [unbelievers] clearly, they must understand that it presupposes a way of thinking about the world that is unique in the history of thought. (pg. 51).
Thus, the debate. Is the worldview contained in the Bible central to being able to understand the gospel and present it rightly? And is that worldview a complete and all encompassing worldview? Frame unashamedly asserts that the gospel then is a program of personal and societal change (same page). I wish Frame had spent all of the chapter discussing this one central point. Upon it all seems to hinge. Rather, he goes for the laundry list approach. This discussion was far too short.

Frame's great weakness in this chapter is related to what I described about the title. Frame constantly points out Horton backing off of generalizations. Frame wants to argue that all the difference is a matter of emphasis, and it is hard to condemn an emphasis. Frame says Horton is too much on justification, although Horton speaks on sanctification, which is read as Horton backing off and only an emphasis. Horton speaks of the centrality of the gospel, but admits Scripture teaches about finances, thus, it is just a difference of emphasis. It seems a little to me like Frame fails to grasp two things in relation to this. One, is that this is popular writing. Horton is not trying to enumerate every possible exception or be scholastic in his treatment of stuff. Some leeway must be given in this type of writing. Two, a persons emphasis can be unhealthy and easily lead to heresy. In fact, a case can be made that Christlessness does indeed begin with a misplaced emphasis in many cases. Emphasis on "do this and do that" can indeed be interpreted by many as works righteousness, and indeed might be. Emphasis on "do this for earthly blessings" can similarly be understood as self centered and works righteousness. It may be a matter of emphasis, but unhealthy emphases can be rightly condemned.

Oddly enough Andrew Sandlin breaks into the book here with an addendum. It is rather jarring, and frankly of little use. Sandlin restates what we just read and by so doing gives the impression Frame was too wordy and needs him to organize it. He quotes some OT examples in favor of Frame, and that is about it. Not needed. Any time you have quotations from your own book only a few pages from the actual occurrence of the quote, something has gone wrong.

Overall, I found Frame helpful in setting the question as whether or not the worldview of the Bible has to be presupposed to understand the gospel, but I wished the question discussed at greater length. I also tend to agree with Horton about the state of modern evangelicism and in that emphasis can be condemned as leading down a Christless path.

Escondido Theology Chapter 1

The opening chapter is entitled The Escondido Theology, which one would expect. Frame is going to lay out the theology of those whom he will be criticizing and then showing us where he thinks it goes wrong in the rest of the chapters. Well, not exactly. Frame does make it a full three paragraphs before slipping into all out attack mode. And the book suffers quite a bit from this sort of thing. One gets the distinct impression that Frame is building a straw man and then burning him to the ground. Without stating his opponents views positively first, the reader has little familiarity to understand the level of antagonism shown in this opening (and following) chapter. Establishing that he understands it, can state it in its best light, and interact fairly with it would have gone a long way to making the chapter more convincing. But we must push past this methodology and search for substance in spite of the tone.

It is about the 4th paragraph where Frame calls the Escondido bunch Lutherans for their law/gospel emphasis. In fact, it appears a lot of what Frame wishes to decry is what I think he would characterize as a Lutheranizing of the Reformed Tradition, and then the absolutizing of that tendency. Frame points out the Law/Gospel emphasis and the Two kingdoms theology as two Lutheran aspects that are prominent in Escondido. This leads to a few more of his criticisms: the Rule and Blessings over all of life (or lack thereof) and church centered piety. To this is added what Frame believes to be a reading out of all other views as non-reformed. He cites a few examples, but a later chapter deals in great detail about that subject. But it is clear that Frame believes that the Escondido theologians have tried to make their view of the Reformation the only acceptable view of the reformation. This not only reads Frame out of the Reformed camp, but goes against a lot of what Frame stands for in theological investigation.

Interestingly enough Frame provides support to my thesis that a lot of the difference in Transformationalism and Two Kingdoms has to do with one's view of End Times. Frame critics the Escondido Theology as "amillennialism on steroids". In this I tend to agree with Frame, but I think I would put it more as Consistent Amillennialism. The question then becomes whether or not Amillennialism is biblical. But then again, why cannot these two both exist as confessional? No reformed confession I know of forces one to take a stand on Millennialism. But Frame focuses that section instead on the preference of a lot of Escondido authors to prefer the "pilgrim" language of the Bible. This section is a bit unfair and seems unnecessary if you are not going go into depth about the End Times. Frame probably should have left it out.

At one point Frame also tracks the Westminster Philadelphia thought and where it splits off into Escondido Thought. This is probably the most helpful section of first chapter. He links the Escondido thought to Merideth Kline. He points out the influence Kline had over the others, cites some disagreements from Frame's time as professor, and how the new hires filled out the roster of WSC as univocal in favor of Kline's arguments. On the other hand he speaks of WTS as descending from Abraham Kuyper through Cornelius Van Til. With the influence of Van TIl, he then goes to the next generation. This is where Frame makes me a bit nervous. He cites positively the development of Theonomy and R.J.Rushdooney and then onto Greg Bashen. In a later chapter Frame adds Norman Shepherd to that list all in a positive light. Kline apparently opposed all those developments. So do I, although that does not mean I agree with Kline, but does give us insight in the reviewer. It also brings to mind the statements Van Drunen makes in Living In God's Two Kingdoms where he comments twice that if you have a Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith, you will prefer the Two Kingdoms theology. Frame seems to accidentally support that thesis in linking WTS to Shepherd and Theonomy.

In the end, it is a little unfair to pick at Frame in the first chapter. Almost everything he sets out here will be brought up again and dealt with in more detail. So the lack of detail and the broad generalizations made in this chapter are going to be fleshed out in later chapters. This is the hook, and Frame means for us to follow him down into the war zone. So down we must go.

John Frame's The Escondido Theology - part 1

Okay, so my curiosity got the better of me, and I purchased The Escondido Theology by John Frame. Since I am sort of publicly working through the 2 Kingdoms idea and trying to figure out why 2 Kingdoms and Transformationalists seem to hate each other so much, I might as well review Frame's book as I go.

The book as a whole is set up as reviews of several books by men from Westminster Seminary California. All professors except one which is a review of former student, now blogger, Jason Stellman. You may have noticed reviews of Frame's book popping up such as this official rejection by WSC and this unofficial one by D.G. Hart Expect more. It is that kind of book.

To show how serious this fight is this book has an introduction by George Grant, a foreword by Gary DeMar, a "review" (second foreword by Andrew Sandlin, a publisher's preface and an author's preface. This book in short is a declaration of war. Frame's tone is usually rather hostile, as is Sandlin's who adds an addendum in a chapter as well as the foreword. Grant stays more positive, but this book hits hard against the Two Kingdom view. It is quite clear that Frame and the others he gathers around him do not view Two Kingdoms as something confessionally allowable as I do, and clearly not something that is Reformed or even Biblical. It is nothing more than failing to apply the Bible to life, and a stubborn refusal to develop a biblical worldview against the Bible's own pleas.

You are going to want to read this book (or at least my review) because Frame comes out swinging. While I don't always agree with Frame's criticism, it is sort of like a car wreck. You just cannot look away because you want to see what happens next. And sometimes Frame puts his finger on some very good questions and points.

Next time chapter 1!

A new book on Two Kingdoms

I just found a new book that might give me some insight for those Transformationalists against the Two Kingdoms. As much as I hate giving money to John Frame, I am going to have to get this
book.

A Two Kingdoms moment

I will get back to my review of Culture Making, but I had to write about this. The Christianity Today arrived the other day, and it contained an article that lays bare some of what VanDrunen is complaining about. The article by Chuck Colson was the particular offender, although for the first time I remember Colson had a co-author.

The article was about Public Education and how we as Christians have a duty to support it and fix it. Now this is meddling in areas that VanDrunen would claim a liberty of conscious on for sure, but the imperative nature of the article is what was particularly galling. The term "justice" was used. It was actually claimed that lack of educational opportunities was an injustice that Christians had to address. I just cannot see access to education as a matter of justice. Justice is about breaking the law and getting what you deserve. Education has no place in a discussion about justice. The support for such a claim about education? Well, it was not biblical. It was a piece of information about how well rich kids do in school, a quote from Benjamin Rush, and an appeal to history of church support of schooling. Oh yeah, the Waiting on Superman movie was mentioned.

This was a clear Transformationalist article. An attempt to require Christians to fix public education as if it was somehow a gospel duty. Confusing political action about schooling with the Justice of God is not healthy. It is misleading, and it is wrong. Articles like this one make me want to be a Two Kingdoms guy.

Transformationalism - Culture Making

So, as I continue to try and digest this Two Kingdom vs. Transformationalism debate, I need to read more than just Dr. Zylstra. It is not really fair to read full books about Two Kingdom Theology and then read only articles about transformationalism. Although finding books directly about Transformationalism is harder than I thought it would be. It is often assumed, but not defended. I know lots of people who are transformationalists, but they don't write directly about it. Those who have are best avoided such as Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, N.T. Wright, and others. Avoided not because I couldn't learn from them, but because it fits too nicely into VanDrunene's thesis that Transformationalism leads to unorthodox thinking with regards to Justification by faith.

So, I tried to find an orthodox source. I settled on Andy Crouch's book: Culture Making. He has a blog by the same name, but I won't be talking about anything on the blog, just the book.

Crouch's first section is actually very good. Crouch begins by just laying the ground work before getting into the Bible and such. So he has a rather good discussion about culture and its nature. Crouch defines culture as making something out of the world. Now that is a little bit different than VanDrunen's rather broad definition. Thus, a comparison might be difficult because of differing views of what culture actually is. For instance, VanDrunen clearly believes marriage part of culture, but does that fit into Crouch's definition? I am not sure. That is a problem for later.

What is so great about Crouch's opening is that he argues rather well that culture has to be made or replaced by something new, rather than simply criticized. He actually criticizes Schaeffer and newer writers such as Nancy Pearcy for simply intellectually taking on culture. He uses an example of Tuesday night Chili night at his house. His boys can whine, complain, critique, and even argue against it; however, none of that will change Tuesday chili night. But if the boys were to make their own food and serve it to the parents every Tuesday before the Chili could be made, that would be well received and would change Chili night. He goes a lot deeper than that, but often uses easy to understand examples. He criticizes other methods of engaging culture including boycotts and sub-cultures and it is really very well done. Crouch is a good writer and a pretty easy read.

It takes a couple of chapters of this introductory stuff before Crouch switches over to Scripture. But he leaves you with the sense that culture is being made, and it cannot be stopped. People must do culture. it is part of being human. He has laid the groundwork for his argument. In the next post I will get into his biblical overview of Christians and Culture.

Zylstra Review - Part 3 - Bible texts

Dr. Zylstra only mentions four bible verses in support of his Transformationalist position and his critique of Dr. Van Drunen's Two Kingdom view. Let's just look at each one.

John 3:17 is one he mentions. I can only assume that Dr. Zylstra is referencing the idea that Jesus came to save the world, and by the world Zylstra is taking it to mean culture or the physical stuff in the world. if this verse means those two things then it would attack VanDrunen's idea of this world ending and the things of this ending. It is a central point of the Two Kingdom argument. However, it is hard to read John 3:17 that way. "World" appears here to mean "the people of the nations" or "gentiles" as in addition to Jews. This is how most of the commentators take it. I checked Calvin and Hendrickson, and both read "world" as "gentiles and people of all nations." Context would seem to support Calvin and Hendrickson and is against Zylstra.

Colossians 1:17 is his next verse. Here Zylstra is clearly pointing to the idea that "all things consist". Other translations might have the idea of "carry on" which is what Zylstra wants us to see. That and in the fact that "all" things continue "in Christ". However, again it seems a bit of stretch. VanDrunen never denies the Providential hand of Christ, and that is how Calvin and Hendrickson took it. Zylstra needs this verse to say that things of this culture will continue on in Christ Jesus not just in this world, but into the next. I am not sure all of that meaning can be forced into that passage. The idea of all things being in Christ might could be used by Zylstra, but VanDrunen was adamant that a Christian must do all things as a Christian, so again, I think that this verse falls short.

I Corinthians 15:58 gets closer to supporting Zylstra. Here Zylstra is pointing out that our labor is not in vain. With the obvious implication that a Two Kingdom idea that sees no eternal value in cultural labor would be definition make cultural labor "vain". But does a Two Kingdom idea does not necessitate that it would be in vain. God is still glorified. So this verse does not argue for a transformationalist perspective. However, I do believe that I can agree with Zylstra here that it might have been nice for VanDrunen to have explained how it fits in a 2K perspective.

Zechariah 14:20-21 really stands as his best verse. Here Zylstra argues that God is calling us to make all things Holy to the Lord even the bells on horses, and not just the things of the priests. This actually argues for a Transformationalist understanding in opposition to a Two Kingdoms view. If Zylstra is correct then all of life must be Holy to the Lord, or distinctively Christian, not just subjectively but objectively. Yet, again differing interpretations can be found here. Zechariah 14 can be taken as a description of what the New Heavens and New Earth will be like. There all things will be Holy to the Lord as the entire place will be temple and distinctively Christian. In this view then Zechariah is giving a prophecy of the Day of the Lord and His victory and not giving a command of what we ourselves are to achieve or strive to bring about here on this earth. Zylstra's reading is possible, but not the one I personally take of Zechariah. Which brings up a bigger question . . .

Does Transformationalism go hand in hand with a Post Millennial view point. Does Two Kingdoms go only with an Amillennial view point? This seems to fit with the differing ways of reading Zechariah 14. A Post Mil reading would be that this Day of the Lord would be the ultimate triumph of the church, and the church then makes all things Holy to the Lord. The Amil reading would tend more to a description of the Final Day of the Lord where Christ himself finally returns with the New heavens and new earth. I believe it is an interesting discussion that requires further discussion.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Second Article Review

Zylstra's second article in September was worse. This time Zylstra was reviewing Living In God's Two Kingdoms. Zylstra starts off by pointing that VanDrunen believes it is the Two Kingdoms way or the highway (pg.43). While I think that this is overstating it a bit, especially since he works along side transformationalists at Westminster Seminary, he is correct that VanDrunen believe the Two Kingdoms part of a broader frame work. Yet, Zylstra chose to pick on the line about Transformationlism being "not true to Scripture" (pg.13 of Two Kingdoms), and not the more serious claim of NeoCalivinism/Transformationalism not being consistent with justification by faith (made twice pg. 21 and 58). The first I see as simply saying the Bible does not speak the way the Neo Calvinists say it does, and the second I see as a claim of leading to heresy.
Zylstra again attacks VanDrunen for the football thing in the previous book, but then goes on to claim that VanDrunen supports a wing of the Reformed who think Christian schools as "optional quirkiness at best and un-American separatims at worst" (pg.43). He then immediately admits VanDrunen does no such thing by stating openly VanDrunen does not believe it to be anti-patriotic, and then state on pg.44 that VanDrunen would disagree with this characterization and goes on to admit that VanDrunen has no problem with Christian schooling at all, just a problem with requiring it as the only Christian way to educate. So what is the point of making such odd claims in a paragraph earlier? The only options seem to be incompetence or an attempt to poison the well. I do not believe Dr. Zylstra to be incompetent. The next sentences however are vital and I will quote them in full.

"However, Dr. VanDrunen misses (or dismisses) the point that has driven generations of parents to establish and maintain Christian day schools. The point of these dedicated Christian communities is their conviction that Christian perspective on all of life simply is never optional. Educating a child to look at the world through anything less than scripturally shaped lenses is considered a violation of the parents' responsibility to their child, to the Christian community to whom the child belongds, and to the Kingdom of the Christ in whose name the child was baptized. They have always believed that any pedagogical deficiencies in the school should be corrected and any academic lapses should be made up as the child continues to grow. But to disobey the biblical command to train up a child in the way he or she should go simply never entered their Reformed minds. (44)"

Zylstra here claims that anything less than sending your child to a Christian school is a violation of Ephesians 6 and Proverbs. This means that all people who go to public school are sinning. It means that all people who homeschool, like myself, are sinning. He has to be saying that. VanDrunen never states that it would be okay for a Christian parent to raise their child as a pagan or anything less than the fear and admonition of the Lord. Again he says over and over Christians must always act Christianly, including in parenting. The disagreement comes in how that is practically played out. Can a child raise their child up in the way he should go and still send the child to public school? VanDrunen says plainly on page 183 it is a matter of "Christian liberty". I believe that Zylstra has said here that it is not. This is the disagreement. One that I will come back to along with the three scriptures referenced by Zylstra in this article in a later post.
I find this requirement to send ones kids to Christian schools a little ironic since the problem Dort College had in getting started as a Junior College from the CRC. The CRC wished to require people to come to Calvin and would not allow for even a Junior College to be founded. No monetary relief was allowed and people required to contribute to Calvin. This went on for decades before Dordt was able to get established. Now it is Dordt making the requirement argument. Ironic.
One thing left needs to be said about this second article. Zylstra claims that VanDrunen is poisoning the well by using as his examples for Neo-Calvinism NT Wright and the Emergent church, two "bogeymen" as Zylstra calls them (44). While I can share Zylstra's frustration as it would have been nice and easier for me if he interacted more with orthodox Reformed men, the book is intended for a wider audience than the Reformed world. Andy Crouch has written on Transformationalism, but has any one ever heard of Andy Crouch? Not many. When NT Wright and Scot McKnight, and Brian McLaren write books they are on CNN and the Morning Shows and they get articles about them in Christianity Today. That is why those two groups were chosen. I also could not help but wonder at Zylstra's choice of words "bogeyman". Traditionally "bogeymen" were make-believe bad guys, not actual bad guys. NT Wright and the Emergent Church are actual heretics. I wonder if Zylstra agrees. After all he had a man on staff who was a big fan of Wright. Currently that professor is on sabbatical, but he is not being fired for such beliefs.
This is a debate that is important and needs to be had. However, this is not having a debate. This is pure rhetorical punching with no real substance. Perhaps a magazine is just not the format for such thing. But I believe a better attempt at interaction could easily be made. VanDrunen's books are very well argued, even if you disagree with him. And for the most part, fairly neutral in tone. I do wish VanDrunen would write another book where he fleshes out the connection between Transformationalism and denial of Justification by faith alone. But even those claims are so small that most critics miss them. Zylstra did. They are indeed bombshells, but they are not often quoted.

Two Kingdoms - Zylstra Article Review

Okay, so part of my trying to read more and stay up to date has involved the Two Kingdoms debate. I am still trying to work through it, and so I thought I would do so here on my blog. Interaction would be appreciated. This will be a series of blogs.

I have to admit that I was a late comer to this Two Kingdoms debate that seems to rage so hot. And I confess, I am not sure why it is so hot. To me both Neo Calvinist Transformationalism and the Two Kingdoms doctrines are both allowable in at least the Three Forms of Unity bounds, so I don't understand the heat. I understand that their are outliers at both ends that probably do fall outside of confessional bounds, but one cannot define the position through the outliers. So, I will start with the couple of articles critiquing Dr. David VanDrunen in the Pro Rege magazine of Dordt College. Both are by Dr. Carl Zylstra, one from one from June and the other from September.

To be fair, I have met both men. And while I am not sure I fit into a Two Kingdoms mold completely, maybe I am closer to that position. Like I said, I am a late comer to this. It should also be noted for fairness sake that the RCUS has recently defunded Dordt College. That vote has come up I believe 7 times since I have been a member at Synod. I have voted 5 times to continue funding and 2 times to defund. So there you go. Now onto the critique.

Dr. Zylstra's first article sets the tone with the title "Serious Education for Serious Christians". Not exactly a friendly title since the implication is that everyone else is a non-serious Christian. The article is motivated by a reference to Dordt in Dr. VanDrunen's book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. This reference is about Dordt College's football program and an attempt to justify it as part of a Biblical Transformationalist Worldview. It also comes in a footnote, but Dr. Zylstra leaves that part out. What is sad is that Dr. Zylstra really seems to miss the point of the book so bad it makes one wonder if he read it. Zylstra states on page 40:

"And indeed the burden of the book in which he makes his critique of Dordt College is to defend his contention that those of us who believe that every occupation in life and every social activity in which we engage should be governed by explicity biblical principles are ourselves the oddballs who really shouldn't claim to be Reformed at all."

Now that is not actually correct. The goal of the book is to chart the doctrine of Two Kingdoms through church history and along with it the use of Natural Law. VanDrunen states in many of his writings that Christians are Christians all the times and thus are always governed by biblical principles in every area of life. Zylstra's quote leaves the impression that VanDrunen would think it okay for Christians to cheat at football (since that is what started this whole article). Not so. In fact, that is not the point of the Two Kingdoms doctrine as I understand it. I believe VanDrunen would say that Christians ought to participate in football, but realize that it does not advance Christ's kingdom when they take a knee and pray after a touchdown, or when play without holding the defensive line. In fact, historically, the Transformationalists have been the ones who avoided football, which is why it was so controversial when Dordt added the program. Some activites Transformationalist have always said could not be redeemed and thus were to be avoided. Football was one of them. Dancing another less we forget Abraham Kuyper's own words. Dordt allows both now.

Zylstra next does something that I find just boarderline insulting. He inserts a paragraph on page 40 that tries to imply VanDrunen supports slavery. The paragraph not only really interrupts the flow of Zylstra's own argument, it reeks of poisoning the well. Yes, VanDrunen covers the Southern Presbyterians in his book. Yes, the Southern Presbyterians believed in the Spirituality of the Church and the Two Kingdoms. Lest we forget they separated into their own denomination when the Gardner Spring resolution made a requirement for Church membership a loyalty oath to the United States. But remember the point of this book was a historical overview. No where does VanDrunen endorse slavery. No where. Slavery is not really even the the content of much the Southern Presbyterian chapter. Also, Zylstra is just wrong when he claims that the Southerns held to a Two Kingdoms view so they could hold slaves without feeling guilty. Contrary to Zylstra they did feel it could be biblically justified. Go read R.L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia and the South if you don't believe me. Such actions on Zylstra's part are just plain sophistry and not worthy of real debate.

Zylstra makes his first biblical defense of Dordt on page 41 by quoting Zechariah 14:20. Zylstra uses that to claim that not only priests wear bells inscribed Holy to the Lord, but also the farm horses and the draft horses. Everyday activies he claims are now to be considered holy to the Lord. It is a goal. This is the best part of his article by far, and gets to the heart of the disagreement I believe. So, I will speak more of this in another post dealing with the Bible quotes specifically.

This article did not do a good job of anything. I do not feel he showed VanDrunen wrong anywhere, nor did he lay a foundation of Serious Education. He did not really even provide a defense for Dordt as a Christian institution. It also seems he should have waited for the next book by VanDrunen because a historical overview book is just not a good one to interact with. And if you do it should be limited to disagreements about the history, charges of misrepresentation, or other similar things. The next post will look at Zylstra's second article which does aim at the Living in God's Two Kingdoms book.