"While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith"
From RC Sproul’s post, where he likens [URL=http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/ Manhattan[/URL] to [URL=http://www.seekgod.ca/ect3.htm Evangelicals and Catholics Together[/URL]:
[Sproul] Without a clear understanding of sola fide and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, you do not have the gospel or gospel unity (1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). The ECT initiative repeatedly avowed that the signatories had a unity of faith in the gospel. This included Roman Catholic signers who affirm the canons and decrees of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent, which anathematizes sola fide.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Fascinating how many men can see what Mohler appears to be blind to. Or just conveniently looks past.
Dave Doran’s perspective [URL=http://gloryandgrace.dbts.edu/?p=177] here[/URL] is interesting. He posits a spectrum in which Mohler is to the left of Mac. but to the right of Tim. George. It’s interesting.
I think to some extent, though, it has to do with what Mohler is interested in vs. the others. I haven’t followed him closely but get the impression that social/moral concerns are higher on his agenda than MacArthur by a large margin. So the stronger interest in doing something temporal for the place we live in probably makes these kinds of alliances more appealing and urgent-seeming. I do appreciate the fact that AM doesn’t have the “just let society rot” attitude I see too often. Just wish he’d draw the lines better.
I think to some extent, though, it has to do with what Mohler is interested in vs. the others. I haven’t followed him closely but get the impression that social/moral concerns are higher on his agenda than MacArthur by a large margin. So the stronger interest in doing something temporal for the place we live in probably makes these kinds of alliances more appealing and urgent-seeming. I do appreciate the fact that AM doesn’t have the “just let society rot” attitude I see too often. Just wish he’d draw the lines better.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron -
You’re right. His reformed eschatology would lead me to believe that he does place more of a concern on social issues than some would. I also am in agreement with you when it comes to the fact that many dispensational fundamentalists have been to quick to withdraw from societal concerns due to the imminent return of Christ. We definitely could (and should) do more. However, when it comes to the integrity of the gospel, I can find no excuses worthy enough for signing a document that refers to Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals as Christian “brethren.” The language that Paul uses towards “other gospels” leaves little doubt that he wouldn’t have put his pen to a “Galatia Declaration” with the Judaizers (Galatians 1), no matter how urgent the societal concern.
You’re right. His reformed eschatology would lead me to believe that he does place more of a concern on social issues than some would. I also am in agreement with you when it comes to the fact that many dispensational fundamentalists have been to quick to withdraw from societal concerns due to the imminent return of Christ. We definitely could (and should) do more. However, when it comes to the integrity of the gospel, I can find no excuses worthy enough for signing a document that refers to Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals as Christian “brethren.” The language that Paul uses towards “other gospels” leaves little doubt that he wouldn’t have put his pen to a “Galatia Declaration” with the Judaizers (Galatians 1), no matter how urgent the societal concern.
I’m not sure that dispensational fundamentalists have withdrawn from societal concerns necessarily because of the return of Christ. As a dispensational fundamentalist my concerns are withdrawn from societal issues primarily because I have a Gospel commission from my returning Christ. The pattern of the early church seems to evidence little if any interaction with reformation of pagan society. Despite all of the efforts for the reformation and/or preservation of society the world will still be under the control of the devil and I will always be an alien and stranger (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11). My calling is to be agressive with the gospel in the midst of the darkness in obedience to the great commission my Master left. Because many of the Reformers maintained the Catholic Church’s eschatology there has always been an emphasis on the establishment/reformation of society in God’s “present kingdom” rule. Dispensationalists rejected a present earthly form of God’s kingdom and have generally focused their energy on God’s church as opposed to society at large.
Tim Davis
Tim Davis
I’m largely certain that this just comes down to semantics. Dispensationalists have traditionally not concerned themselves with social issues because of their concern with the church, you’re right. But this is also due to the fact that we know that Christ could come back at any moment, so our desire is to be found faithful in the furtherance of the Great Commission, not so much in reforming society. I just didn’t elaborate in my last post on the word “immanent.” My bad.
Chad,
I wasn’t trying to nitpick over semantics. I’m sorry if it came across that way. The return of Christ is obviously a key element to dispensational theology. My point was simply that there was a deepter divide between covenant theologians and dispensationalists on this point regarding the Christian’s relationship to broader society because of their differing views of what the church is and is to be doing.
Tim Davis
I wasn’t trying to nitpick over semantics. I’m sorry if it came across that way. The return of Christ is obviously a key element to dispensational theology. My point was simply that there was a deepter divide between covenant theologians and dispensationalists on this point regarding the Christian’s relationship to broader society because of their differing views of what the church is and is to be doing.
Tim Davis
No problem. I agree!
As a dispensationalist (including eschatology) who cares what happens to the society I live in (and my kids and grandkids etc. may live in) I’ve never been able to see how the doctrine of immanent return has anything to do with it. Well, I can see how it might for some but it looks like a non sequitur to me. I do think that either-or thinking about the Great Commission, as Tim has expressed is more often the problem. As for that, I don’t disagree, of course, that Christ gave us a Commission to carry out until His return, but the Commission does not make the rest of the Book go away. It is one of many commissions, all of which are still binding on us. I’m not all that fond of calling it “The Great,” myself—for that reason (along with the fact that Jesus didn’t call it that, nor did the apostles… they all might have agreed that “Love the Lord your God with your heart, soul, mind and strength” is The Great Commission… maybe).
Anyway, I think “both-and” thinking is closer to a biblical balance than “either-or” thinking in this area.
Anyway, I think “both-and” thinking is closer to a biblical balance than “either-or” thinking in this area.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
I guess my point is that as a pastor of a church my concern is not societal transformation. Recognizing the fundamental dispensational distinction between Israel and the church, there is little evidence (in my opinion) that the NT Church’s obligation is to struggle to transform society. The church’s obligation is to the gospel in making and maturing disciples who will live in a pagan culture while not being part of that pagan culture. In a society that is entirely unique to the period of the NT, and as an American citizen, I personally have great interest in the direction of society and seek to influence it where I have occassion and opportunity. So I would say that corporately (as a church) I see no transform society mandate in the Scriptures, but as an individual living in a democratic society I should seek to do my part to preserve and transform society where God allows.
Tim Davis
I guess my point is that as a pastor of a church my concern is not societal transformation. Recognizing the fundamental dispensational distinction between Israel and the church, there is little evidence (in my opinion) that the NT Church’s obligation is to struggle to transform society. The church’s obligation is to the gospel in making and maturing disciples who will live in a pagan culture while not being part of that pagan culture. In a society that is entirely unique to the period of the NT, and as an American citizen, I personally have great interest in the direction of society and seek to influence it where I have occassion and opportunity. So I would say that corporately (as a church) I see no transform society mandate in the Scriptures, but as an individual living in a democratic society I should seek to do my part to preserve and transform society where God allows.
Tim Davis
Yes, I’d also make a distinction between the mission of the church in particular vs. responsibilities of believers in general… which I think Mohler would not make to the same degree. I wouldn’t put the distinction quite as strongly as I’ve heard some do, though. What the believers should do in the role of citizen and just the role of human being is part of what the church is commissioned to teach them as we try to apply Scripture to all of life. So it is a concern of the church in that sense. But I don’t see churches as really having the job of acting to pressure leaders for certain policies, or trying to be an external moral restraint on society (vs. the internal moral restraint of people being changed by the gospel).
In Mohler’s case, the lines are blurry. If you happen to be a pastor or seminary pres. or something but still care deeply about public policy, should you be silent because the quality of society is not the mission of the church? If it were me and I had a potentially strong influence in that area, I’d feel compelled to speak up as Mohler has. But I’d want to try to frame it in some distinctions about what is church work and what isn’t and try to avoid letting it become a distraction or obstacle to that work.
(In addition to the gospel blurring problems we’ve already talked about)
In Mohler’s case, the lines are blurry. If you happen to be a pastor or seminary pres. or something but still care deeply about public policy, should you be silent because the quality of society is not the mission of the church? If it were me and I had a potentially strong influence in that area, I’d feel compelled to speak up as Mohler has. But I’d want to try to frame it in some distinctions about what is church work and what isn’t and try to avoid letting it become a distraction or obstacle to that work.
(In addition to the gospel blurring problems we’ve already talked about)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think it is a misnomer to view most non-dispensationalists that hold to the “already-not yet” view of the kingdom as emphasizing societal transformation to the degree that dispensationalists think. As a progressive dispy living among many of my Christian Reformed brothers in Grand Rapids, I have found that the majority in their amil eschatology understand the limits of societal transformation through politics, laws, and etc…. Let me refer you to an article that Paul Marshall, author of “Their Blood Cries Out,” and graduate of Calvin College, writes in Christianity Today about the limits of politics.
“This side of eternity there will be no “revolution” that can change the human condition. The world will remain full of hope and sin, success and failure. We will win a few political debates and lose a few. Perhaps one day we’ll lose many, and faithful people will be dragged to their deaths, as they are now around the world. With time, evangelicals will grow wiser about the political arena just as parents do—through lived, practical experience. That experience will deliver a dose of reality about what politics can and cannot accomplish. Political action will not deliver utopia, conquer sin, or change human nature. But it can make a difference between rampant crime and safe neighborhoods, between hungry families and economic security, between victory and defeat in war. And only those who have never been mugged, never been hungry, or never been at war will think these differences trivial.” http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/24.90.html
From my experience, this is the view that mainstream amils hold to. I think that maybe dispys and non-dispys are closer than we may think on our view of what social reform can accomplish.
I have a few more observations, but I gotta get ready to go on a date with my wife :)
“This side of eternity there will be no “revolution” that can change the human condition. The world will remain full of hope and sin, success and failure. We will win a few political debates and lose a few. Perhaps one day we’ll lose many, and faithful people will be dragged to their deaths, as they are now around the world. With time, evangelicals will grow wiser about the political arena just as parents do—through lived, practical experience. That experience will deliver a dose of reality about what politics can and cannot accomplish. Political action will not deliver utopia, conquer sin, or change human nature. But it can make a difference between rampant crime and safe neighborhoods, between hungry families and economic security, between victory and defeat in war. And only those who have never been mugged, never been hungry, or never been at war will think these differences trivial.” http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/24.90.html
From my experience, this is the view that mainstream amils hold to. I think that maybe dispys and non-dispys are closer than we may think on our view of what social reform can accomplish.
I have a few more observations, but I gotta get ready to go on a date with my wife :)
Discussion