Pro Rege
Volume XLII, Number 3
March 2014
Features
Faithful Education and Healthy Community
Daniel K. Chinn
Two-kingdom Worldviews: Attempting a Translation
Renato Coletto
Presentism and the Two Kingdoms Perspective
Ryan McIlhenny
An Exegetical Analysis of Calvin’s View of the Natural
Order
Kyle Dieleman
The Task and Role of Theatre
Teresa TerHaar
Social Media’s Impact on Listening and Loneliness
Charles Veenstra
Book Reviews
Egan, Timothy. Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher: The Epic Life and
Immortal Photographs of Edward Curtis.
Reviewed by James Calvin Schaap.
Lott, Bret. Letters and Life: On Being a Writer, On Being a Christian.
Reviewed by James Calvin Schaap.
Quatro, Jamie. I Want To Show You More.
Reviewed by Howard Schaap.
A quarterly faculty publication of
Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa
Stanley, Brian. The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy
Graham and John Stott.
Reviewed by Keith C. Sewell.
Pro Rege
Pro Rege is a quarterly publication of the faculty of Dordt College. As its name
indicates (a Latin phrase meaning “for the King”), the purpose of this journal is to
proclaim Christ’s kingship over the sphere of education and scholarship. By exploring
topics relevant to Reformed Christian education, it seeks to inform the Christian
community regarding Dordt’s continuing response to its educational task.
Editorial Board
Mary Dengler, Editor
Josh Matthews, Review Editor
Sally Jongsma, Proofs Editor
Carla Goslinga, Layout
Erratum
Part of the text of David Schelhaas’s poem “I Recognized the Mitten” was omitted
from the Pro Rege XLII.2 (December 2013). The full text will be included in the June
issue.
Pro Rege is made available free of charge as a service to the Christian community. If
you would like your name added to the mailing list or know of someone whose name
should be added, write to:
Editor, Pro Rege
Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
or E-mail: [email protected]
The index for Pro Rege, now in its forty-first year of publication, can be accessed
via the Internet: http://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/
The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent an
official position of Dordt College.
ISSN 0276-4830
Copyright, March, 2014
Pro Rege, Dordt College
Faithful Education and
Healthy Community:
Some Thoughts on Education
for a Kingdom Perspective
by Daniel K. Chinn
The yesteryear was 1997. I was attempting to
pass a required Algebra class in the fall semester of
my senior year at Oklahoma Wesleyan University
in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Math is not a strong
suit for me, so I had delayed taking this class until
the final hour of my college career, the course I had
to pass in order to graduate. In the end, four other
classmates and I failed the final exam and therefore
the course. From ashes of failure, God brought the
phoenix of great good!
Dr. Daniel K. Chinn is Assistant Professor of Biblical
and Theological Studies at College of the Ozarks, Point
Lookout, Missouri.
My professor, to whom I’ll refer as Dr. X, modeled something that changed my life and launched
me into a life-long pursuit to understand what he
understood and modeled for me: faithful education in the context of healthy community – in
the most unlikely of disciplines, Algebra. For four
hours on a Saturday morning after the final, he
provided a community environment in which to
learn enough Algebra to pass the final and the
class. Merely passing the course was my hope.
What God had prepared for me through this class,
in the end, proved to be much more.
Dr. X modeled healthy community through
three aspects: mutuality, responsibility, and affection. He understood that mutually we were all
in this thing together, and he stayed until we got
enough of the problems correct to pass. He took
responsibility for helping us succeed by working
with us. So, too, we took responsibility to work
hard and learn enough Algebra to pass. Obviously,
the professor loved us — enough to help us along
our academic journey. His affection for us was on
display.
Though Dr. X’s approach that Saturday morning helped me and positively impacted my future as a professor, I want to offer a suggestion
that could help all professors cultivate authentic
community in the classroom. It seems that the
Saturday morning should have been more than a
onetime event. The four students and I who failed
Pro Rege—March 2014
1
the final exam struggled throughout the semester,
not merely at the end. If multiple Saturday mornings (or other opportunities) had been provided
all along, we would have grasped more clearly the
aspects of community (mutuality, responsibility,
and affection) as well as Algebra.
My suggestion leans toward modeling healthy
classroom community all along the journey. We
should so structure our class time that students
understand, from day one, what healthy community involves: mutual commitment to each other,
mutual responsibility for the class, and mutual affection or love that binds community together.
I help my students understand healthy community and how it relates to faithful learning on
the first day of class. I cover a lecture/discussion
called “The Learning Community,” which lays out
three things: One, that they see what constitutes
healthy community; two, that they understand
what is true about them as learners (they are God’s
image-bearers; they make a unique contribution to
the class and community; they can learn; learning
can be difficult yet rewarding; and class time is set
apart as a safe, healthy time of community- building and learning); and three, that if they struggle
in the class, help is available outside the classroom.
It is here that my suggestion comes to play: providing multiple experiences of healthy community for
faithful learning the entire semester, especially if
they struggle with the material.
Each semester when I read my Student Evaluations, “The Learning Community” lecture always
receives positive comments, indicating its significance and help for my students. Dr. X did provide
a meaningful learning community, but as I look
back, I see that he could have provided it for the
entire semester, for faithful learning.
Now, I am the professor with the opportunity
to model the same for my students, in the unique
context of a Christian college and its emphasis on
faithful education. This essay, therefore, seeks to
weave together a fuller understanding of what constitutes healthy community and how that communal context can enable faithful education, so
ably modeled by my professor of yesteryear.
How did Dr. X know that healthy community
holds the three aspects of mutuality, responsibility,
and affection? And how did he know that such a
2
Pro Rege—March 2014
learning environment most readily lends itself to
faithful learning? He was a Christian educator, and
as such he took God of the Bible as his source and
model for teaching, as every faithful Christian educator should. Dr. X knew that the God of Scripture is a God in community.
Understanding Healthy Community – God is
Our Model
God speaks to the topic of community from his
Word. The word “community” is used 83 times
in the Old and New Testaments. The word “fellowship/koinonia” is used 96 times. The capacity
for communal relationships is found not merely
in humankind but in man’s Creator first: “In the
beginning, God created …”; and he was not alone.
God said, “Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness.”1 Scripture does not provide a comprehensive explanation of the community enjoyed
by the Trinity. The word “trinity” is not used in
Scripture to describe the triune nature of God, but
the Bible does reveal some of the interactive relationships among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
to help us understand their communality. The selfchosen names of God indicate the communal, familial relationships of the Trinity, i.e., father/son.
God, as one God revealed in three Persons, existing in a cohesive, mutual community, is simply
one of the aspects or attributes of God’s character.
Theologian John Frame further helps us understand the communal nature of the persons of the
Trinity by highlighting
that the concurrence of the three persons of the
Trinity in all that they do is a profound indication
of their unity. There is no conflict in the Trinity.
The three persons are perfectly agreed on what they
should do and how their plan should be executed.
They support one another, assist one another, and
promote one another’s purposes. This intra-Trinitarian “deference, this disposability” of each to the
others, may be called “mutual glorification.”2
We find, then, three characteristics occurring in
the Trinitarian community: mutuality, responsibility, and affection (love).3 Mutuality is the idea that
the persons of the Trinity belong to each other. In
other words, they are in this thing together, i.e.,
there is an understanding that each member is com-
mitted to the wellbeing, uplifting, and supporting
of one another. Each person of the Trinity possesses
characteristics that are expressly his alone, i.e., the
differing roles of each: the Father initiates creation
and salvation, the Son accomplishes creation and
salvation, and the Holy Spirit enlivens, empowers,
and renews creation and salvation. But mutuality means they share things in common: eternality,
knowledge, glory, wisdom, joy, etc., for the overall
good and benefit of the Trinitarian community. Responsibility in the Trinity means that each person
The kind of community
described by Berry is what
God desires as the context in
which His people can learn and
flourish.
is accountable to the others: The Father is not free
or able to do his own thing; the Son cannot act in
his own regard without consideration for the other
persons; the Holy Spirit cannot disregard the will
or love or mutuality of the Father and Son. John
17:1 tells us that Jesus understood he came to do
only what the Father sent him to do, and in John
14 Jesus teaches that the Holy Spirit will not speak
of himself but only what he received from the Father and the Son. Affection speaks of the emotional
regard each person of the Trinity has for the others.
As mentioned, love is the fundamental characterization of God; thus, their Trinitarian love is not only
self-love but also love that is given away as expressions of affection: devotion, care for, and love one
to the others. Summarily, since the persons of the
Trinity are in community together (mutuality),
they are, of necessity, accountable to one another
(responsibility), and they, of necessity, love one another (affection).
God’s Communal People – A Brief Historical
Survey
This love expresses itself, then, in a cohesive,
responsible community. Cohesive community has
been defined by novelist, essayist, and Kentucky
farmer Wendell Berry as “the mental and spiritual
condition of knowing that the place is shared and
that the people who share the place define and
limit the possibilities of each other’s lives. It is
the knowledge that people have each other, [and
it is] their concern for each other, their trust in
each other, the freedom with which they come and
go among themselves.” 4 For Berry, community
clearly includes the spiritual life and a common
understanding of belonging to each other and to a
place: it is an arrangement involving mutuality, responsibility, and affection for all in the community
— human and non-human. A community cannot
be made or preserved apart from the loyalty and
affection of its members and the respect and goodwill of the people.5 Community life, insists Berry,
is, by definition, a life of cooperation and responsibility.6 Thus, to speak of the health of an isolated
individual is a contradiction in terms.7
The kind of community described by Berry is
what God desires as the context in which His people can learn and flourish. A brief historical survey
of God’s dealings with His people reveals His desire for our reflection of his communal nature in
how we learn and live.
Beginning with Adam, God said, “It is not
good that man should be alone.”8 And so, God
created a wife for Adam so that they could flourish in community with each other and with their
Creator God. When God rescued Noah from the
destruction of the flood waters, He placed seven
others in the ark with him, lest he be alone.9 Abraham was told by God that He would make him
a great nation.10 The very design of the Old Testament tabernacle spoke of God’s desire for His
people to live in community with each other and
Him, at the very heart of His people.11 Many of
the Psalms also speak of God’s communal relationship with His people and of theirs with one another.12 Entering the New Testament, we find that the
very name God gives His Son — Immanuel, “God
with us” — speaks of God’s continuing desire to be
with His people.13 After Jesus is baptized by John
and is coming out of the Jordan waters, the other
two members of the Trinity appear, again reminding people of their God’s communal nature.14 As
Jesus moves from that event, the Holy Spirit accompanies Him as He launches His teaching minPro Rege—March 2014
3
istry – thus highlighting the need of community
for faithful learning.15 As Jesus’ teaching ministry
grows, He surrounds Himself with twelve men
that He sends out in pairs to teach, emphasizing
the need for community in learning.16 At Jesus’
accession, He promises that the Holy Spirit will
indwell and empower His people to carry on and
expand the Church, of which He is Head. He calls
His followers “the ecclesia,” assembled ones, those
experiencing ”koinonia” (fellowship, togetherness,
oneness, mutuality).17 Finally, the book of Revelation depicts that at the end of all things, the triune
God is making His dwelling among the assembled
men and women who are the Bride of Christ, all
gathered as one in worship of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit.18 Surely, from this brief survey
of redemptive history, we see that God personifies
community and desires His people to learn, live,
and flourish in that context.
Healthy Community – Taking It to the Classroom
How does knowing that God personifies community and wants His people to learn and flourish
in that context touch our teaching and classroom
experience in the Christian university context?
How did Dr. X relate his understanding of mutuality, responsibility, and affection to my learning so
many years ago? To unpack this question, let me
mention briefly three considerations.
One, we are Christian educators. This maxim
seems painfully obvious, but consider its weight.
Are we truly Christian educators? May God spare
us the misery of teaching at a Christian college
whose focus is ”faithful education” and whose vision statement intends development of Christ-like
character but which does not possess the Christ
of the vision nor the Christian faith upon which
the idea of “faithful education” is founded. Also,
consider those who are, in fact, Christian but who
see little or no connection between their faith and
their teaching or their students’ learning. They are
Christians doing education, but they are not really
participating in Christian education. May God
spare us that fate as well. Functioning as Christian
educators in our university context, we take our
cues, from Scripture, as did Dr. X, for understanding both healthy community and its relationship to
4
Pro Rege—March 2014
faithful education in the classroom culture. We are
serious about education and educating from God’s
point of view. Thinking comprehensively (across
all disciplines), Arthur Holmes, professor emeritus
of philosophy at Wheaton College, in his attentive
chapter “College as Community,” from The Idea
of a Christian College, helps educators, specifically
those teaching in the context of small Christian
colleges and universities, understand that the
Christian college, moreover, is largely a community of Christians whose intellectual and social,
and cultural life is influenced by Christian values,
so that the learning situation is life as a whole approached from a Christian point of view. It is a
situation calculated to teach young people to relate
everything to their faith.19
Two, we desire to see our students succeed
and flourish. This desire Dr. X understood as essential to learning. He took responsibility to see
us flourish — not merely to pass the final and the
class but to learn something about the aspects of
communal learning (mutuality, responsibility,
and affection). We, too, desire to see our students
grow in convictions and character. Steve Garber
reminds us that community is the context for the
growth of convictions and character.20 In his helpful book Fabric of Faithfulness, he asks and answers
the question “how can we weave a fabric of faithfulness between what we believe and how we live?”
He also reminds us that “from the most sophisticated cultural critiques to the street-level despair of
the ‘dissed’ generation, the evidence seems conclusive: for individuals to flourish they need to be part
of a community of character, one which has reason
for being that can provide meaning and coherence
between the personal and public worlds.”21 Garber, who travels the world helping people think
about educating in faithful ways so as to help their
students weave a fabric between a worldview and
a way of life, is concerned about helping students
(and their teachers) answer the big questions in
life: “Do I have a telos (purpose) that is sufficient to
meaningfully orient my praxis (practice) over the
course of life? Or in the language of the street, and
therefore, a bit more playful: why do I get up in
the morning?”22 If we believe that we, as Christian
educators (regardless of our discipline), are inter-
ested in helping our students ask and answer those
same questions, Garber is spot on in his insistence
that the best (and perhaps only) context in which
to accomplish this worthy goal is that of healthy
community.
Three, we desire Christian Formation, not
merely Christian Information. At our respective places, we want our students to learn the right
information (knowledge that accords to the reality of God and His created world). Dr. X wanted
(required!) us to learn and know the facts about
working an Algebra problem, but he desired more
than passing along mere information. His creating
a learning environment enabled us to pass along
in-formation with a purpose. Through the experience of learning the information communally,
we learned Christian formation — a basic goal of
Christian education. Many of our vision statements particularize exactly the kind of formation
we target: formation into Christ-likeness. Our
desire is to create learning environments where
students grasp and construct ideas; through that
process, we form the context for their encounter
with the living God, who, through the task of
learning communally, transforms them more and
more into persons who flourish as Christ did, as
they weave fabrics of faithfulness.
An essential aspect of learning environments
for Christian formation is hospitality. Educators
must attempt to carve out a space where students
feel welcomed, valued, and respected; in such a
place, we weave together our private and public
lives. Hospitality is largely about knowing and being known. As Christian educators, we strongly
desire to know our students and (with appropriate
and wise boundaries) be known by them. Carving
out a space, i.e., our classroom, where we cultivate
the desire to know and be known, “requires both
personal and communal commitment, and settings which combine aspects of public and private
life.”23 To grow in conviction, character, and community, our students need a place where they can
develop beyond their own sense of self to know
others. Too often hospitality is relegated to the private, the home; but Christian hospitality is both
private and public, intentionally bringing together
elements that create a welcoming, safe, refreshing environment. “In such environments,” insists
Pohl, “weary and lonely persons can be restored to
life.”24 Pohl continues, “But if hospitality is important to human flourishing, we may want to consider the concerns it embodies and suggest some
alternate ways of shaping work places.”25 This effort may help us think of our classroom as a work
place that needs fresh perspectives for integrated,
faithful education. Such education creates spaces
that offer comfort, safety, care, stability, rest for
human brokenness; comfortable furnishing; and
inviting lighting, etc.26 These and other physical
and metaphysical characteristics allow students to
weave the three stands of convictions, character,
and community into a life-shaping tapestry – one
whose contours look more and more like the environment provided by Jesus.
Communal, Faithful Education on the Street
Is not that life-shaping tapestry the purpose of
faithful education? What is the telos (the end goal)
of Christian education? Summarily, it is to witness to God’s Truth and to flourish while doing
so. This is the very reason Jesus says He came into
An essential aspect of learning
environments for Christian
formation is hospitality.
the world: “For this reason I came into the world,
to bear witness to the truth.”27 He then commissions His people (the Church) to the same task in
the Great Commission: “Go … make disciples …
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that
I have commanded you.”28 The purpose of Jesus’
teaching His people is that they give faithful witness to the person and work of Christ to all the
nations. The same purpose (witness), it seems to
me, belongs to our purpose for contemporary education: to educate students to can give consistent,
persuasive, winsome, truthful witness to God’s
story, centered on Jesus Christ in all areas of life.
This task is best accomplished in the context of
community. Bartholomew and Goheen provide
a substantive list of authors’ attempts to answer
Pro Rege—March 2014
5
the question of education’s purpose: responsive
discipleship, freedom, responsible action, shalom,
commitment, etc. 29 “Education,” they then argue,
“is for the purpose of equipping students to witness faithfully to the gospel in the whole of their
lives[;] … authentic Christian education is for witness.”30
Of course, God’s larger purpose in our witnessing (educating, teaching) is that humanity (individually and collectively) will flourish in a life
of shalom. As Bartholomew and Goheen remind
us, “A world of shalom is characterized by justice,
love, thankfulness, and joy … [;]shalom, in other
words, is the way things ought to be … [for]in
a shalomic state each entity would have its own
integrity or structured wholeness, and each would
also possess many edifying relations to other entities.”31 From God’s nature, described simply but
with intense profundity as “love,”32 we begin to
grasp why community matters to us as Christian
educators and to the students we care for. And
part of that love is holding students responsible for
class expectations.
As we cultivate relationships with students, we
can cultivate the same mentor/flourishing relationships with colleagues. This goal could include
asking a colleague to visit our classroom as a guest
lecturer on an area of his or her expertise or simply
inviting a colleague to lunch or some event inside or
outside the classroom setting. Passing along relevant
information wisely among us and students could
make educating for faithful learning more meaningful, less difficult. Most tasks are easier to accomplish
with helpful information. Wisdom, of course, is the
key here: wise exchange of information between
colleagues and students – not gossip, or rumors, or
information that should not be exchanged.
Convictions, Character, and Community
Such communication produces trust and a reason
to develop faith. Our students learn of God’s truth
and world and love best in healthy, trustworthy
community. For, as Garber reminds us, “the young
adult is still in formation, still engaged in the activity of composing a self, world, and [understanding
of ] ‘God’ adequate to ground the responsibilities
and commitments of full adulthood. The young
adult is searching for a worthy faith.”33 Might we
6
Pro Rege—March 2014
say also that the young adults under our tutelage
are looking for students, faculty, and administration with which to develop their convictions,
character, and community? They are searching not
only for a worthy faith but also for a worthy love,
around which to orient their telos (purpose) and
their praxis (practice) over the course of a life-time
of learning, as they seek, along with the Irish poet
Bono of U2 fame, “to tear a little corner off the
darkness.”34
Dr. X knew I would never learn the finer
points of the mathematic world; but he also knew
that by his creating an environment of hospitality
in which he positioned himself mutually, responsibly, and affectionately, I could and would learn;
and that by learning, I would experience growth in
convictions, community, and formation in Christlikeness. He was right! Algebra remains Greek to
me. But, my experience in that little community
of learners launched me into a life-long pursuit to
understand more deeply what constitutes healthy
community and how healthy community contributes to faithful education. And I love Jesus more,
too, because of Algebra!
Let us hope that, as professors at Christian colleges and universities, we eagerly help our institutions fulfill their vision of developing citizens of
Christ-like character through faithful education.
Let us also hope that we eagerly experience life
lived in healthy community inside and outside
the classroom so that our students and we are
transformed into Christ-likeness in the struggle of
learning and flourishing — even in the most unlikely of places, like Algebra!
Endnotes
1. Genesis 1:26 (ESV).
2. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God, A Theology of
Lordship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2002), 621.
3. Though Dr. Roest modeled early on for me, I am
also indebted to Dr. Steve Garber for a fuller understanding of these three relational aspects, as well as to
Wendell Berry, though responsibility for any flaws is
personal.
4. Wendell Berry, The Long-Legged House (New York:
Harcourt, 1969), 61.
5. Wendell Berry, Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community:
Eight Essays, 1st ed. (New York: Pantheon Books,
1993), 14.
6. Ibid., 121.
7. Wendell Berry, Another Turn of the Crank: Essays
(Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1995), 91.
8. Genesis 2:18 (ESV).
9. Genesis 7:13 (ESV).
10. Genesis 17:5 (ESV).
11. Numbers 14:14 (ESV).
12. Psalm 46:5; 116:19 (ESV).
link to education.
21.Steve Garber, The Fabric of Faithfulness (Downers
Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2007), 159.
22.Garber, The Fabric of Faithfulness, 22.
23. Christine Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality
as a Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1999), 151.
24. Ibid., 153.
25. Ibid., 168.
13. Matthew 1:23 (ESV).
26.Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a
Christian Tradition 152-153.
14. Mark 1:10-11 (ESV).
27. John 18:37 (ESV).
15. Luke 3:23; 4:1 (ESV).
28. Matthew 28:19, 20 (ESV).
16. Luke 5:1 (ESV).
29. Ibid., 170.
17. Acts 1:8, Col 1:18 (ESV).
30. Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, Living at
the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008), 45.
18. Revelation 22a:1-5 (ESV).
19. Arthur Holmes, The Idea of a Christian College (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1975), 77.
20.See Paul Spears and Steven Loomis, Education for
Human Flourishing: A Christian Perspective (Downer
Groves: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 191-217, for an indepth consideration of character and its indispensable
31. Ibid., 170.
32. 1 John 4:16 (ESV).
33.Garber, Fabric of Faithfulness, 96.
34. Dr. Steve Garber: interview at Washington Institute
for Faith, Vocation and Culture, June 2009.
Pro Rege—March 2014
7
Two-kingdom
Worldviews:
Attempting a Translation
by Renato Coletto
In the past few years Pro Rege has published
several articles dealing with the nature and implications of two-kingdom approaches to society, scholarship, church doctrine, and so forth.
The article that struck me most was the one by
David VanDrunen, on “the Two-kingdoms
and Reformed Christianity.”1 In South Africa,
Professor Bennie Van der Walt has dedicated a
lifetime to promoting an integral biblical worldview and to fighting against dualist versions of
Christianity. Albert Wolters has done the same in
North America, and many others have contributed to spread this message worldwide. And yet
Dr. Renato Coletto is Associate professor in the School
of Philosophy, at North-West University, Potchefstroom
Campus.
8
Pro Rege—March 2014
Reformed individuals and communities seem to
be inevitably and perennially attracted by all sorts
of scholastic, pietist or para-liberal projects and
positions.2 Can this be due, at least in part, to the
fact that we often keep discussing these issues in a
two-kingdom language?
Many Reformed and Reformational authors
regard the biblical worldview as constituted by the
threefold motif of “creation, fall and redemption.”
They assume that the Reformed worldview, at
least ideally, strives to be in line with the threefold
biblical motif, adopts a transformative approach,
and therefore is not reducible or amenable to a
two-realm approach. And yet, even authors who
adopt this point of view often “translate” the biblical ground motive in the nature-and-grace idiom.
In Figure 1 below a couple of examples are supplied.3
Figure 1
Type:
B.J. Van der Walt
A.M. Wolters
grace within
nature
grace equals
nature
2) “Catholic”
grace above nature
grace perfects
nature
3) “Lutheran”
grace alongside
nature
grace flanks
nature
4) “Anabaptist”
grace against
nature
grace opposes
nature
grace transforms
nature
grace restores
nature
1) “Liberal”
5) Biblical
Probably this classification is reminiscent
of Niebuhr, who labels the reformed attitude
with the formula “Christ transforms culture.”4
Now, this strategy is not without advantages: for
example it allows comparing the biblical worldview with the most “popular” and widespread
Christian worldviews. Nevertheless, it might create the impression that the Bible (and Reformed
Christianity) proposes just a particular version
of the nature-grace paradigm. Recently, Van der
Walt, too, argued that the study of Christian
worldviews should be disentangled from the nature-grace language.5 Would it help if we could
“translate” the nature-and-grace worldviews into
the language of creation, fall, and redemption?
Could it help some of us to “see” better the limitations and undesired consequences of the twokingdom perspectives?
In the following few pages I am going to try
this “translation” and to supply some examples of
the alterations produced by the two-kingdom approaches.6 In the light of these findings, in the final part of the article I will briefly re-visit some of
VanDrunen’s arguments and comment on them.
I apologize beforehand for the fact that some sections of this article do not present totally new arguments, but the fact that many still fail to realize
that dualism is a threat to Christian life made me
think that sometimes repetita juvant.
The “wedge interpretation”
In the Reformational tradition, there have been
some attempts at translating the nature-grace
worldviews in terms of the biblical creation-fallredemption motif. To my knowledge, however,
there are only a few fragmented discussions of this
translation, and they took place many years ago.
I can recall, for example, Dooyeweerd arguing
that different two-kingdom worldviews “place a
wedge between creation and redemption.”7 What
does that mean? As he believes that the “factors”
of the biblical ground-motive are three (creation,
fall, and redemption), does the “wedge” eliminate
the fall when it is placed “between creation and
redemption”? Alternatively, does the wedge group
together creation and fall, or fall and redemption?
What can all this possibly mean in terms of understanding Christian worldviews?
Whatever it implied, the wedge-interpretation
continued to flow underground and to re-emerge
from time to time. For example, Strauss mentions
it in an article dealing with “reformed scholasticism,”8 though only en passant, without addressing
the questions mentioned above. The most extensive explanation, to my knowledge, is contained in
an old contribution by Jim Olthuis.9 I would like,
therefore, to “re-visit” that old text where Olthuis
discusses the main Christian worldviews (he calls
them “theories”).
Figures 2 and 3 below are my own simplified
versions of Olthuis’ explanations (including his
graphic scheme).10 The acronym CFR represents
the threefold biblical theme of creation, fall, and
redemption. In the last row of Figure 2, I have
inserted a representation of the biblical worldview
(not present in Olthuis’ scheme) so that a comparison with the other paradigms is made easier.
Figure 2
Type:
1) “Liberal”
Structure:
C >f R
2) “Catholic”
C >f R
3) “Lutheran”
cF>R
4) “Anabaptist”
cF>R
5) Biblical
CFR
Olthuis discusses the four “classical” Christian
worldviews, not according to their historical appearance but in systematic order. He clarifies
that each position represents a group of worldviews: there are indeed sub-versions of each group
(though he does not discuss them in his text). It
should be noted that he does not use labels like
“Lutheran” or “Liberal.” This lack of labels highlights the fact that these worldviews should not
be too quickly associated with ecclesiastical or
confessional communities. I will nevertheless use
those labels (in quotation marks) because, even
though Olthuis’ intentions should be appreciated,
in the end it is clear to which “communities” or
circles he refers. They are clear, for example, from
the authors he quotes. It is, however, important to
remember that, for example in a Roman Catholic
community, we are surely going to find individuals and groups holding to a worldview that is not
typically Roman Catholic.
Pro Rege—March 2014
9
The two “external” positions (1 and 4) constitute the two most “radical” groups. The two
internal ones (2 and 3) are more “moderate.”
The lower-case letters indicate the “element”
of the biblical motif that is weakened in each
particular worldview. The capital-bold letters
indicate the element acquiring excessive “power” and thus playing the most relevant role in a
worldview. In all cases, the alteration of one element has repercussions on the whole structure.
However, not everything is clear in Olthuis’
scheme. On the one hand, he says, “theories of
the first type place a wedge between Creation
and Fall-(Redemption), whereas theories of the
second type place a wedge between (Creation)Fall and redemption.”11 This is what I try to illustrate in Figure 2 above. On the other hand, in his
own graphic scheme (p. 120), the wedge is always
placed between (creation) fall and redemption (as
in Figure 3 below). In the same scheme, in addition, a growing “distance” is inserted between the
two “poles” of the worldview: this distance seems
to indicate that the wedge does not always have
the same “weight” or effect.
Figure 3
Type:
Structure:
1) “Liberal”
Cf>R
2) “Catholic”
Cf>R
3) “Lutheran”
cF>R
4) “Anabaptist”
cF>R
On these two issues (the position of the wedge
and the growing distance), I would say that the
“translation” is not completely clear. However, I
think the two schemes (Figures 2 and 3) do not
necessarily conflict. What they both try to show,
first of all, is that the wedge divides the biblical
motif into two parts (corresponding to nature and
grace). In the first two worldviews (1 and 2), the
fall element is weakened while the creation element plays a relevant role. Having weakened the
fall, “nature” means especially “creation” (and
therefore has a rather positive connotation). The
main dialectical interplay is between creation and
redemption.
In the second couple of worldviews (3 and 4),
creation is weakened while redemption plays a
10
Pro Rege—March 2014
crucial role. Since the creation factor is weakened,
“nature” means especially “fall” and is rather regarded as corrupted. Nature and grace are especially interpreted in terms of fall and redemption,
and the main dialectical interplay is between these
two factors. Once this interplay is understood, the
position of the wedge is not that important. The
growing distance between the two poles can be
better explained by referring to the key ideas of
each worldview (I will return on this topic below).
The upshot of the scheme (in Olthuis’ words)
is that “it is impossible to fit three pins in two
holes!” In the process, either the fall or the creation must be weakened. As I said, this weakening
affects the whole structure as well.
Some examples
I have now created a few formulas, rather than a
translation. Perhaps some readers would like to
have a few more concrete examples of what these
formulas mean for concrete Christian life and
scholarship. Sometimes one might have the impression that two-kingdom approaches influence
topics like “religion and science” or “church and
state,” while it is not always clear whether they
have any influence in the sphere of church and
doctrine.
The following two examples concern the
fact that worldviews do also impact the confessional and theological elaborations of a certain
faith-community. The first example concerns
Roman Catholicism and is provided by an Italian
Evangelical scholar.12 De Chirico relates the
Catholic failure to realize the corruptio totalis of
sinful man to the fact that the Catholic worldview
weakens the fall element. The fall has wounded
certain human abilities, but the human agent
is still endowed with free will. There are therefore human resources to be used in the process
of redemption, a view traditionally opposed by
Calvinism.
A second example comes from Dooyeweerd,
in relation to Luther. Unlike the Roman Catholic
paradigm, the Lutheran approach allows us to return to the biblical doctrine of the radical corruption of the heart. But as argued above, the weak
point of the Lutheran approach lies in the motif
of creation. It is there that Luther is pressed to
oppose law and Gospel in terms of fall and redemption. Such opposition is not as sharp as it is
manifested in Anabaptist circles. Luther did never
advise any withdrawal from this world, and on
the contrary opposed monasticism rather severely.
Yet, according to Dooyeweerd,
Would it help if we could
“translate” the nature-and-grace
worldviews into the language of
creation, fall, and redemption?
Under Ockham’s influence, Luther robbed the law
as the creational ordinance of its value. For him
the law was harsh and rigid and as such in inner
contradiction to the love commandment of the
gospel. He maintained that the Christian, in his life
of love that flows from grace, has nothing to do
with the demands of the law. The Christian stood
above the law.13
Dooyeweerd also points out that the depreciation of the creation ordinances affected more than
Lutheran theology. In the long run it affected the
Lutheran view of Christian life and scholarship
as well. Already Luther expressed little interest in
“profane science.” More recently, if we consider
the possibility of “Christian scholarship, Christian
political life, Christian art, Christian social action
… Barth and to a lesser degree Brunner, considered them impossible.”14
Key-ideas
It is now time to identify the key idea of each
worldview and to realize that different sub-versions of the same worldview are available. Olthuis
recognizes that each one of the four worldviews
(see Figure 4, below) is constituted by a “group”
or “family” of theories. Yet neither Olthuis nor
Wolters nor Van der Walt defines these sub-versions of the main paradigm. I have tried to do so
in a previous article,15 and I have proposed the following labels (see Figure 4). The second and third
columns contain respectively my definition of the
“key idea” of each family of worldviews and of
sub-versions within a certain family.
Figure 4
Type:
1) “Liberal”
Key-idea:
Sub-versions:
Identification
a) Adoption
b) Elaboration
2) “Catholic”
Integration
a) Control
b) Mysticism
3) “Lutheran”
Parallelism
a) Concordance
b) Isolation
4) “Anabaptist”
Opposition
a) Separation
b) Substitution
One may illustrate the meaning of the key
ideas by referring, for example, to the way
Christians deal with the theory of evolution.
When Klapwijk16 recently gives an overview of
three major Christian positions concerning the debate, he probably doesn’t have in mind worldview
issues. Yet the influence of the main Christian
paradigms emerges quite clearly from his overview. Creationism is a strategy of “conflict,” says
Klapwijk, while intelligent design is a strategy of
“synthesis.” 17 According to John Paul II, the species have developed phylogenetically (including
the human body), but the human soul is created
directly and inserted in the human body. As a
consequence, terms like “control” and “integration” can capture the specific nature of this “synthesis.” A third option is theistic evolution, which
Klapwijk regards as a strategy of “compatibility”
(my “parallelism”). He doesn’t need to mention
the Liberal position because it is often identifiable
with evolutionist doctrine. Summing up, we have
identification synthesis, compatibility, and conflict, corresponding to the key ideas of the four
two-kingdom worldviews mentioned in Figure 4
above.
Olthuis indicates that there is a “growing distance” (see Figure 3 above) between the two poles
of the four worldviews. This distance is also reflected in my definitions of the four key ideas: we
gradually move from identification to opposition.
In addition, the key ideas should provide a hint on
the particular “spirit” finding expression in each
worldview.
What about the “sub-versions”?
Of course I am not proposing the scheme of
Figure 4 as final: it can be criticized, modified,
Pro Rege—March 2014
11
and hopefully improved. It is just an attempt at (1)
capturing the core idea of a certain type of worldview and (2) identifying the existing sub-versions.
Concerning the sub-versions, some explanations
are in order, and I will again select my examples
from the context of Christian scholarship.
In Lutheranism, for example, the parallelism
between creation and redemption (nature and
grace) can be understood in a more or less interactive way. “Isolation” means that the respective domains (e.g. science and religion) should be distinguished according to their own nature and diversity. They must both be recognized and appreciated, but in the end they are independent, and they
have little to do with each other. However, one
can also regard the two realms as related in some
kind of “concordance.” The Bible speaks of God’s
“fiat,” and science speaks of the Big Bang. Science
speaks of geological eras, and the Bible speaks of
“days.” There is no possible friction between the
Bible and science: there is, rather, agreement.
When it comes to Anabaptism, the key idea
is conflict. The fight of grace against nature can
result in “separation” (the first option), as the two
are based on totally different origins and principles. It is foolish to try to integrate Christian doctrine and secular science. The Christian promotes
an anti-thesis. This anti-thesis opens a second possibility: one can decide to “aggress” sinful nature
and finally to “substitute” it with grace (etymologically, the term “anti” means both “against” and
“in the place of”). In relation to politics, it is then
possible to imagine the institution of a “republic
of the saints” (as in Münster, 1534) or the replacement of the legislation of the USA with biblical
laws (as in Theonomy)!
Instead of continuing with more explanations
of terms,18 I would like to draw two simple lessons. First, there is a considerable variety of twokingdom doctrines. Probably my scheme manages
to identify only some of those doctrines, and new
ones might be added in the future. Second, not all
the versions and sub-versions of the two-kingdom
worldviews are equally compatible. The distance
is not so extreme, for example, between Lutheran
“isolation” (independence) and Anabaptist “separation.” But other paradigms are more difficult to reconcile (for example, some Liberal and
12
Pro Rege—March 2014
Anabaptist ones). Even within the same paradigm (for example, Catholic integration), options
like mysticism and control are difficult to reconcile. Mysticism is only marginally present in the
Church of Rome; it is much more typical of the
Eastern Orthodox tradition, and it might even be
the deep reason behind the schism that affected
the two ecclesiastical bodies.
This means that, when it comes to two-kingdom doctrines, one has to choose a particular
version among many, and whatever option one
may choose, it will be to some extent in conflict
with the others. The idea that it might be possible
to “combine” the different options together and
maybe to adopt all of them (instead of excluding
some) should be considered not only unrealistic
but also misguided.
Worldviews, paradigms or...?
Up to now, I have used words like approach, paradigm, worldview (and so forth) as synonyms. But
what are we dealing with, when we speak of “twokingdoms”? Apparently, these are “themes” of
such a fundamental nature that they shape entire
confessional traditions. Not only do these themes
shape church and theology, but they also affect
scholarship and life in general, educational and
political views, and daily work and family priorities, and they do so through the centuries!
These themes are not “doctrines,” and even the
term “worldview” is insufficient to capture their
nature. They are versions of what Dooyeweerd
called a “religious ground motive”: not just important ideas of a Christian tradition but its fundamental basis for faith and life—in a word, for
culture. If there is some truth in this statement,
it also implies that such motifs are of a spiritual
nature. As a consequence, when a confessional
tradition accepts (Dooyeweerd would say: “is in
the grip of”) one of these fundamental motifs, the
latter will shape its cultural achievements in all
fields, church and theology included.
Although we usually call these motifs
“Christian” (because they are adopted by many
Christian traditions), they cannot be called biblical, and in fact they have hardly anything to do
with the Bible. Of course those who are in their
grip will “read” them into the Bible, but they in-
evitably divide and distort the integral motif of
the Word of God. Here I could only point out
a few examples of such deformations, but the interested reader has ample material to read on the
topic.19 With these considerations in mind, let us
go back to some of VanDrunen’s arguments.
Back to VanDrunen
In his Pro Rege article, VanDrunen always refers
to the two-kingdom “doctrine” in the singular:
he would like to promote “the” two-kingdom
approach. At the same time, he attributes to
this motif a sort of balance, completeness, and
moderation. I trust it is by now clear that there
is no such thing as “the” two-kingdom doctrine.
There are several versions of the doctrine, and not
all of them are “moderate” or balanced. In fact,
VanDrunen himself rejects two paradigms that he
regards as too radical or inadequate: Anabaptism
and “theocratic tendencies.” And yet (limiting
ourselves to present-day examples) Pentecostalism
and Theonomism, too, adopt two-kingdom approaches.20 The fact is that VanDrunen’s dual approach is incompatible not only with the threefold biblical motif but also with several other twokingdom worldviews.
Perhaps, when referring to “the” two-kingdom
doctrine, VanDrunen means the one that he finds
in the Bible, the one he adopts and calls “the reformed two-kingdom doctrine.” Concerning the
“biblical” nature of this motif, I have already expressed my reservations. Concerning its Reformed
character, what is the particular version of the twokingdom motif adopted by VanDrunen? I would
say it is the one I have labelled as “parallelism.”
If this is correct, this “doctrine” originated in
Lutheran, not in Calvinist, circles. But even supposing that I might be wrong about Van Drunen’s
worldview, whatever option we might regard as
reformed in the two-realm arsenal will be an option that, historically, has already been recognized
as the pulsing heart of either Anabaptism, Roman
Catholicism, Liberalism, Pentecostalism, or Neoorthodoxy and so forth. None of these versions
originally developed within Calvinism or was ever
regarded as its DNA.
VanDrunen insists that a two-kingdom doctrine can be comfortably detected in the works
of Calvin, Bavinck, and Kuyper. Well, I would
grant that traces of the same motif might be present even in Dooyeweerd and other Reformational
authors!21 Historically, make no mistake: one will
always find traces of this motif in some or another
Reformed “father,” influential writer, or leader. Yet
it will be impossible to retrieve from history what
VanDrunen calls “the reformed two-kingdom
doctrine.” Instead, one will always find only “borrowings” from other confessions. Turrettini borrowed from the Roman tradition, and Rushdoony
from an Anabaptist motif. Others borrow(ed)
from Lutheranism or Liberalism. Far from constituting a biblical or Reformed paradigm, such borrowings generated a collage of disparate and often
conflicting approaches within reformed circles.
The problem is to determine whether the nature-grace motif belongs in Calvinism, or whether
it is a leftover of the Roman Catholic heritage (the
first to appear on the scene and the “genitor” of
the other dualistic approaches). It would be unhistorical to suppose that a movement reforming
its own ways might do so immediately (or even in
a short time) and completely. As a consequence,
The fact is that VanDrunen’s
dual approach is incompatible
not only with the threefold
biblical motif but also with
several other two-kingdom
worldviews.
traces of that motif will be present to some extent
in all subsequent traditions. However, it makes a
crucial difference to know whether a movement
(or an author) is trying to happily endorse and articulate a certain worldview or if it is inclined to
follow an alternative direction.22 As Klapwijk has
recently pointed out (in agreement with Kuyper),
when it comes to worldviews, a movement is to
be identified for its original traits, not for what
it might have occasionally in common with other
movements.23
Pro Rege—March 2014
13
Concluding remarks
This article has provided a “translation” of several two-kingdom motifs into the biblical “language” of creation, fall, and redemption. Perhaps
some will say, using Habermas’24 words about the
Enlightenment, that Calvinism is still “an incomplete project.” How should it be “completed”
then? By borrowing one of the approaches already adopted and articulated by other Christian
traditions? This would amount to granting that
Calvinism doesn’t have a specific identity and
is at bottom just a variety of Lutheranism or
Catholicism. In addition, it would amount to
re-shaping Calvinism along Roman Catholic or
Lutheran lines. Some might not be unhappy with
the latter solution. But they should realize that,
after such re-shaping, it might not be possible to
save some of their most cherished church doctrines while leaving open questions concerning a
“Christian standard for being a good accountant
farmer or physician.” 25 Would it not be better to
listen to Kuyper, who said that Calvinism is a distinct life-view?26
Endnotes
1. David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms and
Reformed Christianity. Why Recovering an Old
Paradigm is Historically Sound, Biblically Grounded,
and Practically Useful,” Pro Rege 40(2012/3): 3138. A list of previous Pro Rege articles dealing with
two-kingdom issues is available in endnote 3 of
VanDrunen’s article (p. 38).
2. The historical examples are too numerous to even
start pointing out a few of them. Nevertheless, one
may think for example of recent movements like the
Radical Orthodoxy.
3. See Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: a
Transforming View of the World (Leicester: Inter
Varsity Press, 1986); Albert M. Wolters, “On the
Idea of Worldview and its Relation to Philosophy,”
in Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science, edited by Paul A. Marshall, Sander Griffioen, and
Richard J. Mouw (Lanham, Md., University Press
of America, 1989), 14-25; Barend J. Van der Walt,
The Liberating Message: a Christian Worldview for
Africa (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University
for Christian Higher Education and Institute for
Reformational Studies, 1994), 102 ff.
4. Richard H. Niebuhr. Christ and Culture (New York:
Harper & Row, 1956).
14
Pro Rege—March 2014
5. Van der Walt suggests using Vollenhoven’s taxonomy of philosophical positions to classify and
assess (Christian) worldviews. Barend J. Van der
Walt, “Flying on the Wings of Vollenhoven’s
Radical Christian Worldview: a Reconsideration
of the Usual Typology of Christian Worldviews,”
Koers, 77(2012/1): 14 pages online. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4102/ koers.v77i1.31.
6. Several terms can be used to indicate the two-kingdom approach, for example worldview (Wolters),
paradigm and doctrine (VanDrunen), ground motive (Dooyeweerd), theory (Olthuis) and so on. For
the moment, I am using them all as synonyms, due
to the fact that I haven’t discussed the nature of such
“paradigms” yet. Later on, however, I will indicate
which definition is in my opinion preferable.
7. See, for example, Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of
Western Culture: Pagan, Secular and Christian options
(Toronto: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1979),
28,113,139,147.
8. Daniel F.M. Strauss, “Scholasticism and Reformed
Scholasticism at Odds with Genuine ReformationalChristian Thinking,” Dutch Reformed Theological
Journal 10(1969): 97-114. http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Strauss/DFMS-Scholasticism.pdf.
9. James Olthuis, “Must the Church Become Secular?”
in Out of Concern for the Church: Five Essays (Toronto:
Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1970, 106-125).
Ironically, both Dooyeweerd’s and Olthuis’ discussions about the “wedge” were published by a “Wedge
Publishing Foundation”!
10. Not only is Olthuis’ graphic scheme (120) more complex, but his text discusses, for example, how worldviews impact on Christian missionary work, on the
understanding of God’s grace and human responsibility, on anthropological views, and so forth.
11. James Olthuis, “Must the Church...” p. 120.
12.
Leonardo De Chirico, Evangelical Theological
Perspectives on post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism,
(Bern: Peter Lang, 2003), 237 ff.
13. Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture, 140.
14.Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture,
146-147. Even though Barth was a Reformed pastor,
Dooyeweerd regards him and other exponents of dialectical theology as adopting a “Lutheran” type of
worldview. This seems to me more appropriate than
Olthuis’ decision to place him in the fourth (i.e.
the “Anabaptist”) group. (Cf. Olthuis, “Must the
Church...” p. 121, with footnote 19).
15. Renato Coletto, “Christian Attitudes in Scholarship:
the Role of Worldviews,” Koers (Special edition:
“Worldview and Education”) 77(2012/1): 10 pages
online. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koers.v77i1.33
16. Jacob Klapwijk, “Creation Belief and the Paradigm
of Emergent Evolution,” Philosophia Reformata,
78(2013/1): 11-16.
17. Jacob Klapwijk, “Creation Belief,” 12.
18. For a more complete exposition, see my “Christian
attitudes in scholarship,” http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/
koers.v77i1.33
19. Strauss’ article (quoted above) is still a good text for
this purpose; it is now available at http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Strauss/DFMS-Scholasticism.pdf.
I would add Dooyeweerd’s recently translated volume
on “Reformation and Scholasticism in Philosophy,”
edited by Paideia Press/ Reformational Publishing
Project.
20.VanDrunen rejects these two paradigms in “The
Two-kingdoms,”37. I have argued that they too are
two-kingdom doctrines in “Christian Attitudes in
Scholarship,”5-6. VanDrunen’s arguments give the
impression that it is possible to maintain a proper
differentiation between Christian involvement in
church and state, only by adopting a two-kingdom
framework, opposed by neo-Calvinism. The neoCalvinist movement, however, has never promoted
an un-differentiated view of the Christian service
in these two spheres, as if Christians should act in a
parliament as they act in church. On the contrary, it
has argued that the spheres are many more than two
and that it is necessary to differentiate properly (even
in the “civil realm”) between family, school, orchestra, union, business and so forth. Only this differentiation can lead to effective Christian involvement
within these social spheres. But it is a differentiation
that does not fit well the two-kingdom worldviews.
21.Concerning Dooyeweerd, see for example Harry
Fernhout, “Man, Faith and Religion in Bavinck,
Kuyper and Dooyeweerd, Part 3,” Tydskrif vir
Christelike Wetenskap 15(1979/3-4): 119-140. More
recently Tol has explored the beginnings of the career of both Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven and has
pointed out their involvement with the tradition of
critical realism, the Logos-speculation, and other
themes pointing towards the Catholic tradition.
(See Anthony Tol, “Reformational Philosophy in the
Making,” Philosophia Reformata 76(201/2): 187-215.
22. Lief has already argued that inquiring into these issues requires moving beyond the quotation of a few
sentences presumably representing the fundamental approach of Calvin, Kuyper, or whoever else
is taken into consideration. Jason Lief, “The Twokingdoms Perspective and Theological Method: Why
I still Disagree with David Van Drunen,” Pro Rege
41(2012/1): 6.
23.Jacob Klapwijk, “Abraham Kuyper on Science,
Theology and University,” Philosophia Reformata
78(2013/1): 19. The same argument was first advanced by Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 100.
24.Jürgen Habermas, “Modernity: an Incomplete
Project,” in Postmodern Culture, edited by Hal Foster
(London: Pluto Press, 1984), 3-16.
25. David VanDrunen, “The Two-kingdoms,” 37.
26.Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand
Rapids, Eerdmans, 1931), 9-32.
Pro Rege—March 2014
15
Editor’s note: Dr. Ryan McIlhenny recently offered a lecture at Covenant College entitled “Two Kingdoms and Christian
Scholarship.” His participation at Covenant is a partial fulfillment of his ARCU lectureship for which he was appointed
this year. A large portion of the talk focused on the historical reasons for why the Two Kingdoms perspective has become
increasingly popular within the Reformed community.
Presentism and the Two
Kingdoms Perspective
rule in distinct ways. God governs one kingdom,
which Luther often called the kingdom of God’s
“left hand” and Calvin the “civil” kingdom, as its
creator and sustainer, but not as its redeemer. This
civil kingdom pertains to temporal, earthly, provisional matters, not matters of ultimate and spiritual
importance … . The other kingdom, which Luther
termed the kingdom of God’s ‘right hand’ and Calvin the ‘spiritual’ kingdom, is also ruled by God, but
he rules it not only as creator and sustainer but also
as its redeemer in Christ. This kingdom pertains to
things that are of ultimate and spiritual importance.2
by Ryan McIlhenny
Neo-Calvinism has been the raison d’être of
Reformed higher education. Even today, broadly
evangelical as well as non-religiously affiliated educational institutions have benefited significantly
from this robust outlook.1 Sadly, the growing
popularity of the so-called Two Kingdoms perspective — which is ironically coming out of the
Reformed community — has taken aim at the
Neo-Calvinist apologia for a distinctively Christian
pedagogy. In his Biblical Case for Natural Law,
David VanDrunen offers a succinct definition of
the Two Kingdoms:
God continues to rule over all things. Nevertheless,
God rules the world in two different ways. He is
the one and only king, but he has established two
kingdoms (or, two realms) in which he exercises his
Dr. Ryan McIlhenny is associate professor of history at
Providence Christian College in Pasadena, CA.
16
Pro Rege—March 2014
The Two Kingdoms position diverges from neoCalvinism, not on sphere sovereignty, the antithesis, or common grace — three themes that make
Two Kingdomers, much to their chagrin, partial
neo-Calvinists — but on the cultural mandate and
the reality of cosmic redemption. This is no benign
disagreement. First, in the Two Kingdoms mind,
Adam failed to fulfill God’s command to fill, subdue, and rule over the creation. The new and better Adam, Jesus Christ, completed the task. TwoKingdomers believe, consequently, that kingdom
(sacred or ultimate) activity is limited to the sphere
of the church, whereas social and cultural works are
part of a shared or common human realm. With
that distinction between sacred activity and cultural
activity, the adjective “Christian” is superfluous, an
obvious problem for colleges or universities that
take the name of Christ. To be fair, it is true that
in the arena of salvation, Christ accomplished the
Father’s requirement for perfect obedience. But in
another sense, as neo-Calvinists stress, the cultural
mandate is part of the created/natural order. All humans have been created to live in accordance with
the cultural mandate, regardless of submission to or
rebellion against God. Second, the Two Kingdom
position limits redemption to the church. Again, in
one sense, this is true: God through Christ redeems
his own. But some may wince at the Two Kingdoms
implication that redemption is not cosmic in scope.
For neo-Calvinists, Christ restores a “groaning” creation — all creation, to be exact. This is the basis for
the witness we show and the joy that we have in and
through our cultural engagement.
The Two Kingdoms position
diverges from neo-Calvinism,
not on sphere sovereignty, the
antithesis, or common grace
… but on the cultural mandate and the reality of cosmic
redemption.
At the “Calvinism for the 21st Century” conference hosted by Dordt College in 2010, keynote
speaker James K.A. Smith, professor of philosophy
at Calvin College, was asked the question as to why
the Two Kingdoms doctrine has reemerged as an
issue of debate within the Reformed community?
Smith, at that time, was unprepared to offer an answer. At least one of the leading Two Kingdoms
representatives believes that he is recovering an
important artifact of the Reformation tradition,
an artifact essential to orthodoxy.3 Both neoCalvinists and contemporary Two Kingdomers
(who could also be labeled neo-Two Kingdomers)
would agree that the recovery of the biblical way to
be made right before God was at the heart of the
Reformation. But does the contemporary restoration of the Two Kingdoms have the same weight
as the recovery of the gospel? Is that restoration a
matter of regaining lost orthodoxy?
History is central to knowledge and thus should
be treated with the highest honor, but its users —
including a host of academics (even historians) —
unfortunately betray such tribute by using history
for presentist purposes. In one important sense, the
revival of the Two Kingdoms debate has more to
do with countering a contemporary embarrassment
than in preserving a venerated past. Acknowledging
that the Two Kingdoms position has become a welcomed salve for many suffering from culture war fatigue, this essay contends that its complete dismissal
of its chief nemesis, neo-Calvinism — especially its
image after Dooyeweerd — is much too hasty.4 The
socio-cultural relevance of the Calvinistic worldview as articulated first by Groen van Prinsterer
(1801-1876) and Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), and
later by Dirk Vollenhoven (1892-1978) and Herman
Dooyeweerd (1894-1977), remains a more cogent
biblical response to modernism — modernism at its
peak and now in its time of crisis — than does the
Two Kingdoms paradigm.
Neo-Calvinism and the Evangelical Right
A Two Kingdoms viewpoint was advanced by
Michael Horton in Beyond Culture Wars, written
about twenty years ago, as an alternative, not to
neo-Calvinism per se but to the religious evangelical Right in general. And in truth, it should be noted that the evangelical Right has included many in
the Reformed camp. Steve Mathonnet-Vander Well
noted, in Reformed Perspectives a few years ago, that
by the twenty-first century, “evangelicals (presumably including more than a few Dutch Reformed)
were the mainstay of the conservative wing of the
Republican Party.”5 Another writer for a popular
online Reformed theology database unraveled the
cords that linked neo-Calvinism to the evangelical
political Right:
Neo-Calvinism branched off in more conservative
movements in the United States. The first of these
to rise to prominence became apparent through the
writings of Francis Schaeffer, and a group of scholars associated with a Calvinist study center in Switzerland, called L’abri. This movement generated a
reawakened social consciousness among Evangelicals, especially in response to abortion, and was one
of the formative influences which brought about
the “Moral Majority” phenomenon in the United
States, in the early 1980s.
The more radical Calvinist movement that has
been influential in American family and political
life is called Christian Reconstructionism. Reconstructionism is a separate revision of Kuyper’s ap-
Pro Rege—March 2014
17
proach under the leadership of the late Rousas J.
Rushdoony[,] … Reformed scholar and essayist …
. Not a political movement, strictly speaking, Reconstructionism has been influential in the development of the so-called “religious right”; it aims
toward the complete reconstruction of the structures of society on Christian and Biblical presuppositions, although not in terms of “top down”
structural changes, but through the steady advance
of the Gospel of Christ as men and women are
converted, and thus seeks laws and structures that
serve them best.6
Similarly, staunch Two Kingdoms supporter
Darryl Hart argues, in A Secular Faith, that the
political conservatism among evangelicals at the
end of the twentieth century “combined the doctrines of the kingdom of God” — presumably a
one kingdom position — “and the sovereignty of
Christ to yield the legitimacy of religion inserting
its moral concerns into all aspects of life.” By the
1970s, Hart continues, evangelicals felt the urgent
need to counteract “the loss of conviction that
churches should stay out of politics and stick to the
business of soul-winning and the exercise of spiritual ministry.”7 And the inspiration for such calls
to political action, he continues, “came from a version of Dutch Calvinism originally articulated by
Abraham Kuyper”:
The Lordship of Christ over all temporal affairs
was arguably Kuyper’s most important reason for
attempting to return the Netherlands to its former
Calvinist glory, and the analogy for evangelical Protestants living through what appeared to be a decadent and secular period of American history was
not difficult to fathom.”8
Hart is not entirely wrong. The late Chuck
Colson, a perfect example of a culture warrior,
appealed “to Kuyper as a primary inspiration”
for Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT).
“Colson,” Calvin Seminary’s John Bolt writes,
“made the appeal for evangelical-Catholic cooperation against the modernist revolutionary culture of
death and destruction already in his inspiring and
influential book, The Body.” In his explanation of
the ECT alliance, Colson, reflecting on Kuyper’s
Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary,
anachronistically claimed that the moral issues
18
Pro Rege—March 2014
Europeans faced in Kuyper’s day were, in Colson’s
words, “the very situation all Christians now face
in America.”9
Neo-Calvinism and Theonomy
But Hart goes too far when he dumps all conservative evangelicals and neo-Calvinists into the same
culture-war phalanx, wherein no compromise with
the “secular” is ever possible: “The idea that the affairs of civil society or public policy are part of a
cosmic contest between the forces of good and
evil nurtures a zero-sum approach to government
that leaves little room for compromise and raises
questions about what to do with nonbelievers and
idolatry.”10 Even more egregious is his linking neoCalvinism to theonomy (a definite culture war phenomenon): “The neo-Calvinist insistence on biblical
politics,” referencing James Skillen, former president of the Center for Public Justice, “paves the way
for theonomy even if Kuyperians are uncomfortable
with Greg Bahnsen.”11 It seems that in Hart’s mind
any cultural engagement that may have a redemptive cultural impact “has always seemed to be essentially theonomic with a progressive façade.”12
It is true that a handful of neo-Calvinists have
travelled the (distorted) path of contemporary theonomy. Indeed, many have warned of the “theocratic temptation” that befalls neo-Calvinists,
especially in the winner-take-all notion advanced
by Hart.13 Kuyper’s language often sounded culture war-ish, as did Dooyeweerd’s, especially during the Dutch National Movement, and that of H.
Evan Runner. Why is this? It is easy to misuse the
“antithesis,” for instance, to construct a culturally
fundamentalistic “us-vs-them” approach as R.J.
Rushdoony and others of his ilk — Greg Bahnsen,
Gary North, and their followers especially — have
done with their opposition to humanistic public
education, to a growing centralized state, to abortion, to pornography, and to homosexuality. These
were certainly culture war militants. But is it fair
to associate all neo-Calvinists with this group? Is
theonomy endemic to a robust neo-Calvinist perspective on Christ and culture? (The situation is
more complicated than I am making it out, for
even staunchly conservative neo-Calvinist H. Evan
Runner voted for Carter back in the day and criticized the evils endemic to neo-liberal capitalism.)
But what many consider peripheral, Hart makes
core.
Neo-Calvinists regularly warn against the misuse of the Reformational notion of antithesis. “We
know,” Dooyeweerd writes, “that in the heart of
the Christian himself the apostate selfhood and the
selfhood redirected to God wage a daily warfare.”14
Reformational physicists Tim Morris and Don
Petcher agree:
Christians are not exempt from faulty thinking just
because we are Christians. Without realizing it, any
of us can be affected by other ground motives
and cultural forces merely because we have been
brought up in a communal way of thinking in our
society. In other words, the real religious antithesis
does not allow us to simply separate one people
against another and be done with it.15
Unfortunately, not everyone uses the antithesis
the right way. One has to wonder whether others
are on the same page as Hart. Gregory Reynolds,
Orthodox Presbyterian Church pastor and editor
of Ordained Servant, reads Living in God’s Two
Kingdoms, by VanDrunen, with both culture ways
and theonomy in mind: “The most eye-popping
conclusion that VanDrunen comes to — he does
so early in Part 1 (“First Things and Last Things,”
pages 33-71) of [Living in God’s Two Kingdoms] —
is that the culture war is over, although he doesn’t
use these terms.”16 (Please note: Reynolds’s use of
“culture war” is confusing. For him the culture
wars originated with the seed of the woman and
the serpent. There is truth to this idea undoubtedly,
but many understand culture war as the North
American evangelical-political activism of the last
forty years.) Reynolds also has theonomy in mind,
believing that VanDrunen’s critique of neo-Calvinism is a critique of theonomy. “VanDrunen takes
on the theonomic exegesis,” he writes, “[doing] so
with great finesse and yet oddly without mentioning Greg Bahnsen, who, as far as I know, is the
major theonomic exegete of this [Matt. 5] passage,
which many believe to be the interpretive linchpin
of theonomy as an ethical system.”17
Two of the towering figures of neo-Calvinism,
Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd,
would have launched a herculean opposition to
such prejudiced readings. Any proposal, Kuyper
wrote, which “simply wishes to duplicate the situation of Israel, taking Holy Scripture as a complete
code of Christian law for the state, would … be
the epitome of absurdity.”18 Dooyeweerd likewise
rejected the notion that “the only manifestation of
the Christian state is its subservience to the Church
as an institution.” If the church is indeed sovereign
over the state, Dooyeweerd facetiously remarks,
“[t]hen the body politic has to use its power of the
sword to suppress the promulgation of doctrines
rejected by the Church as heretical.” This, in his
mind, is to confuse God’s ordained social spheres.
Dooyeweerd offers a simple — granted, a term
rarely associated with Dooyeweerd — biblical concept of the state: “The political confession of faith
in God’s sovereignty over the life of the body politic
has from the start been typical of a Christian view
of the State.”19 A Christian view of the state is an
affirmation of God’s sovereignty over this sphere.20
These qualifications matter little to Hart. NeoCalvinists, Hart contends, are Christian political
militants, since they lack the courage to offer a satisfactory critique of the culture wars:
many neo-Calvinists do actually denounce 2kers for
not lending adequate support to the culture wars or
for criticizing statements like the Manhattan Declaration (think Chuck Colson, Nancy Pearcey, and
some disciples of Francis Schaeffer …) [;], I am
waiting to see the neo-Calvinist critique of culture
war militancy. Criticizing the evangelical baptism of
the Republican Party and George W. Bush does not
count.21
For neo-Calvinists, Christ
restores a “groaning” creation —
all creation, to be exact.
Again, Hart lacks critical analysis. Many neoCalvinists have separated and continue to separate
themselves from the culture wars. The problem is
that it is hard — nearly impossible for a person of
faith — not to be labeled a culture warrior when
defending the role of faith in the public sphere.
How should believers disassociate the biblical
directive of “taking every thought captive” from
the culture wars? Bolt doubts whether we can give
Pro Rege—March 2014
19
up culture warfare completely:
It seems hard to deny that some sort of conflict
about the moral foundations of American society
and the consequent character of its civic life is taking place, particularly with respect to the public
role of religion in shaping the moral foundations
of American civil life. When we consider the hotbutton political issues that are daily items in the
news — abortion, affirmative action, euthanasia,
the family, gay rights, the media and arts — there
can be little doubt that America is embroiled in cultural conflict.22
Bolt goes so far as to question the possibility of a
“third way.”23 Neither progressive evangelicals associated with Jim Wallis’s Sojourners nor the Two
Kingdoms can escape a kind of cultural warfare.
Even ignoring culture is cultural belligerence.
Neo-Calvinism beyond the Culture Wars (and
Stone Lectures)
If believers must engage in cultural warfare, they
must, according to Bolt, reconsider the “manner in
which the battle is fought.”24 Stephen Carter calls for
an “attitude of respect”; Richard Mouw, for a civility undergirded by “kindness and gentleness”; and
Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, for appropriating “missional” in exchange for “militant.”25
We can also add James Davison Hunter’s notion of
“faithful presence,” emphasizing the importance
of waiting on God.26 Jeremiah blasted the cultural
warriors of his day for failing to wait on the Lord.
The exiles and aliens in the Old Testament as well as
the aliens and sojourners in the New Testament era
were and are encouraged to live quietly and peaceably. God’s people wait on the Lord. Yet at the same
time, God’s people are to be salt and light to the
world. The world can be moved by the good works
of Christians, according to Heidelberg Lord’s Day
#32 — good works in all of life that may win some
over to Christ and his glory.27 Even without cultural
warfare, the Christian light will be seen.
Whether we believe in Two Kingdoms or cultural warfare or “faithful presence,” it is essential
that we acquaint ourselves with three historical
periods: the sixteenth-century Reformation, finde-siècle Europe, and North America in the late
twentieth century. Kuyper and many of his con20
Pro Rege—March 2014
temporaries in both Europe and North America
faced a real crisis — a crisis caused by advanced
industrialization, urbanization, hubristic nationalism and imperialism, and the professionalizing —
and unfortunately secularizing — of the intellectual world. The religious “ground-motive”28 behind
such modern developments, what Dooyeweerd
would have seen as the “nature-freedom” faith dilemma, played a part in the disenchantment of the
world. Dutch thinkers utilized Calvin to address
a world facing the marginalization of God — and
worse, according to Nietzsche, his death. This context hardly describes Luther and Calvin’s context.
I will venture to say that the moralistic and in no
way theologically concerned evangelical Right have
failed to discern their own era.
While culture warriors have difficulty accommodating a pluralistic society, the large majority
of conscientious neo-Calvinists do not. Christians,
neo-Calvinists stress, should be principled in a pluralistic world. Kuyper certainly understood the
reality of living as a Christian in such a world.
“Kuyper’s genius,” James Bratt explains, “was to affirm the salience of traditional faith in this modernizing context by remarkably innovative means.”29
Kuyper affirmed the twofold nature of pluralism:
(a) plurality of social spheres and (b) plurality of
religious commitments. Bratt continues:
Kuyper taught that in a modern society religious
pluralism had to respected, but the individualization and privatization of faith had to be avoided.
Each confessional community (including secularists) must be granted its legitimate proportion of
access to and participation in all sectors of public
life, especially political representation, educational
funding, and media access. Let a dozen flowers
bloom, Kuyper said on his happy days; let their relative beauty compete for attention, and let the Lord
at the last day take care of the tares sown among
the wheat [definitely a challenge to the active millenarianism among 19th and 20th century evangelical
conservatives and social gospel liberals].
[Kuyper is] needed to save American evangelicalism from the reflex patriotism it is perennially
tempted to substitute for authentic Christianity as
its guide in public life[;] … evangelicals need more
than ever to differentiate their professed Christian
allegiance, and also their supposed social conservatism from the gods of the market and of mili-
taristic nationalism to which this group is so perpetually beholden. That is, evangelicals as well as
other Americans could use a new application of
Kuyperian sphere sovereignty and holistic biblical
thinking.30
Bratt’s description of Kuyper seems quite cogent: “His ‘conservative’ heirs have amplified the
themes of order, ontological fixedness, suspicions
While culture warriors have
difficulty accommodating a
pluralistic society, the large
majority of conscientious neoCalvinists do not.
of secularism, and aspersions toward the Left. His
‘progressive’ progeny have followed his call for
fresh thinking, epistemological openness, social
justice, and aspersions toward the rich. Which of
these is the ‘real’ Kuyper? Both, and more in between.”31 The Reformed community, especially in
North America, needs a re-contextualized Calvin
to address the needs of a post-modern world: a neoCalvinism beyond the culture wars and beyond the
Stone Lectures.
Endnotes
1. Neo-Calvinism can be traced back to the work of
Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876), Abraham Kuyper
(1837-1920), and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). Each
of these thinkers worked to preserve the importance of
preserving and developing a Reformed or Calvinistic
tradition within an increasingly secularized world. The
term is also associated with the twentieth-century rise
of Reformation Philosophy, a further development of
the founders of neo-Calvinism, as articulated by thinkers like Dirk Vollenhoven (1892-1978) and Herman
Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) among others.
2. David VanDrunen, Biblical Case for Natural Law
(Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, 2002), 24.
3.VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 14-15. See especially
VanDrunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2010). Stephen Grabill, Rediscovering the
Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 2-4. For a presentation of
Luther’s Two Kingdom doctrine that differs significant-
ly from the authors mentioned above, consider William
J. Wright’s Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two
Kingdoms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010). Readers may
wonder whether there are competing Two Kingdoms
paradigms.
4. James Davison Hunter defines culture wars as “political and social hostility rooted in different systems of
moral understandings … the end to which these hostilities tend is the domination of one cultural and moral
ethos over all others.” Davison quote in John Bolt, John
Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s
American Public Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2001), 357. To “hostilities,” I would include a sense of
“urgency” to the “moral.”
5. Steve Mathonnet-VanderWell, “Reformed Intramurals:
What Neo-Calvinism Gets Wrong” Reformed
Perspectives (Feb. 2008). To be fair, however, MathonnettVanderWell suggests that many neo-Calvinists came to
be quite chagrined by such an association. Indeed, there
have been more than enough neo-Calvinists who have
launched sustained aggression toward the culture wars
http://www.rca.org/page.aspx?pid=3771
6.http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/reforms.html
7. Darryl Hart, A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors
The Separation of Church and State (Chicago: Ivan R.
Dee, 2006), 227
8. Ibid., 227-28.
9. John Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham
Kuyper’s American Public Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001), 353.
10. Darryl Hart, A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors
the Separation of Church and State (Chicago: Ivan R.
Dee, 2006), 229.
11.http://oldlife.org/2012/10/not-so-fast/
12.http://oldlife.org/2013/09/culture-redeemed/?utm_
source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_
campaign=culture-redeemed
13. John Bolt, A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham
Kuyper’s American Public Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001), 312-13.
14.Dooyeweerd, New Critique, 137. Dooyeweerd revisits this in his discussion in part 2 of the New
Critique “The Development of the Basic Antimony
in the Cosmonomic Idea of Humanistic Immanence
Philosophy” (175): “And in Christ as the new root of
the human race, the whole temporal cosmos, which was
religiously concentrated in man, is in principle again directed toward God and thereby wrested free from the
power of Satan. However, until the return of Christ,
even humanity which is renewed in Him still shares
in the apostate root of mankind. Consequently, the
Pro Rege—March 2014
21
struggle of the Kingdom of God continues to be waged
against the kingdom of darkness until the ‘consummatio saeculi.’”
15. Tim Morris and Don Petcher, Science and Grace: God’s
Reign in the Natural Sciences (Wheaton: Crossway,
2006), 85.
16. Gregory Reynolds, “The Culture War is Over: A Review
Article,” Ordained Servant Online (April 2011), par. 6.
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=251.
17. Ibid., par. 11. I am not targeting VanDrunen in this essay, but rather his readers. In at least one private conversation I have had with him, VanDrunen assured me
that he is not addressing theonomists or culture warriors. That is not his focus. I believe him. Nothing in his
writings intimates the aggressive agenda of Darryl Hart.
Yet I also affirm that pre-theoretical (Dooyeweerd)/ prescientific (Wolters)/pre-articulated (me)/subconscious
influences guide our understanding of the world. Thus,
given the neo-Calvinist understanding of worldview, it
is more than plausible that VanDrunen is in fact tacitly
writing against contemporary theonomic culture warriors.
18.Kuyper quote in James D. Bratt, Abraham Kuyper:
Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2013), 142.
19.Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical
Thought, Vol. 3 (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing,
1969) 504.
20. According to VanDrunen, neo-Calvinism took a wrong
turn not with Kuyper — or presumably a whole host
of neo-Calvinists — but with Dooyeweerd. Strangely,
in Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, VanDrunen
does not interact — at all — with Dooyeweerd’s New
Critique. VanDrunen concentrates on Twilight, Roots,
and The Struggle for a Christian Politics. This is fine, but
NC is a further albeit more complicated explication of
these works. And much of what Dooyeweerd says about
the possibility of a Christian state as well the idea of natural law comes in the latter portions (Book III) of the
NC. This is a very narrow presentation of Dooyeweerd.
21.https://oldlife.org/2012/10/not-so-fast/
22.Bolt, Free Church, Holy Nation, 359.
23. Ibid., 384.
24. Ibid., 362.
25.Ibid. I have found helpful Richard Mouw’s discussion of the manner of civil engagement in Uncommon
Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivilized World
(Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2010). See also Mouw’s
Abraham Kuyper: A Short Personal Introduction (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) and The Challenges of Cultural
Discipleship: Essays in the Line of Abraham Kuyper
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). Craig Bartholomew
22
Pro Rege—March 2014
and Michael Goheen, Living at the Crossroads: An
Introduction to Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2008) and Christian Philosophy: A Systematic and
Narrative Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013).
26. James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony,
Tragedy, and Possibility of Christian in the Late Modern
World (New York: Oxford, 2010), 238.
27. Along with a change in manners, Christians need to
bury once and for all the “paranoid style” and “status
anxiety” that has preconditioned how we approach
Right-wing evangelical conservatives. We need to stop
using terms like irrational, ignorant, stupid, or extreme
in characterizing conservative evangelicals — evangelicals who are trying to move beyond party politics. The
emergence of big government — represented through
increased taxation, the augmentation of an officious
federal bureaucracy, abortion, gay marriage and the decline of “traditional” family values — leads to a “fed
up” mood that galvanizes some to take back the political and cultural high ground in the country. This is the
stereotype that has defined American conservatives for a
little over a century. Since the 1950s, scholars have tried
to make sense of the episodic outbursts of conservatism.
Detailing the rise of the conservative Right during
the hysteria of the McCarthy era, Richard Hofstader,
Daniel Bell, and Seymour Lipset, who borrowed from
social psychology, suggested that a sense of persecution
and the deterioration of cultural influence heightened
a “paranoid style” or mood that characterized a cross
section of American society. Stated simply, a loss (or
the threat of loss) of status engendered activism, which
often appeared to be fed by psychological distress, personality disorders, or fear rather than rational decision
making.
28.A “ground motive” is the central or underlying pretheoretical drive of the heart from which comes our
interpretation of the world. Professors Tim Morris and
Don Petcher define the ground motive as a “gut-feeling”
or “basic driving force” “under the surface of the clearly
rational that affects and motivates us, and through general commonality of deep convictions of the individual
people in a common culture, it affects all of society. See
Morris and Petcher, Science and Grace: God’s Reign in
the Natural Sciences (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 324.
Dooyeweerd identified four ground motives undergirding western civilization: form-matter, creation-fallredemption, nature-grace, and nature-freedom. These
cultural ground motives, for Dooyeweerd, represent
two competing heart motives (form and matter) that are
never fully reconciled in historical development.
29.Bratt, Kuyper, xix.
30. Ibid., 380-381.
31. Ibid., xix.
An Exegetical Analysis
of Calvin’s View of the
Natural Order
by Kyle Dieleman
The scholarly discussion on Calvin’s views of
natural theology and natural law has been extensive. From the great Barth-Brunner debate to
more recent scholarship by the likes of Grabill and
Steinmetz, scholars have taken a great interest in
Calvin’s view on natural theology.1 The debate—as
to just how “natural” Calvin’s theology was—has
raged throughout the years with no clear consensus.
Yet, despite the great deal of scholarship on Calvin’s
view of natural law and natural theology, remarkKyle Dieleman, a 2009 graduate of Dordt College, completed a Master of Divinity, concentrating in Systematic
Theology, at Calvin Seminary in the spring of 2012. He is
currently working on a Ph.D. in Religious Studies at the
University of Iowa, where he is specializing in Reformation
studies and connecting intellectual history (i.e. theology)
with social history (i.e. how theology gets “lived out”).
ably little work on Calvin’s overall view of the natural order has been undertaken. Historically, one
has been hard-pressed to find any comprehensive
examination of Calvin’s work on the natural order.2
However, scholarship on Calvin’s view of the
natural order took a gigantic step forward with
the publication of Susan Schreiner’s The Theater of
His Glory in 1991.3 In her book, Schreiner is able
to ascend above the typical Barth-Brunner debates
of Calvin’s view on natural knowledge. Schreiner
examines Calvin’s sermons and commentaries
along with the Institutes in order to arrive at a fuller
understanding of Calvin’s thought on the natural
order. In the foreword to Schreiner’s book, Muller
evaluates Schreiner’s work when he writes, “In particular, by examining Calvin’s views on nature and
the natural order—from creation, through history,
to the eschaton—Schreiner sheds new light on a
positive approach to nature that may well pervade
Calvin’s thought.”4 Numerous other scholars have
also positively received Schreiner’s work on Calvin’s
views on the natural order.5 Indeed, Schreiner provides a quite thorough examination, addressing the
entirety of Calvin’s writings on the natural order,
placing them within their context, and arriving at
an understanding of how the natural order fits in
the whole of Calvin’s thought.
Yet, Schreiner’s work on Calvin’s thought on the
natural order has not ended the scholarly discussion. In his review of Schreiner’s book, Zachman
argues that Schreiner misses the theme in Calvin
that “only in Christ do we regain the inheritance of
Pro Rege—March 2014
23
the good things of the earth that we lost in Adam
and regain the ability to know God as our Father
from the theater of his glory in the universe.”6 Otto,
in his review, has more general criticism when he
writes, “The reader is left with some uncertainty as
to the focus of the book and its success in fulfilling
its thesis.”7 Clearly, Schreiner’s work has been met
with mixed reviews, and, thus, Calvin’s view of the
natural order remains debated.
As a result of the ongoing debates, further
study into Calvin’s thought on the natural order is
in order. Undertaking a comprehensive analysis of
Calvin’s complete writings on the natural order and
interacting with secondary sources would extend
far beyond the length allotted for this essay. Thus,
for the purposes of this paper, an examination of
Calvin’s commentaries will be undertaken. Such an
undertaking will require, first, looking at Calvin’s
writing in his commentaries on texts relevant to the
natural order and, second, interacting with the secondary sources that address Calvin’s commentaries
and his views on the natural order.
Examining Calvin’s exegesis is essential for
understanding Calvin’s view of the natural order.
Whether Calvin sees the natural order positively
or negatively, his exegesis of the biblical text will
provide the basis and support for his view. While
Calvin’s exegesis obviously shines through in his
sermons and the Institutes, the clearest place to access his exegesis is through his commentaries.8, 9
Calvin’s exegesis of passages pertaining to the natural order will show that the natural order was, to
borrow from Schreiner’s language, indeed created as
a theater for God’s glory; was distorted by the fall
into sin, making its witness of God to mankind less
clear; and is part of God’s plan for ultimate redemption and restoration.
As one might expect, the first place to examine
Calvin’s exegesis involving the natural order is in the
creation narrative found in Genesis. Already in the
introduction to his commentary on Genesis, Calvin
signals what he believes to be a primary purpose of
Genesis. He writes, “For this is the argument of the
Book: After the world had been created, man was
placed in it as a theatre, that he, beholding above him
and beneath the wonderful works of God, might
reverently adore their Author.”10 Shortly before,
Calvin writes, “in those very things of which we at24
Pro Rege—March 2014
tain some knowledge [of God’s works], there dwells
such an immensity of divine power, goodness, and
wisdom, as absorbs all our sense.”11 Obviously, from
the outset of Genesis, Calvin clearly sees the created
order as showing the glory of God to all humanity.
Once Calvin gets into the actual text of Genesis
1, he continues to emphasize the glory of God that
shines through in creation. In an unusual exegetical move, Calvin associates the six days of creation
as God’s method to give humankind ample time
to contemplate his “infinite glory,” which shines
forth in creation.12 Contemplation of the glory of
God via the natural order is the overarching theme
of Calvin’s commentary on the creation narrative.
While concerned with the cosmological issues of
creation, Calvin time and again comes back to the
glory of God shining through in the created order.13
In describing creation, Calvin writes, “The things,
therefore, which he [God] relates serve as the garniture of that theatre which he places before our
eyes.”14 Elsewhere, “let us admire this wonderful
Artificer, who has so beautifully arranged all things
above and beneath.”15 Indeed, Calvin understands
that the entire purpose of human life is to contemplate God’s glory: “This is, indeed, the proper business of the whole life, in which men should daily
exercise themselves, to consider the infinite goodness, justice, power, and wisdom of God, in this
magnificent theatre of heaven and earth.”16
Having clearly established that, according to
Calvin’s exegesis, the glory of God shines forth
in Genesis 1, we can turn to the Psalms to get an
even fuller sense of how powerfully, in Calvin’s exegesis, the natural order shines forth God’s glory.
Throughout the Psalms, Calvin repeatedly highlights that the natural order gives humanity a clear
picture of the glory of God. For example, on Psalm
19, Calvin writes that David celebrates the glory of
God as it is manifested in his works.17 Elsewhere
on that same Psalm he writes, “When we behold
the heavens, we cannot but be elevated, by the
contemplation of them, to Him who is their great
Creator.”18 Writing on Psalm 8, Calvin continues
this theme: “There is presented to us in the whole
order of nature, the most abundant matter for showing forth the glory of God.”19 Let one more example
suffice to again show Calvin’s view that God’s glory
shines forth in the goodness of the natural order.
Commenting on Psalm 95, Calvin writes, “This is
one general ground why God is to be praised, that
he has clearly shown forth his glory in the creation
of the world, and will have us daily recognize him in
the government of it.”20 What is notable in Calvin’s
exegesis of these texts is that Calvin sees God’s glory
shining through to humanity clearly and easily.
The natural order is not merely an obscure witness
Calvin’s exegesis of passages
pertaining to the natural order will show that the natural order was … indeed created as a theater for God’s
glory; was distorted by the
fall into sin, making its witness of God to mankind less
clear; and is part of God’s
plan for ultimate redemption and restoration.
to God’s glory. Clearly, throughout his exegesis,
Calvin firmly establishes that God has shown forth
his glory throughout the natural order for all humanity to witness.
Yet God’s glory is clear not only in his creating
work but also in his constant care and providence
of that natural order.21 Throughout his exegesis of
God’s glory shining through in the natural order,
Calvin connects closely God’s glory in the natural
order with God’s providence. Writing about Psalm
124, Calvin comments that God’s glory did not
simply shine forth in God’s creating act but continues to evidence itself in God’s government of the
world.22 In his commentary on Psalm 19 Calvin
closely links the two: “When we behold the heavens,
we cannot but be elevated, by the contemplation of
them, to Him who is their great Creator; and the
beautiful arrangement and wonderful variety which
distinguish the courses and station of the heav-
enly bodies, together with the beauty and splendor
which are manifest in them, cannot but furnish us
with an evident proof of his providence.”23 Schreiner
highlights Calvin’s close linking of providence and
the natural order. She writes, “we will examine
providence as a foundational doctrine not in terms
of predestination or the work of Christ, but in terms
of creation. The created order functions in Calvin’s
thought as the theater of God’s glory, the arena of
divine reflection and action. Providence frames that
stage.”24 This intimate connection is picked up commendably throughout Schreiner’s The Theater of His
Glory.25 To attempt to address Calvin’s understanding of the natural order apart from his understanding of providence is to divide the topics as Calvin
never wished to do.26
A further examination of Calvin’s exegesis
shows even more clearly how closely Calvin consistently ties God’s work in the natural order with
providence.27 In his commentary on Acts 17:26,
Calvin writes, “Paul did first show that men are
set here as upon a theatre, to behold the works of
God; and, secondly, that he spake [sic] of the providence of God, which doth show forth itself in the
whole government of the world.”28 Earlier in his
Acts commentary, Calvin speaks of the witness Paul
and Barnabas give that “in the order of nature there
is a certain and evident manifestation of God,”
which shines through in God’s watering the earth
with rain, heating the earth with the sun, and so
on.29 Here, according to Calvin, Paul and Barnabas
point to God’s witness to the Gentiles both in the
natural order and providence. In his commentary
on the book of John, Calvin draws an even more
direct line: “He [John] now attributes to him, in
the same manner, the preservation of those things
which had been created; as if he had said, that in
the creation of the world there was not merely displayed a sudden exercise of his power, which soon
passed away, but that it is manifested in the steady
and regular order of nature.”30 The same connection is found in Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 93,
when Calvin comments, “As yet the Psalmist has
insisted upon the excellency [sic] of God in the work
of creation, and the providential government of the
world.”31 Finally, in his commentary on Jeremiah,
Calvin writes, “Hence we have then only the true
knowledge of God, when we not only acknowledge
Pro Rege—March 2014
25
him to be the creator of the world, but when we
also fully believe that the world is governed by him,
and when we further understand the way in which
he governs it, that is, by doing mercy and judgment
and justice.”32 Clearly, in Calvin’s exegesis, the natural order and God’s providence are intimately tied
so that through them both, people can come to a
knowledge of God, the Creator and Sustainer.
Overall, Calvin’s view of the natural order, as
created, is extremely positive. Schreiner is absolutely correct that Calvin views the natural order,
in its original state, as a theater for God’s glory.33
Yet, in light of mankind’s fall into sin, Calvin’s exegesis concerning the natural order shifts dramatically. Indeed, in his exegesis of Genesis 3:17, Calvin
writes that it should come as no surprise that the
earth, thought innocent, fell under the same punishment as mankind.34 The natural order, according
to Calvin, has also been tainted by the fall. Calvin
contrasts the beauty of the created, pre-fallen natural order with the post-fallen natural order: “Before
the fall, the state of the world was a most fair and
delightful mirror of the divine favour and paternal
indulgence towards man. Now, in all the elements
we perceive that we are cursed.”35 After humanity’s
fall into sin, the natural order itself is in rebellion
against mankind, says Calvin. Thus, according to
Calvin, the relationship of the natural order to humanity has been grossly distorted.36
Calvin’s exegesis clearly shows his belief that humanity’s perception of the natural order has been
horribly distorted in the fall into sin. But, is the
natural order itself distorted by the fall, or is it only
a matter of humankind’s being unable to see and
understand the natural order as the theater of God’s
glory?
Calvin has no doubt that humanity’s view of
the natural order has been deeply affected by the
fall. Speaking about the natural order after the fall,
Calvin writes in his commentary on Acts 17:27, “I
answer, that their ignorance and blockishness is
mixed with such forwardness, that, being void of
right judgment, they pass over without understanding all such signs of God’s glory as appear manifestly both in heaven and earth.”37 Clearly, Calvin
believes the natural order still shines forth at least
a portion of God’s glory, but mankind, in its fallen
state, simply cannot perceive that glory. Indeed,
26
Pro Rege—March 2014
Calvin, in commenting on Romans 1:20, writes
about the post-fall condition of the world: “Yet let
this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in
his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness,
it is not found to be sufficient.”38 For Calvin, the
distortion of humankind’s perception is strongly at
fault: “Now [after the fall], in all the elements we
perceive that we are cursed. And although (as David
says) the earth is still full of the mercy of God, yet,
at the same time, appear manifest signs of his dreadful alienation from us, by which, if we are unmoved,
we betray our blindness and insensibility.”39
This blindness of mankind to the wonders of the
natural order results, says Calvin, in the production
of an uncountable number of idols. When pagans
glimpse the glory of God in the natural order, rather
than acknowledge God, says Calvin, they turn their
eyes towards vain idols.40 Indeed, Calvin comments,
the vast majority of people, when they look upon
nature and the state of the world, “imagine that he
[God] is an idle spectator in heaven of whatever is
transacted on earth.”41 According to Calvin, pagans
look upon the natural order of the world, both in
its creation and governance, and see not the glory
of God but, instead, make for themselves a host of
different idols.
However, in addition to humanity’s inability to
witness God’s glory in the natural order, the natural
order itself, in Calvin’s view, experiences the corrupting effects of the fall.42 Calvin’s commentary on
Romans will prove most helpful. In his commentary on Romans 8:19, Calvin writes, “I understand
the passage to have this meaning — that there is
no element and no part of the world which, being
touched, as it were, with a sense of its present misery,
does not intensely hope for a resurrection.”43 Earlier,
commenting on Romans 4:13, Calvin remarks,
“The chief thing was indeed the restoration of life;
it was yet necessary that the fallen state of the whole
world should be repaired.”44 Yet, it is not just in his
Romans commentary where Calvin addresses the
fallen nature of the natural order itself. Addressing
what it means for the heavens to perish, in Hebrews
1:12 Calvin writes, “But what need is there of such
a strained explanation, since we know that all creatures are subjected to vanity?”45 Also, commenting
on Psalm 96, Calvin writes, “Still we are to remember that so long as ungodliness has possession of the
minds of men, the world, plunged as it is in darkness, must be considered as thrown into a state of
confusion, and of horrible disorder and misrule.”46
In these passages Calvin cannot escape the fact that
the natural order is in itself greatly affected by the
fall into sin. Calvin’s exegesis of these passages leaves
little doubt that, in his eyes, the natural order itself
has fallen under the curse of sin.47
Yet, also important for Calvin’s exegesis is the
idea that the natural order suffers only because of
Adam’s plunge into sin, not on account of any fault
of its own.48 Calvin states this point unequivocally in
his commentary on Romans 8: “for it [punishment
for our sins] has not happened through their own
fault, that they are liable to corruption.”49 Indeed,
part of the purpose of the natural order’s fallen state
is to remind humanity of its dire situation. Calvin
highlights this point several times in his exegesis.
For example, Calvin comments, “It is then indeed
meet for us to consider what a dreadful curse we
have deserved, since all created things in themselves
blameless, both on earth and in the visible heaven,
undergo punishment for our sins.”50 Nonetheless,
while Adam’s sin is causative, for Calvin the natural
order itself is now in a fallen state and has been corrupted in the fall.
Given his view that the whole of the natural
order has been tainted with sin, Calvin also sees
the corruption of the natural order as making the
providence of God all the more necessary.51 If it
were not for God’s support of the fallen natural order, the whole of the order would have fallen into
complete chaos. Calvin, in his commentary on
Romans 8, writes, “For in the sad disorder which
followed the fall of Adam, the whole machinery of
the world would have instantly become deranged,
and all its parts would have failed had not some
hidden strength supported them.”52 Commenting
on the state of the natural world, Calvin writes, “It
hence appears that the power of nature is not sufficient to sustain and preserve the world, but that, on
the contrary, it contains the very element of its own
ruin, whenever it may please God to destroy it.”53
Again, Calvin emphasizes God’s sustaining care of
the natural order, particularly as it suffers under the
curse of the fall. Returning to Psalm 8, Calvin ac-
cuses only those who are “dull and stupid” of failing
to see that it is God’s providence after the fall that
provides humanity with dominion over the natural
order.54
Calvin’s exegesis makes clear that the natural order, though created as a wonderful theater of God’s
glory, has now been horribly distorted by the fall of
mankind into sin. Yet, the question remains as to
what extent humanity can still witness God through
the natural order. Despite the tainted nature of the
natural order and the blindness of humanity, does
the natural order still shine forth God’s glory for humanity to witness? It is on this question that a great
deal of scholarship has argued, namely the famous
debate between Barth and Brunner.55 Barth states
boldly, “Without the biblical revelation that defines
God the Redeemer Calvin sees no real knowledge of
God the Creator.”56 On the other hand, Brunner attempts to summarize Calvin’s view when he writes,
“He [God] has set us into this ‘theatre’ of his glory
in order that in it we should know, contemplate
and honour him as the Lord of glory. God can be
known from nature other than man, but also from
man himself.”57 Grabill, turning from the natural
order to natural law, has recently argued, “In the
theology of John Calvin … the diminished natural
Clearly, Calvin believes the
natural order still shines forth
at least a portion of God’s
glory, but mankind, in its
fallen state, simply cannot
perceive that glory.
human faculties still function sufficiently to reveal
the general precepts of the natural moral law and to
provide the anthropological starting point for a doctrine of natural law.”58 On the other hand, Niesel
argued that “All that Calvin says about the natural
knowledge of God is subject to the one condition:
if Adam had not fallen[;] … man does not see the
tokens of the divine glory in nature and history and
reaches no sure knowledge of the Creator on this
basis.”59 Turning to Calvin’s exegesis will again proPro Rege—March 2014
27
vide a solid basis for understanding to what extent
Calvin believed the natural order remains a theater
of God’s glory.
While Calvin never allows for the natural order
to be sufficient for complete knowledge of God after
the fall into sin, examining Calvin’s exegesis allows
one to conclude that Calvin understood the natural
order even after the fall as still being largely the theater of God’s glory. Summarizing his commentary
on Psalm 8, Calvin acknowledges that the “legitimate order which God originally established” no
longer shines forth as it did, yet Calvin also points
out that those under Christ still enjoy enough “of
the fragments of the good things” lost in Adam that
they should bring admiration to God.60
However, it is not just those in Christ who can
find these glimpses of God’s glory in the natural order. In his commentary on Psalm 29, Calvin is quite
clear that wonders of the natural order “strike the
rude and insensible with some sense of the existence
of God.”61 Again, Calvin believes that the natural
order shows forth God power and goodness not only
because it has been created by God but also because
it is providentially governed by him.62 Through his
creation and rule of the natural order, particularly
its most “violent and great tempests,” God “rouse(s)
us from our drowsiness” and “awaken(s) the torpid,
and drag(s) them, as it were, in spite of themselves,
humbly to adore him.”63 While Calvin accuses the
philosophers of trying to “shut their ears against
God’s voice,” Calvin is clear that God’s hand continues to “manifestly display itself in his works.”64
Calvin believes the glimpses of God’s glory in the
natural order are available to all people, whether pagans or Christians.65
For example, in his commentary on Romans 1,
Calvin writes, “God is in himself invisible; but as his
majesty shines forth in his works and in his creatures
everywhere, men ought in these to acknowledge
him, for they clearly set forth their Maker.”66 In this
Romans passage, Calvin points out that the author
is arguing that all men are guilty before God, and
one proof of this guilt is man’s failure to glorify God
for the glory of the created order. He writes, “And he
brings, as the first proof of condemnation, the fact,
— that though the structure of the world, and the
most beautiful arrangement of the elements, ought
to have induced man to glorify God, yet no one dis28
Pro Rege—March 2014
charged his proper duty.”67 Thus, Calvin concludes
from Romans 1 that even after the fall “the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known
in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear.”68 Here, for Calvin, man’s failure to
derive knowledge of God’s glory arises solely from
the blindness of mankind.69
Notably, Calvin’s views on the natural order
were not unique to his own exegesis of Romans 1.
Melanchthon, in his exegesis of Romans 1:19-20,
writes, “These things, I saw, the mind acknowledges when it looks upon the creation of the world.
For it concludes these things about God from the
many traces in the creation.”70 Likewise, Luther
had commented similarly on the Romans 1 passage
and wrote, “This statement tells us that from the
beginning of the world the invisible things of God
have always been recognized through the rational
perceptions of the divine operations in the world.”71
Indeed, Luther held that all people, particularly
idolaters, could have clear knowledge of God, but
that idolaters “erred in ascribing to their idols the
divine attributes.”72 In his comments on Calvin’s
exegesis of Romans 1, Steinmetz rightfully notes
the many similarities between Calvin’s exegesis and
the exegesis of Denis, Melanchthon, Bullinger, and
Bucer.73
Still, Calvin’s view of the availability of God’s
glory in the natural order is slightly ambiguous.
Calvin’s exegesis of Hebrews 11 is not as positive
about the ability of the natural order to show mankind God’s glory. In his exegesis of this passage,
Calvin maintains that God’s Spirit is necessary for
any person to look at the created order and come
to knowledge of God. He writes, “Men’s minds
therefore are wholly blind, so that they see not the
light of nature which shines forth in created things,
until being irradiated by God’s Spirit, they begin
to understand by faith what they otherwise cannot
comprehend.”74 Yet Calvin acknowledges that he
must address the fact that “the very appearance of
heaven and earth constrains even the ungodly to acknowledge some Maker.”75 On this apparent problem, Calvin concludes “that though there has been
an opinion of this kind among heathens, that the
world was made by God, it was yet very evanescent,
for as soon as they formed a notion of God, they
became instantly vain in their imaginations, so that
they groped in the dark, having in their thoughts
a mere shadow of some uncertain deity, and not
the knowledge of the true God.”76 Thus, it appears
again that Calvin understands the natural order as
being completely capable of bringing forth at least
some knowledge of God. However, it is the blindness and corruption of mankind that prevents any
true and meaningful knowledge of God from being
imparted from the natural order.
Turning briefly elsewhere, we find that Calvin’s
exegesis on the book of Job, via his sermons, will
also prove helpful, as Schreiner has demonstrated.77
Throughout his sermons on Job, Calvin stresses
Given his view that the
whole of the natural order
has been tainted with
sin, Calvin also sees the
corruption of the natural
order as making the
providence of God all the
more necessary.
the balance between the terror of history and the
security of God’s care of the natural order; God’s
providence in upholding the natural order is crucial for Calvin.78 Calvin himself says, “God showeth
himself so manifestly in his creatures as he leaves
us utterly without excuse of ignorance if we honor
him not.”79 Elsewhere Calvin acknowledges that in
the fallen state, “we forget him that is the founder”
of the creation.80 Yet Calvin still maintains that the
natural order “should be a mirror of his glory” and
that by these “visible things” all humanity might
“see the things that are invisible.”81 Thus, Calvin’s
exegesis of Job also highlights his belief that the
natural order, though fallen, still shines forth as a
theater of God’s glory.
Perhaps the clearest passage of Calvin’s exegesis on the ability of the post-fallen natural order to
impart the glory of God comes in Acts 14. In verse
17, in a passage in which Calvin sees all “pretext of
ignorance” being taken away from the Gentiles,
Calvin writes, “And yet this letteth not but that
they may be made without excuse, even without the
word, who, though they be naturally deprived of
light, are blind notwithstanding, through their own
malice, as Paul teacheth in the first chapter to the
Romans.”82 Throughout his exegesis of the passage,
Calvin acknowledges that mankind is “brought
alone unto that knowledge of Almighty God which
bringeth salvation.”83 Yet Calvin refuses to downplay that glory of God that remains evident in the
natural order, as he writes,
Notwithstanding they take this principle, that
in the order of nature there is a certain and evident
manifestation of God, in that the earth is watered
with rain; in that the heat of the sun doth comfort
it; in that there cometh such abundance of fruit out
of the same yearly, it is thereby gathered for a surety,
that there is some God who governeth all things.
For even the heaven and earth are not moved or
governed by their own motion, and much less by
fortune. Therefore it remaineth, that this wonderful
workmanship of nature doth manifestly show the
providence of God.84
Again, Calvin closely links his understanding
of God’s glory shining through in the natural order
with God’s upholding providence. Through both
the very nature of the created order and God’s providential care for that order, Calvin clearly shows that
the natural order shines forth as the theater of God’s
glory even after the fall.
As has been shown from Calvin’s exegesis, even
after the fall the natural order continues to shine
forth God’s glory. Niesel is quite right that for
Calvin “the simple knowledge of God from nature
would only be possible to us if Adam had not fallen.”85 Yet Calvin’s exegesis has shown that Niesel,
Barth, and other scholars fail to take seriously the
usefulness of the natural order in showing forth
God’s glory even after the fall. Likewise, Brunner
and Barth both remained stuck in the knowledgeof- God- through- the- natural- order debate while
they failed to address Calvin’s ideas of the natural
order showing God’s glory and majesty even after
the fall.86
In summary, Calvin’s exegesis shows clearly that
he views the natural order as originally created wonderfully, as a true theater of God’s glory (including
providence) but the created order itself, and humankind’s ability to witness that glory, as having been
Pro Rege—March 2014
29
tainted and corrupted by the fall. However, a third
point of Calvin’s exegesis remains powerfully relevant.87 For Calvin, the created order itself is also
subject to the redeeming work of Christ.
Indeed, Calvin, in his exegesis, highlights the
necessity of the redemption of the entire cosmos that
comes through the work of Christ.88 Dealing with
Romans 8:19, which speaks of waiting for Christ,
Calvin writes, “There is no element and no part of
the world which, being touched, as it were, with a
sense of its present misery, does not intensely hope
for a resurrection[;] … all are creatures in distress,
and yet they are sustained by hope.”89 In commenting on Ephesians 1:10, where Christ is described as
“gathering all things together,” Calvin writes, “The
meaning appears to me to be, that out of Christ
all things were disordered, and that through him
they have been restored to order.”90 Calvin again
addresses the redemption of the natural order in
his commentary on Hebrews 2:6. Pointing out the
verse from Psalm 8, Calvin notes that the state of
the original creation has become “wholly decayed”
and has fallen as far into decay as man himself. Yet
Calvin’s exegesis of Hebrews 2 also looks forward to
the renovation of the world, which will bring ultimate fulfillment to Psalm 8.91 According to Calvin,
even the angels are included in this restoration: “But
there is no reason why we should not say that the
angels also have been gathered together … that they
may cleave to God perfectly and wholly, and then
that they may keep this state forever.”92 The angels
too, Calvin says, need to undergo this reconciliation
with God, so that they too are “beyond the risk of
falling” from the grace of Christ.93 Calvin’s exegesis
makes clear that he believes the whole of the natural
order is subject to the redeeming work of Christ.
Earlier the question was raised as to exactly how
the fall affected the natural order. Also relevant is
the question of how Christ’s redeeming work also
affects the natural order. Clearly, as seen above,
Calvin’s exegesis highlights strongly the ultimate
renewal and renovation of the entire natural order. Yet is this renewal simply at the consummation of all things when Christ returns, or has the
natural order already now been affected by Christ’s
redeeming work? Calvin has no notion that the
fullness of Christ’s redeeming work has taken effect on the natural order. Even after the work of
30
Pro Rege—March 2014
Christ, Calvin, in his commentaries, continues to
discuss the fallen, broken condition of the natural order.94 Calvin discusses the incompleteness of
Christ’s redemption of the whole of creation perhaps most clearly in his commentary on Psalm 8
when he writes, “Christ, it is true, is the lawful heir
of heaven and earth, by whom the faithful recover
what they had lost in Adam; but he has not as yet
actually entered upon the full possession of his empire and dominion … . It follows then, that there
remains hope of a better state than the present.”95
Calvin, ever aware of the struggles of the present
world, was clear that the ultimate restoration of the
natural order was by no means complete.
Still, Calvin’s exegesis of other texts leaves no
doubt that Christ’s work is already under way in
regard to the natural order. In his commentary on
Hebrews, Calvin writes, “It hence now appears that
here the world to come is not that which we hope
for after the resurrection, but that which began at
the beginning of Christ’s kingdom.”96 Elsewhere in
Hebrews, Calvin comments that the fundamental
state of the world was changed at the coming of
Christ; the things of this world were subject to decay but are now part of Christ’s eternal kingdom.97
Clearly, for Calvin, the redemption of the natural
order has been initiated in the coming of Jesus
Christ.
Although Christ’s redemption of the natural
order has begun in part, Calvin asserts that such
redemption will only fully happen at Christ’s second coming. In fact, in his commentaries Calvin
speaks often and explicitly of such a final restoration for the natural order. He writes, “they [all creatures] according to their nature, shall be participators of a better condition; for God will restore to
a perfect state the world, now fallen, together with
mankind.”98 Speaking of the end of times, Calvin
comments, “even that we ought to strive after newness of life. For he [Peter] thus reasons, as heaven
and earth are to be purged by fire, that they may
correspond with the kingdom of Christ, hence the
renovation of men is much more necessary.”99 The
restoration of the natural order, as Schreiner notes,
does not mean the destruction of this present order.100 Rather, Calvin says, the restoration of the
things of the natural order means that all things will
again “correspond with the kingdom of Christ.”101
For Calvin, crucial in the restoration of the whole of
the natural order is that all things will again reveal
the glory of God. Calvin gives this summary: “Both
heaven and earth shall be renewed for this end, —
that according to their measure they may contribute
to render glorious the kingdom of God.”102
In conclusion, from Calvin’s exegesis it is clear
that God’s glory shines through in the “theater”
of the natural order. For Calvin, this glory shined
through most brightly at creation so that all who
contemplated the natural order would be led to
meditate on the glory of God. However, humanity’s fall into sin has also subjected the natural order
to decay, corruption, and disarray. Yet despite the
much distorted essence of the natural order and the
blindness of man to look upon it, the glory of God,
says Calvin, still shines forth for all humankind to
witness, though only dimly in comparison to its
glory before the fall. According to Calvin, God’s
glory still shines through in the natural order, and
mankind retains at least some capability to recognize this glory. But the natural order will neither
be corrupted forever nor completely annihilated.
Calvin makes clear that the natural order too waits
longingly for its restoration so that it will once again
become a full display of God’s glory. Throughout
Calvin’s commentaries his emphasis on the natural
order as a theater for mankind to witness God’s glory, despite its now corrupted nature, returns again
and again, making clear that for Calvin, the natural
order continues to allow humanity to contemplate
the glory of God, a glory that will shine through
undeniably clearly at the ultimate restoration of the
natural order, as it did at creation.
Endnotes
1. Stephen Grabill, Theological Foundation for a Reformed
Doctrine of Natural Law (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Calvin
Theological Seminary, 2004).David C. Steinmetz,
Calvin in Context. 2nd ed. ( New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010).
2. Richard Stauffer’s Dieu, la creation et la Providence dans
la predication de Calvin (1978) is, arguably, the sole exception.
3. Susan E. Schreiner, The Theater of His Glory: Nature
and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1991).
4. Richard Muller, Foreword for The Theater of His Glory,
by Susan Schreiner, x.
5. Brian Armstrong, Review of The Theater of His Glory:
Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John
Calvin, by Susan E. Schreiner.The Sixteenth Century
Journal 25, no. 4 (1994): 979-981; Cornelis P. Venema,
Review of The Theater of His Glory: Nature and the
Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin, by Susan
E. Schreiner, Mid-America Journal of Theology 9, no.
1 (1993): 153-156; Martin I. Klauber, Review of The
Theater of His Glory: Nature and the Natural Order
in the Thought of John Calvin, by Susan E. Schreiner,
Westminster Theological Journal 58, no. 1 (1996): 173175.
6. Randall C. Zachman, Review of The Theater of His
Glory: Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought
of John Calvin, by Susan E. Schreiner. The Journal of
Religion 73, no. 3 (1993): 413.
7. Randall E. Otto, Review of The Theater of His Glory:
Nature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John
Calvin, by Susan E. Schreiner, Westminster Theological
Journal 55, no. 1 (1993): 190-191.
8. For Calvin’s distinct method of writing commentaries, see Richard Muller’s The Unaccommodated Calvin:
Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), particularly 28-30. Also, reference Bruce Gordon’s Calvin (New
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 108-109.
9. Comparing Calvin’s exegesis to those of his contemporaries and others he relied on would be extremely
useful. However, to do so in a reasonable way would
require a great deal more time and length. Only brief
comments comparing Calvin’s exegesis to those of his
contemporaries will be made in this essay. For a fuller
examination, reference David Steinmetz’s Calvin in
Context; Anthony Lane’s John Calvin: Student of the
Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999) and
Gordon’s Calvin, 106-108.
10. John Calvin, Commentary on the First Book of Moses
Called Genesis, translated by John King, 2 Vols. (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979), Argument,
64.
11.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1, Argument, 57.
12.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 1:5, Vol. 1, 78.
13. For Calvin’s view of the structure of the cosmos, reference his Commentary on Genesis, 1:6-9, Vol. 1, 78-81;
1:14, Vol. 1, 85.
14.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 1:6, Vol. 1, 80.
15.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 1:14, Vol. 1, 85.
16.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 2:3, Vol. 1, 106.
17. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, translated by James Anderson, 5 Vols. (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979), Ps. 19:1, Vol. 1, 308309.
18.Ibid.
Pro Rege—March 2014
31
19.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps 8:1, Vol.
1, 93.
41.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 33:6,
Vol. 1, 549.
20.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps 95:3, Vol.
4, 34.
42. Steinmetz, in his Stob Lecture entitled “John Calvin:
Reshaping Christian Tradition in Reformation Europe
-- Calvin and the Impotent God,” delivered at Calvin
Theological Seminary on November 4, 2009, rightly
emphasizes human blindness to the continuing “theater of God’s glory” but does not take seriously enough
the effect of the fall on the natural order itself. Schreiner
rightly notes the effects in Theater, particularly 28-30.
21. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Hebrews, translated by John Owen (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979), Hebrews
2:10, 63.
22.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 124:8,
Vol. 5, Psalms 124:8, 88.
23.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 19:1,
Vol. 1, 309.
43.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 8:19, Vol. 1,
303.
24.Schreiner, Theater, 7.
44.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 4:13, Vol. 1,
169.
25.Schreiner, Theater, 7, 21, 113.
45.Calvin, Commentaries on Hebrews, Heb. 1:12, 48.
26. Not only in his commentaries but also in his Institutes,
Calvin ties knowledge of God in the natural order and
providence together. For such a connection reference
the Institutes I.v.
46.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 96:10,
Vol. 4, 57.
27.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 19: 1,
Vol. 1, 309; 24:1, Vol. 1, 401-402; 33:6, Vol. 1 542;
121:1-2, Vol. 5, 62-64; 124:8, Vol. 5, 88.
28. John Calvin, Commentary Upon the Acts of the Apostles,
translated by Henry Beveridge, 2 Vols. (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979), Acts 17:26, Vol. 2,
164.
29.Calvin, Commentary Upon the Acts of the Apostles, Acts
14:17, Vol. 2, 18-20.
30. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to
John, translated by William Pringle, 2 Vols. (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979), John 1:4, 31.
31.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 93:5,
Vol. 4, 9.
32. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet
Jeremiah and the Lamentations, translated by John
Owen, 5 Vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book
House, 1979), Jer. 9:23–24, Vol. 1, 500.
33.Schreiner, Theater, 5.
34.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 3:17, Vol. 1, 173.
35.Ibid.
36. Schreiner emphasizes the rebellion of the natural order
against mankind in Theater, 28-29.
37.Calvin, Commentary Upon the Acts of the Apostles, Acts
17:27, Vol. 2, 167.
38. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Romans, translated by John Owen, X
Vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979),
Rom. 1:20, Vol. 1, 71.
47. Dowey, in The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), fails to
take seriously the destructive forces of the fall on the
natural order itself, claiming Calvin believes “the revelation [in creation] is not harmed,” 73.
48.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 3:17, Vol. 1, 173;
Schreiner, Theater, 28.
49.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 8:21, Vol. 1,
305.
50.Ibid.
51.Schreiner, Theater, 28-30.
52.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 8:20, Vol. 1,
304-305.
53.John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles,
translated by John Owen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1979), 2 Pet. 3:6, 416.
54.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 8:7-9,
Vol. 1, 107-108.
55. For an introductory summary to the Barth-Brunner
debate, see David C. Steinmetz’s Calvin in Context, 2325.
56. Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, translated by
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 164.
57.Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology:
Comprising “Nature and Grace,” translated by Peter
Fraenkel (London: Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press,
1946), 38.
58.Grabill, Reformed Doctrine of Natural Law, ix.
39.Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Gen. 3:17, Vol. 1, 173.
59. Wilhem Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, translated by
Harold Knight (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1980), 44.
40.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 96:4-6,
Vol. 4, 50.
60.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 8:7-9,
Vol. 1, 107-108.
32
Pro Rege—March 2014
61.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 29:3,
Vol. 1, 478.
62.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 29:3,
Vol. 1, 477.
63.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 29:3-4,
Vol. 1, 477-478.
64.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 29:5,
Vol. 1, 479.
65. Schreiner emphasizes the ability of the believer to see
the glory of God in the natural order (Theater, 113) but
does not adequately address the glory of God shining
forth for unbelievers to see, which Calvin addresses in
Act 14 and Romans 1, as demonstrated above.
66.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 1:20, Vol. 1,
70.
67.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 1:18, Vol. 1,
67.
68.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 1:20, Vol. 1,
71.
69.Ibid.
70. Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, translated by Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1992), 76.
71. Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, translated by
Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1954), Romans 1:19, 43. 72.Ibid.
73.Steinmetz, Calvin in Context, 28-30.
74.Calvin, Commentaries on Hebrews, Heb.11:3, 265.
75.Ibid.
76.Ibid.
77. Susan E. Schreiner, “ ‘Through a Mirror Dimly’ :
Calvin’s Sermons On Job.” Calvin Theological Journal
21, no. 2 (1986): 175-193.
78. Schreiner, “Through a Mirror Dimly,” 181.
similarly in Theater, 117.
86. Nowhere in Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and
Grace” could I find either Barth or Brunner discussing the natural order as a witness of God’s glory. Pure
knowledge of God from the natural order versus natural order as shining forth God’s glory is quite different.
The distinction is important.
87. It should be noted that even though Calvin’s exegesis
concerning the natural order highlights the glory of
creation, the effects of the fall, and the ultimate redemption of the natural order, Calvin does not systematically arrange his theology as such. Thus, when later
Reformed traditions speak the theological language of
“creation, fall, redemption,” they create a system in a
way that Calvin never did. Nonetheless, when examining Calvin’s exegesis, we find that the three categories
— however they are termed and described — are present.
88.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 4:13, Vol. 1,
169.
89.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 8:19, Vol. 1,
303.
90. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the
Galatians and Ephesians, translated by William Pringle
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1979), Eph.
1:10, 205.
91.Calvin, Commentaries on Hebrews, Heb. 2:6, 58.
92.Calvin, Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians,
Ephesians 1:10, 129. For Calvin’s understanding of angels as a part of the natural order, reference Schreiner,
Theater, Chapter 3.
93.Calvin, Commentaries on Philippians, Colossians, and
Thessalonians, Col. 1:20, 155.
94.Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, 1 John
2:15, 186; Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 8:21, Vol. 1,
304-305.
95.Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Ps. 8:6, Vol.
1, 106.
79. John Calvin, Sermons of Master John Calvin, Upon the
Book of Job, translated by Arthur Golding (London:
Three Cranes in Vintre, 1580. Reproduced from Henry
E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery), Job 12:7-16,
Sermon xlvi, p. 214-215.
96.Calvin, Commentaries on Hebrews, Heb. 2:6, 58.
80.Calvin, Sermons on Job, Job 9:7-15, Sermon xxxiii, 156.
99.Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, 2 Pet.
3:10, 420.
81.Ibid.
82.Calvin, Commentary Upon the Acts of the Apostles, Acts
14:17, Vol. 2, 19.
83.Ibid.
84. Ibid., 19-20.
85.Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, 44. Schreiner argues
97.Calvin, Commentaries on Hebrews, Heb. 7:28, 178.
98.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 8:21, Vol. 1,
305.
100.Schreiner, Theater, 99. John Calvin, Commentaries on
the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, translated by John Pringle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker
Book House, 1979), 1 Cor. 15:28, Vol. 2, 33.
101.Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, 2 Pet.
3:11, 420.
102.Calvin, Commentaries on Romans, Rom. 4:13, Vol. 1,
169.
Pro Rege—March 2014
33
Editor’s note: This paper is part of a larger work, “Four Year Articulation Paper,” which chronicles Dr. Teresa TerHaar’s
faith and academic journey. The larger work was presented to the Faculty Status Committee at Dordt College, fall of 2012.
The Task and Role of
Theatre
by Teresa TerHaar
Does Dordt want to be a “home” for theatre?
This is not a question unique to Dordt College; many
other Christian colleges have faced this same question and provided a variety of answers. Historically
(as books like The Antitheatrical Prejudice show),1
Christians, particularly Protestants, have viewed
theatre with great skepticism. The Theatre Arts
Department at Dordt faces a certain amount of
skepticism. Some of it is healthy — it is good to
ask hard questions about any art form. However,
some of it is unhealthy and damaging. Some of this
skepticism is the result of what some have called
“questionable” production choices in the last several years. While many constituents would say yes
to theatre at Dordt, I argue that they want a certain
type of theatre: entertaining, safe, excellent. While
I agree that our theatre should always be produced
Dr. Teresa TerHaar is Professor of Theater Arts/PT and
Department Chair at Dordt College.
34
Pro Rege—March 2014
with excellence, I do not agree that it should always
be entertaining or safe. I have been called to an institution that says it is a Christian and Reformed
institution. In my mind, a “reformed” theatre is
sometimes neither entertaining nor safe. When I
use the word “reformed,” I mean it in two different
ways at the same time. First, I mean “reformed” in
the theological tradition. Perhaps more significantly, I mean “reformed” as in a theatre that is trying
to change for the better to become more penetrating, to become more true to what God calls theatre
to be.
A “reformed” theatre is one that deals with every aspect of life, both the beautiful and the ugly. In
particular, theatre at an educational institution like
Dordt College has the responsibility to tell many
different types of stories. At times, a reformed theatre doesn’t just tell these stories; it interrogates
these stories. It does not tell them easily, but it asks
difficult questions about their truth, their message,
and their impact on the world. “Every square inch”
of the world includes stories about hope and stories
about despair. It includes worldviews we support
and worldviews we do not. It includes people we
would want to meet and people we would not. It
includes language we would use and language we
would not. As a reformed theatre practitioner, I am
called to tell everyone’s stories, to give voice to the
voiceless, and to do so responsibly and with excellence.
At times, theatre is called to be entertaining, to
take our minds off of our troubles, or to enable us
to laugh at ourselves. Many times, this laughter is
self-revealing. We can learn as much from a good
comedy as we can from a challenging drama — and
we can laugh along the way. I worry, however, when
the expectation is that the theatre produced needs
to be entertaining in order to be good. I hear this
judgment from many of our students: “Oh, I don’t
want to go to that because it isn’t funny” or “I don’t
want to go to the theatre and have to think.” These
reactions are somewhat understandable. Many of
our students simply haven’t had enough exposure
to theatre to understand the many purposes theater
can and should have. My work, in part, revolves
around challenging these types of assumptions.
In my mind, a “reformed”
theatre is sometimes neither
entertaining nor safe.
At times, theatre is also called to be safe, to tell
stories in a way that doesn’t make us feel uncomfortable or uneasy. But most often, a “reformed”
theatre can and should reveal something about the
world that makes us uneasy, that makes us leave
the theatre, asking hard questions. In the past few
years, this area has been a challenging one for my
department. We discovered that we need to be
more careful about how we communicate with
our constituencies (both our students and audiences), about how and why we are choosing our
productions. During our recent Program Review,
we discovered that some of our students and audience members didn’t understand some of the
challenging or “unsafe” productions we had done
recently. I wrote the following lengthy section for
our Program Review Report (2010). It is worth
including here because it explains the challenge of
doing “reformed” theatre at Dordt. In this section,
I mention plays produced in the 2009/2010 school
year (Caucasian Chalk Circle and Book of Days) and
allude to plays produced in the 2010/2011 school
year (The Secret Garden and Tartuffe):
Some in both the college community and our constituency believe we have “sold out” to the culture
at large in the last two years. They fear that we have
become provocative for the sake of being provocative. One patron quoted Philippians 4:8, “Finally,
brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or
praiseworthy — think about such things.” This patron doubted whether the Dordt Theatre Arts Department was following the guidance of this verse,
in particular the ideas of “pure” and “lovely.” Our
department believes we are trying to embody truth
and be faithful servants through our work. This
passage from Philippians calls us firstly to reflect
the truth of the world. We often reflect theatrical
truth in beautiful ways (as in a production like As
It Is In Heaven). Sometimes we do so in comic ways
(like in Enchanted April). At other times we feel
called to illuminate a fallen world (as in Book of
Days). Calvin Seerveld states in his article “Professional Giveaway Theatre in Babylon: a Christian
Vocation” that “Christian theatre needs to speak
Babylonian language with a christian (sic) accent,
not just church-appropriate language” (14). Our
department supports this statement. We must help
our students and community engage in work that
reflects the totality of creation: both its beauty and
ugliness. In Simply Christian, N.T. Wright states that
we honor and celebrate the tension within which
we live as Christians by telling stories in which
“the threads of love and pain, fear and faith, worship and doubt . . . and the promise and problem
of human relationship” exist (49). The key is that
we must do so responsibly.
The Dordt Theatre Arts Department asks itself
the following questions when selecting plays for
our season:
• What is the purpose of the script?
• Does the script raise questions about where
we are headed if we continue in this direction?
• Does the purpose of the script speak a prophetic word to our broken world?
In the past, we asked if a script had “redemptive”
elements. Perhaps “prophetic” is a better description of what we hope our theatre at Dordt embodies. While a script or production might not
contain explicitly “redemptive” elements, often
it is our response that is redemptive. Other questions we consider in our discussions are these:
• Is the “evil” present in a script necessary or
gratuitous?
• Is the language and/or actions spoken or
done necessary?
Pro Rege—March 2014
35
•
How would the language/action be “read” or
understood by our audience?
• How would the audience respond to that
play/language/action?
We remain committed to doing theatre that responsibly challenges our audiences. The issue of
balance (for our students and our audiences) is
always in our minds. We must balance elements
like style, genre, and content. This past season
(two mainstage productions in our blackbox) was
intended as a “fringe” season given the limitations
of the space. We programmed productions that
we would not normally plan in our regular main
stage season — very purposefully. Both productions pushed boundaries in terms of content and
language — in ways we deemed necessary and not
gratuitous. Our next season promises to be very
different in tone, language, and style (a lovely musical and a classical comedy). Again, we do this
purposefully in order to reveal other aspects of
the world we live in. Our hope is that this process
of program review will help us communicate with
more clarity how and why we choose the material
that we do.”
So, why is a Christian, reformed theatre necessary at Dordt College? What is the contribution of
my discipline? There are many ways I could answer
those questions. I choose in this paper to identify
four key aspects of a Christian and reformed theatre that contribute greatly to our students, campus
community, larger constituency, and even the professional theatre world: storytelling, incarnation,
empathy, and prophecy.
First, theatre is a powerful form of storytelling. Because theatre is live, it creates a relationship
between the actors and audience members. This
relationship is what sets theatre apart from the
medium of film. This relationship is also what, at
times, can make theatre such an uncomfortable art
form. Actors (on a college campus, often people we
know) walk and talk and create characters. Yet, in
telling stories on the stage, we follow the example of
Christ, the ultimate storyteller. It is interesting that
he often chose the medium of the parable rather
than a sermon. These stories communicate his message of salvation in ways that capture the imagination and allow the mind and heart to follow. The
characters in the parables reflect both the best and
36
Pro Rege—March 2014
worst of our world. The parables themselves are
wonderfully complicated and can never be taken at
face-value. Christ painted images with his words;
today, one can only imagine what it would be like
to hear him tell the stories in person. In some of the
same ways, theatre today enables us to paint with
words, to spark the imagination, and to communicate a message in an allusive way.
Today’s communication is often both image based (Internet) and completely non-image
based (texting). Our students are well practiced at
watching images but not necessarily at discerning
them. Educational theatre can help students practice watching and then thinking about what they
see on the stage. These lessons can then be transferred to other mediums (like television and film).
One interesting example of this transference is last
year’s spring production Tartuffe. Dr. Simon duToit4 chose to intercut some hymns and spirituals
into Moliere’s classic comedy. At times jarring, this
directorial decision sparked a great deal of discussion among audience members and several strongly
analytical student reviews that revealed careful
thinking about why he did this. Clearly, students
were thinking about what they had seen. Another
feature of today’s communication is that it is often
completely divorced from image and sound. Our
students spend a disproportionate amount of time
texting. They never see a facial expression or hear
tone of voice. As a result, communication loses a
sense of humanity, of subtext, of feeling. Theatre
makes this unarguably present. When one is attending theatre, everything depends on the presence of actors, of faces and bodies, of subtext, and
of those sitting next to us in the audience. This, too,
is good practice for our students, bringing them
back in touch with those around them. Stories can
teach us without our even realizing it.
Linked with the idea of storytelling is the second key idea of theatre — that it is in a sense incarnational. Christ became flesh and lived among us
as man; in essence he lived our story for a time in
order to bear our sin. Similarly, onstage live actors
(our students) take on voices and bodies of others
and live their stories for a time. This embodiment
is powerful and can be frightening not only for
audience members but also for the student actors
at times. As a Christian theatre practitioner who
works with student actors on productions, I have
a responsibility to my actors not only as students
but more importantly as children of God. When I
ask them to be involved in a production, I need to
consider the effect of that production on the actors
themselves. There are certainly shows I would not
choose to produce, simply because they would not
be healthy or appropriate choices for the students
I work with. During the Program Review process,
we discovered that we need to be clearer and explicit with our students about why we choose the
shows we do and how the way we are doing them
is distinctive. We are always careful to encourage
prospective actors to read every show for which
they audition. We also make clear before and during the audition process (for those who don’t read
the script) if there is anything challenging involved
in the show, such as stage kisses, vulgar language,
accent work, etc. On audition forms we always include a section where students canclarify what they
will or will not do. For example, in a production
with an onstage kiss, I asked the students to indicate
if they would kiss onstage or not. I honor those decisions, even when that means not casting the best
person for a particular role. We also support our
students by teaching an acting theory that respects
the integrity of the individual. Our students do not
“become” another character; rather, they act as if
they were another character. This distinction is often hard for audience members to understand. Too
often, they criticize actors for portraying characters
they find unseemly — conflating the actor with the
role. We need to do more to help our actors and audience members understand the difference between
the two. We have also instituted a postmortem discussion that happens soon after the production has
closed. This discussion provides an important time
for cast and crew to talk about the positive aspects
of the production process as well as the negative. It
also provides an important time of guided closure
(outside of the usual cast/crew party), where actors
and crew members can give input that will help the
next production run more smoothly.
The incarnational aspect of theatre can be a
challenge for our audiences as well. It can be challenging to separate actor from character, but the
true challenge is even more fundamental than that.
An audience member needs assistance even before
she/he purchases tickets about the nature of the
story being told. Is this a play that is appropriate for
him/her to experience in such an “in your face” medium? With a film, a viewer can more easily leave
the movie theatre or turn off the television. That is
more difficult to do when attending live theatre. So,
our audiences need a clearer understanding of how
and why we choose to embody certain stories. Our
season selection process needs to be made more explicit for our audiences as well as our students. We
attempt to balance our seasons according to many
different criteria (what our theatre students need,
style, theme, time period, genre, what our audience
needs, past productions, etc.) — we need to make
this thoughtful process even clearer to our constituencies.
Also, we need to make these decisions more
explicit in our publicity for productions. Our department tries to communicate when a particular
production contains themes or language that is
challenging, but we could do more to make our
prospective audience members aware of challenges. Perhaps an article or two that appears on the
website and in the student newspaper before tickets
A prophetic script might not
answer questions raised,
might sit more uneasily,
might be more of a challenge
to audience members.
go on sale would be helpful. We would also like to
provide a “white paper” for audience members to
read either before or after they attend certain productions. This short essay would develop ideas that
may appear in brief in the Director’s Notes in the
program.
Most importantly, the embodied format of live
theatre means I have to pay particular care to how
I direct a production. My responsibility as a director is twofold. First, it is my responsibility to make
appropriate choices for the script, actors, and audience. Last year’s production of Tartuffe provides
a clear example of the responsibility we bear as
directors. One specific scene is a seduction scene
Pro Rege—March 2014
37
between the villain and the wife of the main character, and there are endless opportunities for how to
direct it. Many productions choose to go “all out”
— with overt action, actors removing clothes, and
nothing left to the imagination. Dr. duToit, however, crafted the scene carefully in order to be respectful of the actors, the audience, and the intent
of the script. The seduction Moliere called for was
there, just in a more appropriate form. However,
there is a second level of responsibility that may
be even more profound. It links with the idea of a
“reformed” theatre being prophetic in nature. The
choices a Christian director (or actor) makes to interpret a script potentially convey a critique of the
worldview of the playwright. The playwright may
have intended one thing, but the choices made in
production could illuminate the unintended (and
undesirable) implications of that worldview. This
ability is one of the ways Dordt theatre can speak
distinctively about the world.
The third key idea that makes theatre necessary on a college campus like Dordt is that of empathy. I owe a great deal to Paul Woodruff’s book
The Necessity of Theater5 for this point. In this book,
he identifies how theatre enables us to practice empathy in unique ways. Both actors and audience
members do this as a result of the theatrical experience. In order to honestly portray a character, an
actor must empathize with that character. Empathy
doesn’t mean that the actor must agree with that
character’s decisions or actions, but it does mean
that the actor must at least try to understand where
the character is coming from. This “walking in another’s shoes” is excellent practice for life. Audience
members are also called upon to journey with the
characters. They don’t have to agree with what happens, but they should at least try to understand
why it happens the way it does in a play. In our
increasingly distanced world, where empathy is a
skill and characteristic that is important for us to
have, theatre can help us practice feeling with and
for another human being.
Lastly, the idea of a “prophetic” theatre is intriguing to me and offers many possibilities for theatre on our campus and in the professional world.
When I arrived at Dordt, one of the questions
members of the department asked in the season
selection process was, “Is this script redemptive?”
38
Pro Rege—March 2014
However, over the past several years, I have come
to see that that question doesn’t go far enough. It
is almost too narrow. Instead, I’ve begun asking
myself if a particular script is “prophetic.” This
question was suggested to us by our external reviewer for our recent program review, Don Yanik
from Seattle Pacific University.5 It is one of the
questions his department uses during their season
selection process. A script that is “redemptive” suggests a clear response on the part of the script itself.
In some ways, perhaps these kind of scripts might
answer (or attempt to answer) the questions they
pose. However, a script that is “prophetic” seems to
allow questions to remain at the end of a production. It says something true about our broken world
without needing to provide a hopeful solution. As I
mentioned earlier, it is the audience’s response that
provides an aspect of “redemption.” A prophetic
script might not answer questions raised, might sit
more uneasily, might be more of a challenge to audience members. But in the end it will provide even
more possibilities for audience members to reflect
and respond in varied ways. Of course, one person’s
prophetic script could be redemptive to another
person. One example of a script that is more prophetic than redemptive in my mind is Tennessee
Williams’ The Glass Menagerie. At the end of the
play, the main character Tom seems to be in the
same place he was at the beginning of the play. His
life seems meaningless, empty, devoid of love. Yet,
as audience members reflect on the play, they can
see missed chances for love along way, moments
when Tom and his family could have reacted differently to each other and the world. Perhaps seeing
these missed opportunities played out onstage will
enable audience members to reflect on their own
lives and make different choices as a result.
At several points during this section, I’ve mentioned the ideas of excellence and responsibility.
Most everyone would agree that whatever work we
are called to do must be done with excellence. After
all, it isn’t for our glory but for our Father’s glory
that we do it. I argue that the idea of excellence has
another facet when it comes to theatre (and possibly
other art forms as well). Frequently, I come across
the idea in academic theatre that only excellent
scripts must be produced (or studied). This excellence could mean that the script is particularly well-
written, achieves its purpose in outstanding ways,
or captures an audience’s attention particularly
well. There could be lots of ways a script could be
considered excellent. However, I do not agree with
this idea. I argue that a script that is “flawed” in
some way can be just as significant a learning experience for students, actors, and audience as one that
is excellent. We sometimes learn best from our mistakes, and I believe that this principle holds true in
the theatre as well. Working on a production that
has structural, thematic, or characterization flaws
can enable the creative team to practice creative
problem-solving and come up with wonderful solutions that make a show stronger. An audience can
take away something valuable from a production
that contains flaws, and this helps them practice
their analytical skills.
Finally, the idea of responsibility is a resounding one to me, the lynch pin on which all my work
rests. I need to keep my responsibility to my students and potential audience members at the forefront of my mind. But in even larger ways, I need to
remember than I am ultimately responsible to God
for my work. He has called me to this profession.
This profession asks me to tell stories in a powerful
way — through voices and bodies onstage, a process that carries great responsibility. I need to tell
the stories responsibly, consider my audience with
great thought, work carefully with my actors, and
craft lesson plans thoughtfully. Such communicating takes great work, an area in which I can continue to develop.
Endnotes
1. See Jonas Barrish, The Antitheatrical Prejudice
(Berkeley: U of California P, 1981).
2. Calvin Seerveld, “Professional Giveaway Theatre in
Babylon: a Christian Vocation,” Keynote Address for
Christians in the Theatre Arts Conference (Chicago,
Illinois, June 2007), 14.
3.N. T. Wright, Simply Christian (New York:
HarperOne, 2006), 49.
4. Dr. Simon duToit, Outstanding Scholars Advisor
and Sessional Instructor in the School of Dramatic
Art, University of Windsor, was Visiting Professor of
Theater Arts at Dordt College, 2010-2011. He was formerly Professor of Theater Arts at Dordt College.
5. Paul Woodruff, The Necessity of Theater (Oxford:
Oxford UP, 2008).
Pro Rege—March 2014
39
Editor’s note: This paper was presented at the International Listening Association Convention in Montreal, Canada,
June 22, 2013.
Social Media’s Impact on
Listening and Loneliness
by Charles Veenstra
Herrick Higgins, a character in Baldacci’s The
Christmas Train, explains why trains are popular
at Christmas: “People get on to meet their country
over the holidays. They’re looking for some friendship, a warm body to talk to. People don’t rush on
a train, because that’s not what trains are for.” He
goes on to defend his love for trains: “I’m not saying that riding the train will change your life, or
that passenger rail will be a big moneymaker one
day. But no matter how fast we feel we have to go,
shouldn’t there be room for a train, where you can
just sit back, take a breath, and be human for a little
while? Just for a little while? Is that so bad?”1
The value of efficiency is celebrated today. Not
only do people choose airplanes over trains, but
they choose social media over interpersonal faceDr. Charles Veenstra is Professor of Communication at
Dordt College.
40
Pro Rege—March 2014
to-face communication. Technology encourages
efficiency as a central value, in a way similar to
Frederick Taylor’s famous work with coal-shoveling
experiments many years ago.
The benefits of the new social media —
Facebook, Twitter, the ubiquitous cell phone, email,
etc. — are clear: social contacts, re-acquaintance
with long lost relatives, security, immediate access
to information, efficiency in communication, and
more. The rapid advance of digital technologies is
eagerly accepted with the result that as soon as a
newer and faster version of gadgets comes on the
market, consumers rush to the stores.
However, a few voices raise some concerns
about what these new technologies are doing to relationships. For example, Carr engages the issues
of what the internet is doing to our brains,2 and
Turkle writes about why we expect more from technology and less from each other.3 Neither of these
authors is a luddite; they continue to use new technology and plan to keep up to date with the newest
developments. With careful research, they indicate
that we need to be aware of the impact of technology. As has been true throughout history when
new communication technologies are introduced,
the new digital technologies impact the way we
think and communicate. In her review of Michael
Bugeja’s book Interpersonal Divide: The Search for
Community in a Technological Age, Simmons writes
that Bugeja claims, “new media technologies have
eroded our understanding of place and identity, replaced our moral consciousness with the teachings
of self-help manuals, associated citizenship with
consumerism, weakened our interpersonal skills,
and destroyed our perception of community.4
Bugeja uses the phrase “interpersonal divide” to
describe “the social gap that develops when individuals misperceive reality because of media overconsumption and misinterpret others because of
technology overuse.”5
My focus is what these communication technologies do to the nature of communication, particularly listening. As we consider the impact of
communication technology on relationships, several issues need examination.
As has been true throughout
history when new
communication technologies
are introduced, the new digital
technologies impact the way
we think and communicate.
Listening, defined as the process of receiving,
constructing meaning from, and responding to
spoken and/or nonverbal messages, requires significant attention to the other. While we can listen to
others via the social media, in many cases much of
the nonverbal part of communication is missing;
in some cases nearly all nonverbal communication
is absent. Furthermore, digitized friendships are
predicated on rapid response rather than reflection.
Listening requires that one slow down, something
that social media discourage. Building relationships, a process that requires a large amount of listening, is by its very nature an inefficient process.
Many years ago McLuhan asserted that “the
medium is the message,” that is, the media shape
the way we think.6 In a similar vein, Carr examines
what the internet is doing to our brains; he claims
that the brain adapts to the newer technology of the
internet: “Never has there been a medium that, like
the Net, has been programmed to so widely scatter our attention and to do it so insistently.”7 We
are being programmed to quickly move from one
thing to another: “When we go on line, we enter an
environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learn-
ing.”8 There appears little time for listening. The
brain thus learns to expect quick movement from
one item to another rather than slowing down to
think: “There is no Sleepy Hollow in the Internet,
no peaceful spot where contemplativeness can work
its restorative magic.... It’s not only deep thinking
that requires a calm, attentive mind. It’s also empathy and compassion.”9 These last two ingredients
are essential to building interpersonal relationships. In order to develop compassion, one needs
much time to listen to another person. American
teens, on average, process 3,300 text messages each
month.10 By their nature, text messages are short
and insubstantial for developing empathy and the
other emotions essential to the development of relationships.
In Interpersonal Divide, Bugeja complains
about the impact of media on relationships: “Until
recently, however, communication was mostly interpersonal, or face to face. People spoke plainly to
each other — sometimes appropriately and sometimes, inappropriately — but usually authentically
because of facial gestures, tone of voice, time of day,
occasion of place, possibility of witnesses, and so
on. We could read expressions of love, hate, or indifference in body language and could interpret ill
intent or goodwill first hand, without needing media analysts to construe the situation or technology
to process that information at ever-faster speeds.”11
In essence, his claim is that social media divide persons from each other and hinder the development
of community.
In “The End of Solitude” Deresiewicz writes, “If
boredom is the great emotion of the TV generation,
loneliness is the great emotion of the Web generation. We lost the ability to be still, our capacity
for idleness. They have lost the ability to be alone,
their capacity for solitude.”12 In losing solitude, he
claims, we have lost the propensity for introspection and for sustained reading and excellence: “But
no real excellence, personal or social, artistic, philosophical, scientific or moral, can arise without solitude”13 Carr argues “the intellectual technologies
that Google has pioneered promoted the speedy,
superficial skimming of information and discourage any deep, prolonged engagement with a single
argument, idea, or narrative … . Google is, quite
literally, in the business of distraction.”14
Pro Rege—March 2014
41
Of course solitude, in which one chooses to
be alone to reflect, is not the same as loneliness.
Cornblatt defines loneliness as “an aversive emotional response to a perceived discrepancy between
a person’s desired levels of social interaction and the
contact they’re actually receiving.”15 We need to ask
what the potential is for greater loneliness, given
the truncated nature of relationship development
due to the use of social media. This issue has been
raised by several scholars.
An AARP report in 2010 reported that a little
over one-third (35 %) of the survey respondents
were categorized as lonely.16 Duque maintains that
the number of lonely people nearly tripled in the
United States over the last 20 years.17
Marche quotes Cacioppo, an expert on loneliness, who examined the relation between loneliness of subjects and their use of social media: “The
greater the proportion of face-to-face interactions,
the less lonely you are. The greater the proportion
of online interactions the lonelier you become.”18
None of this means, of course, that media cause
loneliness — one can use these media to isolate
oneself, or one can use these media to help oneself
meet more people face-to-face.
On loneliness, Warrel writes, “Recent studies have found that despite being more connected
than ever, more people feel more alone than ever.
Surprisingly, those who report feeling most alone
are those you’d expect it from least: young people
under 35, who are the most prolific social networkers of all. Another recent study found that 48% of
respondents only had one confidant compared to a
similar study 25 years ago, when people said they
had about three people they could confide in. So
as we have built expansive social networks online,
the depth of our networks offline has decreased.
So it seems that because technology makes it easier
to stay in touch while keeping distance, more and
more people find themselves feeling distant and
never touching.”19 Loneliness does not necessarily result in greater effort to make new confidants.
Instead, lonely people find it easier to turn to the
internet to connect — at least in a small way —
with others. “Loneliness is so great that marriage to
someone we have only met on a website can seem
our best hope,” writes Turkle, who adds that people
have confessed to her, “People are lonely. This gives
42
Pro Rege—March 2014
them someplace to turn.”20 However, the media do
not solve this problem, partly because the physical
isolation remains.
It remains because social media “offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of
friendship,” explains Turkle.21 Facebook allows
many connections, which seem to give the impression that one can increase the number of friends.
Yet, the definition of “friend” via Facebook has
changed. One can “unfriend” another on Facebook
with a simple click. “Connections” would be more
accurate for all the contacts one has on Facebook.
Most of these connections lack the depth of close
friendship. In fact, several scholars have examined
the possibility that Facebook results in greater
loneliness.22 Marche claims that social media have
produced “fears that Facebook is interfering with
our real friendships, distancing us from each other,
making us lonelier; and that social networking
might be spreading the very isolation it seemed designed to conquer.”23 It may well be the case that
the number of “friends” on Facebook goes up while
number of “real friends” goes down.
Even when people are in the physical presence
of others, they often are tied to their technology
at the same time. The title of Turkle’s book Alone
Together aptly describes this phenomenon. Bugeja
describes texting in the presence of others a “prescription for loneliness.24
True friendship requires listening. Listening
means we observe all the starts, stumbles, and
stops as two people develop intimacy together. As
Warrell writes, “Yet genuine intimacy demands
vulnerability and vulnerability requires courage.
It requires that we lay down the masks we can so
easily hide behind online, and reveal all of who we
are with others.”25 For “when technology engineers
intimacy, relationships can be reduced to mere
connections.”26 Listening in a face-to-face interaction requires far more work and sensitivity than it
does in an online “conversation.” Social media allow us to control what we share (and hide) to a far
greater extent than is possible in face-to-face interpersonal communication. Thus, complete honesty
and openness take a back seat.
A major barrier to listening is that we are “always on.” The ubiquitous cell phone interrupts at
any moment. Teachers of listening are quick to ask
students to “ditch the distractions.”27 When the
phone interrupts conversation and distracts the
recipient, those interrupted feel the negative effects of being pushed aside by someone who is not
physically present. In the words of Carr: “What are
smartphones if not high-tech leashes?”28
Another hindrance is listening is multitasking,
or at least the notion that one can do several tasks
at once. A common activity involves using social
media while doing other tasks. More and more, researchers are seeing that multitasking is a fiction.
It limits the effectiveness in each task. “When our
brain is over-taxed,” writes Carr, “we find ‘distractions more distracting.’ Experiments indicate that
as we reach the limits of our working memory, it
becomes harder to distinguish relevant information from irrelevant information, signal from noise.
We become mindless consumers of data.”29 He
adds, “Try reading a book while doing a crossword
puzzle; that’s the intellectual environment of the
Internet.”30 In other words, the attempt to multitask hinders listening.
The challenge to listening via social media is
this: “You can ‘process’ people as quickly as you
want to. Listening can only slow you down.... Better
to have it transcribed or avoid it altogether.”31 This
“slowing down” is the opposite of what the media
encourage. Carr asserts, “the price we pay to assume technology’s power is alienation.”32
Given these challenges with social media, particularly to listening and the development of relationships, what road should we take forward? To
assume the new social media will go away is silly.
Furthermore, there are huge advantages, as indicated earlier, to the new media technologies. Several
suggestions seem in order.
We need to recognize what the internet has
done to our brains. Carr’s book is particularly insightful. Here are just a few of his claims that we
should know: we are programmed for distraction
(we are plugged into an “ecosystem of interruption technologies”); the media shape the process
of thought; research contradicts the assumption
that multimedia would deepen comprehension and
strengthen learning; there needs to be time for efficient data collection and inefficient contemplation;
and we must reconsider our conceptions of memory and the power of technology to alienate, etc.
Also, as Carr points out, memory is an important element in the listening process. Yet, according
to Carr, “The Web is a technology of forgetfulness. What determines what we remember
and what we forget? The key to memory consolidation is attentiveness.”33 He quotes Kandel on how
memory works: “For a memory to persist, the incoming information must be thoroughly and deeply processed. This is accomplished by attending to
the information and associating it meaningfully
and systematically with knowledge already wellestablished in memory.”34
Listening interpersonally allows us to peel away
the masks we can so easily hide behind online.
Warrell notes the craving for intimacy: “Genuine
intimacy demands vulnerability and vulnerability
requires courage.”35 She goes on to say that the human element within any relationship can never be
replaced by technology, especially empathy.
Listening in a face-to-face
interaction requires far
more work and sensitivity
than it does in an online
“conversation.”
But empathy has been declining, especially
since 2002, according to a University of Michigan
study of more than 14,000 college students over
the last thirty years. The research finds that college
students today show 40% less empathy than that of
students in the 1980s and 1990s.36 Sara Konrath,
a researcher at the university’s Institute for Social
Research, says one reason may be that people are
having fewer face-to-face interactions, communicating instead through social media such as
Facebook and Twitter.37 Clearly, listening is critical
for empathy. And without empathy, relationships
do not grow.
Warrell provides these seven strategies for
building a real social network:38
1. Unplug: Turn off your computer, put down
your iPhone, step away from your iPad, and
take time to engage with people, in person,
with face-to-face communication.... Fifty
Pro Rege—March 2014
43
text messages over a day can never compare
with just five minutes of open, caring and
honest conversation.
2. Become a better listener: Too often we
talk too much and listen too little. Learn
to listen well and be okay with yours and
others stumbles … we connect to others
through our vulnerabilities, not through
our brilliance.
3. Engage in your community: Get involved in your local community or neighborhood … spend some helping at a local
service organization.
4. Practice Conversation: If you are out of
practice at meeting people take small steps.
Make the most of all chances for social contact … .
5. Find Like Minds: Join a class or find an
interest group. Getting to know new people
can be part of the learning process in a new
class.
6. Reconnect with long lost friends: It’s very
likely they will be delighted to hear from
you, and will enjoy reconnecting every bit
as much as you (assuming your friendship
didn’t end badly.
7. Invite people over: … some of the best
conversations happen over a coffee or casual
meal. Yes it may be a bit scary, but real connection will always demand a degree of risk
and vulnerability.39
These strategies are all aimed at providing opportunities to listen to others and allow relationships to grow and thus reduce loneliness. Turkle is
most correct when she says, “It is from other people
that we learn how to listen and bend to each other
in conversation.”40
It is, therefore, obvious that before placing all
the newest technologies in the classroom, we need
to think about the impact on children. In the
concluding words of Carr, “How sad it would be,
particularly when it comes to the nurturing of our
children’s minds, if we were to accept without question the idea that ‘human elements’ are outmoded
and dispensable.”41
Similarly, Cacioppo recommends that socialnetworking sites serve as a supplement but not a re-
44
Pro Rege—March 2014
placement for face-to-face interactions.42 Cornblatt
validates that recommendation: “For people who
feel satisfied and loved in their day-to-day life, social media can be a reassuring extension. For those
who are already lonely, Facebook status updates are
just a reminder of how much better everyone else is
at making friends and having fun.”43
How we can limit use of social media? Here are
some suggestions. We should consider not being
“on” 24/7. Not all of us need to carry a smart phone
all the time. College professors can forbid cell
phones in the classroom and can let students know
when and how they can be reached — office hours
are important. Email works for questions about
class work, but phones are also acceptable. When
a student raises a question beyond an assignment,
the professor can set up a time to talk face-to-face.
Professors do not need to text students, acknowledge them as friends on Facebook, or give out cell
phone numbers quickly. People can leave messages
if necessary. Furthermore, Communication professors should ask students to write journals so that the
students can reflect on their communication methods and the impact on others. Any of us should
schedule regular times for phone calls with family
members who live far away. Only quick questions
from family should be done via email.
We do not need to reject or disparage technology. Instead, we need to put it in its place and not
let it diminish us. The newer technologies allow us
to “dial down” human contact.44 We need to see
clearly how we are being changed by technology.
Lickerman clarifies the limits of technology on relationships: “The problem … comes when we find
ourselves subtly substituting electronic relationships
for physical ones or mistaking our electronic relationships for physical ones. We may feel we’re connecting effectively with others via the Internet, but
too much electronic-relating paradoxically engenders a sense of social isolation.45
A most critical element in this entire discussion
is the place of respect. Listening to another person
in a face-to-face situation is one of the very best
ways we can demonstrate full respect to the other
person. It is the only way to build solid relationships and avoid loneliness.
Endnotes
1. David Baldacci, The Christmas Train (New York:
Warner Books, 2002), 122.
2. Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is
Doing To Our Brains (New York: W. W. Norton,
2011).
3. Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More
from Technology and Less from Each Other (New York:
Basic Books, 2011).
4.See Charlene Simmons’ review of Bugeja’s
Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community
in a Technological Age, in Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly (Spring 2002). Retrieved
from http://www.interpersonal-divide.org/reviews/
JMCQ.html
5. Michael J. Bugeja, Interpersonal Divide: The Search for
Community in Technological Age (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005), ix.
6. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The
Extensions of Man (New York: New American
Library, 1964).
zine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/
19.Margie Warrell, “Text or Talk: Is Technology
Making You Lonely?” Forbes, May 24, 2012. www.
forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2012/10/23/is-technology-making-you-lonely-7-strategies-for-buildinga-real-social-network/
20. Turkle, 230.
21. Ibid., 1.
22.Marche.
23.Ibid.
24.Cornblatt.
25.Warrell.
26. Turkle, 12.
27.Richard J. Bommelje, Listening Pays: Achieve
Significance Through the Power of Listening. Leadership
& Listening Institute, 2013.
28. Carr, 227.
29. Ibid., 125.
7. Carr, 113.
30. Ibid, 126.
8. Ibid., 116.
31. Turkle, 207.
9. Ibid., 220.
32. Carr, 211.
10. Ibid., 228.
33. Ibid., 193.
11. Bugeja, 23.
34.Ibid.
12.William Deresiewicz, “The End of Solitude.” The
Chronicle of Higher Education (January 30, 2009).
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/TheEnd-of-Solitude/3708/
35.Warrell.
13.Ibid.
14. Carr, 156.
15.Johanna Cornblatt, “Lonely Planet,” Newsweek,
October 20, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/20/lonely-planet.html
16.Gretchen Anderson, “Loneliness Among Older
Adults: a National Survey of Adults 45+. AARP,
September 29, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.
aarp.org/personal-growth/transitions/info-09-2010/
loneliness_2010.html/
17.Steven Duque, “The Loneliness of Social Media
[Web log post], September 13, 2010. Retrieved from
http://stevenduque.com/2010/09/the-loneliness-ofsocial-media/
18. Cacciopo, quoted by Stephen Marche, “Is Facebook
Making Us Lonely?” The Atlantic, April 2, 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/maga-
36.Stephanie Steinberg, “College Students Have Less
Empathy Than Past Generations.” USA Today, June
8, 2010. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-08-empathyresearch08_st_N.htm
37.Ibid. Sara Konrath’s research is discussed by
Steinberg.
38.Warrell.
39.Ibid.
40. Turkle, 292.
41. Carr, 224.
42.Cornblatt.
43.Ibid.
44. Turkle, 5.
45.Alex Lickerman, “The Effect of Technology on
Relationships: the Risk of Internet Addiction.”
Psychology Today, June 8, 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/happinessin-world/201006/the-effect-technology-relationships
Pro Rege—March 2014
45
Book Reviews
Egan, Timothy. Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher: The Epic Life and Immortal Photographs of Edward Curtis.
New York: Mariner Books, Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2013. 329 pp. ISBN 978-0-10276-7. Reviewed by
James Calvin Schaap, emeritus professor of English, Dordt College. Published preciously in Siouxlander.
blogspot.com.
Somewhere around the turn of the nineteenth century, Andrew Vander Wagon, who was never an officially
licensed pastor but became one anyway, decided to build a
bridge across the Zuni River because he was tired of being
on the outside of the heart of Zuni life. The brand new
Christian Reformed Church mission in the Zuni pueblo
stood just on the other side of the river, which often wasn’t
a river, per se, but then again too often irritatingly was. As long as the mission stood that far outside the
pueblo (it’s at the heart of things today, by the way), he
was determined that his mission of missions would be
crippled. Furthermore, when water actually flowed in the
Zuni River, his only means of getting across was up on the
shoulders of a Zuni man whose grace was abundant but,
according to Andrew, unnecessary.
He told the tribe that he’d like to build that bridge,
but the tribe’s eyebrows narrowed. If the gods wanted a
bridge over the Zuni River, they told him, there would be
one. Andrew told them that was nonsense (no one knows
how he phrased his response, but “nonsense” wouldn’t
have been, at that time at least, far from possibility with
him). Vander Wagon the missionary became Vander
Wagon the carpenter. He built the bridge, and it lasted
almost 20 years before a bigger and stronger one was finally constructed.
Here’s Brother Andrew’s bridge:
Timothy Egan’s wonderfully readable biography of
Edward Curtis, Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher, makes
it abundantly clear that Curtis, the photographer, himself
the son of a madcap missionary to Minnesota’s Ojibwa,
was right there at Zuni pueblo during what might well
be considered Vander Wagon’s reign as the Zuni mission king. I know enough about Vander Wagon (I share
46
Pro Rege—March 2014
some of his DNA, by the way) to know that it’s impossible to think that the two would not have met — Brother
Andrew cut that kind of swath, believe me.
That meeting — at least in my imagination — must
have been memorable, Curtis despising Christian missionaries (his father was preacher) as much as Brother Andrew
loved being one, both of them immensely larger-than-life
characters, the courses of their lives determined severely
by a unflagging sense of their individual callings: Brother
Andrew to alter the eternal destinies of the Zunis, Curtis
to hold back the tide of white culture and document a way
of life that was vanishing, in part because Brother Andrew
was doing exactly what he was doing.
I didn’t know much about Curtis’s life, but I knew
his work because I used a portrait of his on the cover of a
novel of mine, Touches the Sky.
In fact, it’s quite likely that everyone has, somewhere
along the line, seen a Edward Curtis portrait. He made
documenting Native Americans at the turn of the century
his life’s mission. Absolutely nothing else mattered. His
wife left him, and with good reason: he was no more her
husband than was Andrew Vander Wagon. His family despised him, save his children, who generally adored him. Basically, he did years of intimate portrait photography among the nation’s Native people without pay, so he
died unknown, penniless, an old and angry man.
But he’d once been a friend of luminaries, of President
Teddy Roosevelt, who appointed him the official photographer for his daughter’s wedding. He gained the bankroll it took for him to travel all over the west from J. P.
Morgan, whose railroad empire was, as Timothy Egan
deftly points out, doing as much as anything or anyone
at that very moment to destroy the very cultures Curtis
himself wanted to preserve with his portraits.
Neither Edward Curtis nor Andrew Vander Wagon,
despite their passionate callings, was above skullduggery.
Both pushed envelopes. Curtis’s portraits often were sentimentally posed, even though he wanted his viewing public to see them as true-to-life candids. Many were anything
but. Some of his “indian braves” were outfitted in regalia none of them wore by, say, 1915, which made Curtis
little more than Buffalo Bill with an expensive camera and
enough chemicals to doctor his negatives.
Vander Wagon didn’t know how to color within the
lines either. He was, more than once, fired. He was as
good a trader with the Zuni and the Navajo as he was a
missionary. When his colleagues disagreed with him and
his wild ways, he went quite offensively on the offensive.
He could be a dirty rotten stinker, and I may be unduly
sweet to use such cute language.
But both absolutely loved their respective callings.
Both were passionate about what they did. Both were
given to sacrificing everything for what they felt called to
do. They were, in some ways, partners in both crime and
redemption.
As Egan points out, no one appreciates the work of
Edward Curtis today more than Native people because his
work — whether or not it was staged or posed — does
exactly what he wanted it to do: it tells a story that ended
when what some Native folks I know call the “illegal immigration” of white people to North America became a
flood. Fiction can go where history can’t, of course. And the
mere idea of a meeting, on that bridge, between Brother
Andrew and Edward Curtis, right there in Zuni pueblo,
circa 1910 or so, beckons me to take a shot at the story.
Curtis hated missionaries; Brother Andrew never met a
man — white or Native — he didn’t try to strong-arm
to the Lord. But what linked them in an ironic way was a
love for the people in that pueblo. I don’t know if I’m a good enough writer to put that
story on paper, but after reading Timothy Egan’s fine biography of the passionate life of Edward Curtis, I know I’d
have loved to be there on that bridge.
Edward Cutis, A Zuni Governor
Bret Lott. Letters and Life: On Being a Writer, On Being a Christian. Chicago: Crossway, 2013. 191 pages.
ISBN 978-1-4335-3783-7. Reviewed by James Calvin Schaap, emeritus professor of English, Dordt College.
By the logic that permeates this book of essays on
writing, Bret Lott should not have written it, nor should
Crossway have published it. What most readers will discover rather quickly in it is the infrastructure of paradox
— to wit, that while this book is meant to teach readers (and writers) something about the art and function
of writing, Lott rather clearly insists that that job simply
can’t be done.
But he does it. He’s written what he’s written, and
Crossway has published it anyway, and the book is a blessing.
For the record, just google “writing fiction” sometime
and you’ll discover, as I just have, about 266,000 entries,
not all of which are of equal value, of course. No one on
earth has time to sift through all of them to establish a
best-of-show list; but it’s fair to say, I’m sure, that some
of the sites offer really fine advice about creating character and setting, about generating plot and playing with
themes. Adjust the wording a bit, and Google tells me
(or did just now) that roughly 53 million sites respond to
“how to write dialogue.”
To say that advice for writers isn’t rare is understatement, but then potential writers aren’t at a premium either. Not long ago, some researchers determined that
fully 81 percent of the American people believe they have
a book in them. Even though believing that we have a
story is continents away from actually writing a book, the
math still says that 200 million Americans have at least
thought about putting their own stories (memoir or fiction) between covers. Thank goodness for e-books; every
last library in the nation would have to remodel.
Two hundred million would-be writers may be
stretching it, but with the changes technology has wrought
in the business of publishing, it’s altogether possible that
someday every last one of us will have his or her name
on the spine of a book up there on our own library shelf.
Every bookseller and publisher in the nation knows the
plain-and-simple facts: there are more would-be writers
in North America than there are actual readers. The truth
is, publishing books these days, in the traditional way, is
incredibly difficult because publishing books these days,
in new ways, is incredibly easy.
There’s a paradox for you, a statement that would
appear totally absurd if it weren’t so obviously true. Bret
Lott’s Letters and Life, a book of advice for writers, is full
of such paradoxes.
In one of the opening essays, Lott, whose dozen or so
novels have created a presence for him in this country’s
most esteemed literary circles, remembers taking a writing class from James Baldwin, who was determined not
to give his students what they were expecting “because he
was a writer [emphasis Lott’s] and not a trafficker in matters of technique.” If readers were expecting “ten ways to
make a setting marvelous,” Lott’s tip of the hat to James
Pro Rege—March 2014
47
Baldwin should scare off those who were looking for an
ordinary “how to.” Letters and Life is not a how-to. In fact,
strangely enough, it’s anything but.
For starters, consider the opening line of the very first
essay: “My name is Bret Lott, and I believe in God the
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” And he
doesn’t stop there. The entire first paragraph of the book
is the Apostles’ Creed. It’s not some kind of prelude or
writer’s preface. It doesn’t sit there in italic script, centered
poetically between margins. The Apostles’ Creed — the
Apostles’ Creed — is the first paragraph of the book. I’m
not making this up.
Soon enough, however, the paradox count begins.
Writing as a Christian is as insubstantial as a ghost, he
says. You’ll never quite figure it out, he says; but that
doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.
This is not a how-to book.
Lott is fair game for his own hunt. After all, in Letters
and Life, Lott lambasts writing teachers even though he
is one.
Few Christian writers hold such high aspirations for
art from a Christian perspective as Bret Lott does in this
book of essays. How can one achieve such aspirations?
Humbly and bravely. That’s right, by way of humility and
bravery, the pattern by which, he says, Paul approaches the
idea of salvation as something that has to be worked out
“with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12), and by drawing
“near to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy.”
Appears not to make sense. And yet it does. Paradox.
The book’s crowning essay is a memoir Lott narrates
about the death of his father, a lengthy recital of events
and impressions that comprises half the pages of the book.
Countless times, as he tells his father’s story, he upbraids
himself for even attempting write it, given how many
such memoirs already exist. Furthermore, he considers the
sheer impossibility of doing it well: “There is no way to
write this,” he says at the end of the fourth section, just ten
pages into a story that is nearly one hundred long. There
is no way to write this, he tells himself, but that truth,
paradoxically, doesn’t stop him.
Here’s another. Lott tells the reader that humility may
well be the single most important character trait a writer
can have, even though most writers — even those who
don’t publish — can be obsessed, and should be, with telling the world the truth as they know it. How can one be
humble and still believe that the story they tell is of interest to all the world?
Dozens of times through the long narrative of his father’s dying, Lott, frustrated and fatigued by the events
surrounding that death, tells us he doesn’t even like to
write. If there are 50,000 sites to visit online for writing
advice, even if there are 50 million, I can’t help but think
that Bret Lott is the only New York Times Bestseller List
novelist to tell his readers that he doesn’t like to write. Not
only that, but at one point when he reads an essay of his
in front of his family, he repeats a line that’s not likely to
be seen in any other essay about writing: “There are more
important things than a book.”
While that may be true — and I think it is — Letters
and Life is his thirteenth book.
Here he is at the end of the long essay concerning his
father’s death, which is also the very end of book itself:
There is no way to write this.
Even now, at this end of having tried to, I understand
even more deeply how I do not have the technique, or the
courage, or the language to achieve the story I want to tell.
But I am trying to write it, all the same. I am trying
to tell a story, one that is as true as I can make it. A story I
cannot make up. Nothing other than that.
So what do we make of a writer who has written more
than a dozen books, yet claims he can’t do what he does,
won’t do what books like his promise, and really doesn’t
believe that what he does in spite of himself is all that important?
Perhaps we should ask what we do with a being who
claims to be something no one ever was or could be —
both God and man? What do we do with human character, which is, by every measure, prone to selfishness and
sin, yet carries indubitably the very image of the Creator
of all things? What do we do with truth that’s so often
ambiguous or multi-faceted, truth that’s paradox?
An old preacher and thoughtful Christian I once
knew told me he thought that the nature of truth was a
good thing to keep in mind. The geometry of truth was
that it was always elliptical — always two-centered — and
never only circular, one-centered. There are always two
foci, twin foci, to truth because truth is always elliptical,
he told me. I bought that idea years and years ago, and
because I did, I really loved Bret Lott’s Letters and Life. It’s
full of paradox. It’s built on paradox. It’s about far more
than writing — and yet it isn’t.
In truth, Bret Lott’s Letters and Life is all about letters,
and it’s all about life.
Quatro, Jamie. I Want To Show You More. New York: Grove Press, 2013. 204 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8021-20755. Reviewed by Howard Schaap, Assistant Professor of English, Dordt College.
It may be enough of a teaser for Jamie Quatro’s collection of short stories, I Want To Show You More, to say
that the title of the first story is “Caught Up,” and that it
references being caught up both in a spiritual vision and
48
Pro Rege—March 2014
in a sexual affair. Then again, that description may give
an entirely wrong sense of the story. That sexuality and
spirituality can get tangled up with each other is nothing
new under the sun, especially in literature, but I Want
To Show You More repeatedly sets them in fresh twentyfirst century contexts that help to entangle them anew. In
“Caught Up,” new technology and old theology are part
of the context, as the narrator and her mother tangle over
terms such as “vision” versus “dream,” over what counts
as “consummation” of an affair and what we hope for in
“Consummation.”
“The vision started coming when I was nine” (1),
the narrator begins in “Caught Up,” relating the vision
before jumping into the present and outlining an affair
carried out primarily via cell phone: “Three years ago —,”
the narrator relates less than a page in, “seventeen years
into this marriage — I fell in love with a man who lives
nine hundred miles away.” More than anything, however,
“Caught Up” is a story about confessing private visions
and secret affairs.
To your mother.
And your mother not understanding.
And while both you and your mother tangle up vision, affair, and confession with dubious theology. As
the narrator says to her mother late in the story, wishing to speak again to the man she had an affair with,
“I hoped that there would be a literal Second Coming
and Consummated Kingdom because then the man and
I could spend eternity just talking” (3-4). This kind of
statement may sound bizarre, but hang around twentyfirst century Christians with sometimes dubious theology
and cell phones — you might find them at a Christian
college campus — and the tangles of “Caught Up” start
to feel eerily real.
Most interesting in “Caught Up” is the motherdaughter tangle, which is at the same time a motherdaughter gap. The story opens with the narrator’s vision
at nine years old of being caught up “belly-first” toward
the heavens “as if I were a kite about to be yanked up
by a string attached just below my navel.” The narrator’s
mother repurposes the vision as a “dream” and readily interprets it for her in recognizable terms — recognizable
because her rendering of it is predictable, reductive, even
dismissive in the way parents can be toward children.
“[W]e should always be ready for the Lord’s return:” —
thus the mother interprets, the colon indicating that the
vision is a kind of formula — “lead a clean life and stay
busy with our work, keeping an eye skyward” (1).
The story’s final lines also highlight this motherdaughter gap. Regarding the affair, the narrator relates the
complexity of her confession and her mother’s response
in two sentences: “[W]hen I called my mother to tell her
how much I missed the man, how on the one hand I
wished I had gone through with our planned meeting
yet at the same time regretted the phone sex, because if
we hadn’t done that we might have been able to save the
friendship … she said, Wait — phone sex?” Even the
lack of quotation marks adds to the tangles, making us
wonder where the narrator’s consciousness stops and the
mother’s begins. The second sentence finishes the conversation in rapid-fire fashion: “And I said, I thought I
told you, and she said, You told me you had an affair,
and I said, No I didn’t, we didn’t, not in that way, and
she said, I must have assumed, and I said, I can’t believe
all this time you’ve been thinking I went through with
it.” The final blow in the story is the mother’s last line, a
doubly-damning one: “You might as well have, she said.
It’s all the same in God’s eyes” (3-4). As we ping-pong
back and forth in this exchange, we realize the space we
readers inhabit in “Caught Up,” between sin and obedience and our cell phones, between a “spot just below
[our] navel[s]” and our mother’s lessons about God.
“Caught Up,” in other words, is quite a tangled story.
And the final teaser? It develops over three short pages.
I Want To Show You More is Jamie Quatro’s first collection of short stories, and it’s turning heads all the way
up to The New Yorker. Interestingly enough, Quatro —
whose literary pedigree includes an MA in English from
William and Mary, a stint at Princeton, and an MFA from
Bennington College — passed through the Dordt community when her husband taught here. (They now live in
Lookout Mountain, Georgia, where Scott Quatro teaches
at Covenant College). Jamie Quatro knows the reformed
faith and its faith communities, and many of her stories
have unmistakable connections to that Creation-FallRedemption-Consummation plot referenced in “Caught
Up.” Quatro’s final story in the collection, “Relatives
of God,” calls to mind the story of the fall in Genesis.
Another story, “Imperfections,” directly references Joseph
and Potiphar. Beneath the surface of “Imperfections” and
several other stories, too, is Christ’s injunction on lust,
that should a woman — er, man, which seems to be one
of Quatro’s points, to make us all look anew at the interiority of lust — look lustfully at another, she has already
committed adultery with him in her heart.
This is not to say that Quatro’s stories are primarily
about the spirit of the law when it comes to desire. To the
contrary, bodily desires are palpable and ever-present in
Quatro’s characters, and some of their cyber-urges seem
at times almost forced, intended to shock. No doubt that,
for the right audience, this sexual frankness — even brazenness — will be part of the book’s power. With an eye
on scripture, I Want To Show You More explores sexual
frontiers for the new millennium. In doing so, it will either feel fresh and timely, or make you reach for your fig
leaves.
The stories about affairs, it should be noted, make up
only one strand, albeit an important one, of the book’s
vision. Throughout all the stories of I Want To Show
You More, the body has a starring role: we’re constantly
reminded of bodily existences and impulses, from the
basic need to eat, to various sexual compulsions, several
of them involving the internet; from the size of specific
body parts, to the nature of the fluids produced at vari-
Pro Rege—March 2014
49
ous stages of bodily decay. Bodies in I Want To Show You
More get tattooed, they defecate in ditches while running
marathons, they transform under the rhythm of running,
they transform quite differently under the ruin of cancer,
they fall off cliffs to their deaths. No doubt in all this
bodily shock and awe, Quatro follows one of her selfnoted influences, Flannery O’Connor. (Others include
Alice Munro, Grace Paley, and Amy Hempel).
While most of this “bodiliness” dwells primarily in
a reality we recognize — at summer camp with physically- and emotionally-compromised adolescents, in the
suburbs with a depressed husband and self-assured wife,
at the lake home of a bereaved husband and his children
— three of the collection’s best stories begin in worlds we
think we recognize, before spinning us off into slightly
altered realities.
One of these stories, “Demolition,” follows the bizarre path that Lookout Mountain Church takes toward
what it thinks is enlightenment. A deaf man named
Corbett Earnshaw comes to the church one Sunday, and
as the congregation watches him being signed to, they become rapt. The signing “partook,” the narrator, an anonymous member of the congregation, tells us, “of the nature
of holiness itself: one man giving himself in surrender,
the other receiving in gratitude” (160). But almost immediately, two problems develop with Corbett Earnshaw.
The first is that, on the third week of his visits, the stained
glass of the church starts falling apart; the second is that,
on the same day, in the middle of the service, Corbett
Earnshaw declares that he doesn’t believe in Christianity
and never will. The church responds to this dastardly admonition in two ways. Officially, “The Elders declared
Corbett Earnshaw’s confession and departure either a)
evidence his soul was still unregenerate, or b) an act of
apostasy, but only if his soul was — and this was doubtful — regenerate to begin with.” A “faction” of the congregation, however, says “that God worked in all sorts of
ways, not only through what we considered our religious
life. . . In leaving us, they said, Corbett Earnshaw was
nearer to the real presence of Christ than he was before
he left” (162). It’s between these two opposing statements
— one of them seemingly formulaic and ancient, with its
unwieldy terms “unregenerate” and “apostasy” so distasteful to the postmodern mouth, and the other formulaic
in its own way, a relativist spin — that the story moves.
As the stained glass crumbles around the congregation
and swallows begin nesting in the beams of the church,
the revelation seems clear: “Authenticity, some of us said.
Our natural longing, revealed” (168).
For this reader at least, the supposed ideal of “authenticity” in the life of faith is at the heart of the collection
as a whole. At times it feels like I Want To Show You More
wants to move us toward authenticity through unabashed
honesty about the habits of our minds and sexual urges.
However, in “Demolition,” we get another side to this
“authenticity.” In the name of authenticity, the church
demolishes its sanctuary, moves worship to “the Natural
Bridge Park,” and finally turns sex into communal sacrament. By its end, “Demolition” is a kind of dystopic parable about “bodiliness,” about “word becoming flesh” but
then ceasing to be word. However, if you take the degree
of bodily yearning and desperation throughout the rest
of the book as somewhat accurate of the world in which
we live, the extreme events of “Demolition” don’t seem
that far off.
Nor is the antidote to the body-mind divide that
gives “Demolition” and many of Quatro’s stories their
energy: “A restlessness remains in our children,” the narrator tells us at the story’s end. “At night we hear them
singing, hymnlike strains bright with major harmonies”
(182). Below the contemporary confusion of many of
Quatro’s characters lies an understanding of the human
being as basically religiously oriented.
As a whole, I Want To Show You More looks certain
contemporary societal fascinations right in the eye, and
for this reason, some readers will want to look away. But
for those who allow themselves to get “caught up,” the
book’s tangles of love and lust, of sin and obedience and
cyberspace, should hit you somewhere between the gut
and the heart, which is exactly the bodily place that Jamie
Quatro seems to be aiming.
Brian Stanley, The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott, (History of
Evangelicalism, People, Movements and Ideas in the English-Speaking World, Volume V), Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013, paperback, ISBN: 978-0-8308-2585-1, and Northampton, England:
InterVarsity Press, 2013, hardback, ISBN: 978-1-84474-621-7, both 288 pp. incl. bibliography. Reviewed by
Keith C. Sewell, emeritus professor of history, Dordt College, living in Melbourne, Australia.
The demographic charts confirm what we already
know. The “redcoats” are not coming! Americans have
the British well and truly outnumbered — yet in some
matters the British remain capable of achievements that
exceed their proportional weight in population. Of the
five volumes of the A History of Evangelicalism sequence
published on both sides of the Atlantic by InterVarsity
50
Pro Rege—March 2014
Press, one is by an American, one by an Australian, and
three by Brits. One of the Brits is Brian Stanley, author
of the fifth volume, dealing with the period from 1945 to
the present day.
Known to some Pro Rege readers as the co-editor
of the Studies in the History of Christian Missions series
published by William B. Eerdmans, Stanley is Professor
of World Christianity at the University of Edinburgh,
Scotland, and Director of the Centre for the Study of World
Christianity at that university. Stanley’s volume, subtitled
The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott, evokes admiration, sympathy and something else besides.
There is certainly much here to admire. Stanley offers
an overview that is sure-footed because it is grounded in
an in-depth and detailed knowledge of the era. He is well
informed on Anglo-American developments, but also on
the immense changes in the “global south” — in Africa
and beyond, during and after the era of decolonization
(60). For example, his coverage of the East African revival is itself a fine summation of a complex development
(81-85). Stanley’s scope is global (e.g. 117-120, 200204) — and his account of the intense maneuvering in
connection with the 1974 Lausanne Congress is superb
(155-177).
As to the USA and Great Britain, the rift between
fundamentalists unwilling to participate in doctrinally
mixed “mainline” denominations, and evangelicals willing to do so, is present on both sides of the Atlantic, while
differently manifested on each side (28-37). Stanley’s presentation of the October 1966 confrontation between
Stott and Martyn Lloyd Jones (1899-1991) concerning
separation or participation is careful and measured (4952). Moreover, Stanley is on sure ground in insisting
that the globalization of (more or less fundamentalist)
American Evangelicalism is the hallmark of this period
(65-71), as marked initially by Billy Graham’s attainment
of “global celebrity status” (65). Stanley’s observation of
Americans — that, for them, the defense of the gospel
merged with the defense of the “free world” — merits
serious attention (62).
Along with his investigation of crusading activism,
Stanley addresses the recovery of evangelical biblical
scholarship from its low-point in the 1930s, through the
establishment of Tyndale House, Cambridge, and their
emulators in the US (94-98). But there were perils and
pitfalls for this scholarly recovery. James I. Packer (b.
1926) might utilize the teachings of “old Princeton” to
combat critics of Graham’s (actual or imagined) fundamentalism (42-43), but detailed and textually acute study
of the biblical texts, while they rarely overthrew belief in
their inspiration and authority, could challenge received
notions of infallibility and inerrancy (104-111). Hence
the profound internal struggles experienced by Fuller
Theological Seminary (36-38, 129-131) and within the
Southern Baptist Convention (110-111), as well as the
furor sparked within Anglican evangelicalism in 1982 by
the paper by James Dunn on “The Authority of Scripture
According to Scripture” (221). Evangelicals have been
slow to come to grips with the issues presented by philosophical hermeneutics (220-229), and they remain backward in the scholarly study of the Old Testament (97). All
these issues Stanley handles with the finesse of one who
not only understands the issues, but also the personalities
of the interlocutors.
Moreover, it is hard not to sympathize with the formidable task of authorial compression that writing a brief
history of evangelicalism in this period inevitably entails.
To provide an account of the “global diffusion” in the
twentieth century of a movement as profoundly variegated as contemporary evangelicalism, within the span of
less than three hundred pages, is as good as impossible. It
is therefore inevitable that Stanley will not satisfy everyone — his abridgement of some topics leaves the reader
crying out for further explanation.
This may be why, except for New Testament studies, Stanley insufficiently explores the inadequacies of
evangelical thought and scholarship. The vicissitudes
of the career of Francis Schaeffer (1912-84), and his
debt to both Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) and Hans
Rookmaaker (1922-77), are all discussed (122-128,
134-144), and Alvin Plantinga is rightly recognized
(139-142). However, although Dirk H. Th. Vollenhoven
(1892-1978) and Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977)
contributed to The Evangelical Quarterly (94-95) in its
early days, they do not appear in Stanley’s text, and neither does H. Evan Runner (1916-2002). This omission is
regrettable because they pointed the way to the reformation of evangelicalism itself. The omission is nevertheless
understandable, as Stanley only has room for those leaders and movements who have already made strong marks.
The contemporary evangelicalism that Stanley writes
about is now more diverse than ever (11), possibly approaching a point of disintegration (235). The already
formidable challenges of maintaining narrative coherence
multiply — seemingly exponentially — as soon as the
history of modern Pentecostalism and the trans-denominational impacts of the “charismatic movement” are
added to an already highly combustible evangelical-fundamentalist mix. All this, and more besides, Stanley capably addresses. He pays particular attention to how the
charismatics took a Pentecostal message into the evangelical heartland of America. Much here was fueled by the
evangelical hunger for “revival” and its conjunction with
the “latter rain” movement within the Assemblies of God
branch of denominational Pentecostalism (185-187).
In Stanley’s discussion of Pentecostalism, we encounter doctrines and movements strange and exotic for
those whose life and thought stand closer to the doctrine
and practice of the reformation. These include, for example, the global activities of Full Gospel Businessmen’s
Fellowship International (192); the widespread adoption
of charismatic styles in public worship (195-196); the rise
and decline of the “shepherding movement” (198-199);
the manifestations of the “Toronto blessing” (206-208);
and, not least, charismatic claims to have restored the
apostolic office to the institutional church (206-7, 239240).
Pro Rege—March 2014
51
Stanley has his reservations about at least some charismatic claims and practices (197, 208) but apparently
deems asking the tough questions about charismatic
claims to be beyond the purview of the historian (210).
Some American readers might find Stanley’s coverage
somewhat Anglo-centric. Nevertheless, they should persevere. What has happened in England has more than once
proved to be a harbinger of American developments. For
example, in respect of homosexuality, the recent apology
and closure of “Exodus International” in the US was in
some measure prefigured in the much earlier decision to
discontinue “Courage,” a comparable organization in the
UK (233).
Indeed, as Stanley’s narrative provokes respect for his
wide-ranging coverage, and sympathy for his predicament in having to account for such burgeoning complexity, his references to C.S. Lewis (124, 145-149) might
serve to jolt us out of the prevailing crusading evangelicalism paradigm to contemplate alternative possibilities for
England and beyond. It may be argued that, in the 1930s,
England — although still exhausted in the aftermath of
the first World War — saw the beginnings of an authentic Christian renewal. No human planning brought this
about. No corporate strategy was being implemented. No
pre-orchestrated crusade was swinging into action. This
process continued until the mid-1950s, through the horrors and privations of the Second World War, and into
and beyond the grim years of post-war austerity.
Consider the best-selling works of Lewis (18981963). These touched the lives of hundreds of thousands
in the British Isles and America. Recall: Out of the Silent
Planet (1938), The Abolition of Man (1943), The Great
Divorce (1945), That Hideous Strength (1945), Miracles
(1947), The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (1950), and
Mere Christianity (1952) — first given on British radio
in 1943. Consider also the powerful impact of Dorothy
Sayers (1893-1957), whose The Man Born to Be King
(1943) was also broadcast on radio. In her youth Sayers
repudiated evangelical pietism, but in her drama the call
to discipleship was arrestingly clear.
These were preceded by the widely influential book,
published under the pseudonym of Frank Morison, by
a man who set out to disprove the resurrection but who
came to believe in it, entitled Who Moved the Stone?
(1930). To this picture, we might add the lectures on
Christianity and History, given to crowds of students in
1948 by Herbert Butterfield (1900-79). Those were hard
52
Pro Rege—March 2014
days, but there was enough of a spiritual groundswell to
produce a new scripture translation. J.B. Phillips’ (190682), Letters to the Young Churches appeared in 1947 —
the full New Testament came later (1958). Phillips once
said that re-translating the New Testament was like rewiring a house with the electricity still on! And, there
was Bernard Lord Manning, the non-sectarian Protestant
Dissenter who commended the “strong air” of Calvin’s
teaching to his fellow countrymen.
While writers were something of a mixed bag, we
need to remember that no churchly tradition or doctrinal
persuasion can rightly claim the exclusive presence of the
Holy Spirit. What, arguably, both over-rode and harvested this rising spiritual tide were successive “Billy Graham
Evangelistic Crusades.” Research has shown that many
crusade “decisions” were affirmations or re-affirmations
made by persons already drawn into local church settings.
Stanley rightly notes evangelical apprehensions concerning the secularization of Anglophone, and not least
English, culture (13, 23), but the brutal reality is that,
in England, church numbers began their massive decline soon after the big Billy Graham crusades. It was at
just this point that the steep downturn in public commitment to Christianity commenced. Since the 1960s,
English Christianity has been in retreat, some highly
active enclaves notwithstanding. The typical evangelical
mix of fundamentalism and private piety (sometimes
laced with high doses of anti-intellectualism) has proved
incapable of addressing the mounting challenges of secularism. Unsure about how the Bible is to be read, evangelicals, as Stanley observes, are taken up with protracted
debates on women in office (213-220) and homosexuality (227-234), with post-evangelicals — including figures
as diverse as Brian McLaren and N.T. Wright — waiting
in the wings (243-246).
As it is, we are left to reflect on what might have been
if we had not had the Billy Graham style of crusading
evangelicalism, with its emulators and successors. Might
another kind of development have taken place? Possibly
a renewal that was deeper although less spectacular.
Certainly, we are now left with an evangelicalism that still
fits Graham’s description as “confused, bewildered, divided, and almost defeated” (237). For the future, Stanley
points us to the global south (247). What Christians
there will do with what they have inherited remains to
be seen. Meanwhile, Stanley’s valuable historical overview
provides all of us with a great deal to consider.
Submissions
We invite letters to the editor and articles, of between 2,500 and 8,000 words,
double-spaced, using MLA or Chicago Style Manual documentation. Subjects should be
approached from a Reformed Christian perspective and should treat issues, related to
education, in the areas of theology, history, literature, the arts, the sciences, the social
sciences, technology, and media. Please include a cover letter with your e-mail address
and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Send your submission to the following:
Pro Rege
c/o Dr. Mary Dengler, Editor
Dordt College
498 4th Ave. NE
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
Dordt College is a Christian liberal arts college in Sioux Center, Iowa, which believes
that the Bible is the infallible and inspired Word of God and which bases the education
it provides upon the Bible as it is explained in the Reformed creeds. Hence, the college
confesses that our world from creation to consummation belongs to God, that Jesus
Christ is the only way of salvation, and that true comfort and reliable strength can be
had only from his Holy Spirit.
Dordt College was established in 1955 and owes its continuing existence to a
community of believers that is committed to supporting Christian schools from
kindergarten through college. Believing in the Creator demands obedience to his principles
in all of life: certainly in education but also in everything from art to zoology.
The Dordt College community believes in the Word of God. God’s revelation in
word and deed finds its root in Jesus Christ, who is both Savior from our sin and Lord
over the heavens and the earth. The Bible reveals the way of salvation in Christ Jesus
and requires faithful thanksgiving to him as the Lord of life, especially when exploring,
coming to understand, and unfolding the diversity of creation.
Dordt College, in its many departments and programs, celebrates that diversity and
challenges students not merely to confess Christ with their mouth but to serve him with
their lives. Empowered by the strength of his Spirit, Dordt College stands ready to meet
the challenge of providing and developing serviceable insight for the people of God.
Pro Rege
A quarterly faculty publication of
Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa