The Academic Chatterati … Take 2

“Human institutions are really to be molded, not by Christian principles accepted by the unsaved, but by Christian men; the true transformation of society will come by the influence of those who have themselves been redeemed … [I]t is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race.”

J. Gresham Machen
Christianity & Liberalism — pg. 158-159

Carl Trueman looks to be attempting to walk back, somewhat, his latest adventure in letting his ideological slip show in this piece,

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/08/i-hope-to-be-proved-wrong-real.php

CT writes,

First, a clarification: I have no problem with the term ‘worldview’. I do have a problem with the term ‘Christian worldview’ because it is vague to the point of being philosophically useless even as it has proved rhetorically and politically useful. For example, it is surely the case that if you believe the bread and wine actually become the real body and real blood of Christ at communion, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe God elects based on foreseen merits rather than by mere grace, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe that believers’ children are part of the visible church, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe that disco music is a little taste of heaven on earth, that will affect (possibly profoundly) your view of the world. The list could go on but the point is clear: professing Christians disagree on all of these things and yet convictions on all of these things shape our view of the world. In short, there is really no such thing as ‘the Christian worldview’ in the singular; there is rather a variety of Christian worldviews. There may be a small core of beliefs that bind all Christians together; but that core is surely too small to provide anything approaching a comprehensive view of the world; and none of those few beliefs stand in ultimate isolation from the bigger doctrinal complex that is Christianity as we are taught it and believe it as individuals and as members of specific communions.

Bret inquires,

The term ‘Christian worldview’ is vague to the point of being philosophically useless? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian Worldviews posit the Creator – Creature distinction? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews talk about man’s depravity and God’s Sovereignty? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews insist that man only knows via revelation and not via tradition, intuition, or reason? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews adhere to a supernatural ontology? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews posit that man exists to glorify God and not himself? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews see history as linear and so embrace that this world has a teleology and a purpose?

Really, Dr. Trueman’s statement above gets as close as I’d like to get, as a Christian, to Pilate’s skepticism that asked, “What is Truth.”

Does it prove that there is no such thing as a Christian worldview all because Christians disagree on matters? Are we soon to doubt that there is no such thing as a Christian worldview position on sodomy all because many Christians deem sodomy as acceptable? I’ll readily agree that no one person has God’s Worldview but all because I agree with that, that doesn’t mean I will agree that we can cease talking about a Christian Worldview. Where there are differences then it is a matter of “to the law and to the Testimonies,” in order to hash out the matter.

In point of fact Dr. Trueman’s Christian Worldview is indeed singular it seems. For Dr. Trueman the singular Christian Worldview is one of skepticism regarding other Christians understanding of a singular Christian worldview.

Dr. Trueman writes,

Second, the basic point in my post was, of course, not that Christianity has never made a difference to society. Kuyper did make a difference (which I never denied) as did others — e.g., Thomas Chalmers, William Wilberforce, George Muller, Thomas Guthrie; but even acknowledging that, the lack of proportion between the rhetoric of some of today’s transformationalists compared to what they are actually achieving is really rather embarrassing.

Bret responds,

In this paragraph Carl obfuscates what he said from his initial offering. In his initial offering he said,

“And Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society. Just visit Amsterdam today, if you can bear the pornographic filth even in those areas where the lights are not all red.”

Carl used that statement to suggest that the thinking that Transformation is an inevitable consequence of Reformation thinking is misguided.

Second, the point isn’t our success. One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase. It is not to us who are planters and waterers to dictate to God how he gives or does not give “actual achievement.”

Third, is “actual achievement” really the standard here, as if it is the case that if Transformers are not a Chalmers, Kuyper, or Calvin that somehow therefore they are an embarrassment? Look, I’m all for blowhards being cut down to size but the lack of “actual achievement” can hardly be counted as embarrassment. If the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church then we have to allow that “actual achievement” is not always the gold standard of Transformation.

Carl writes,

The best way to prove me wrong, of course, is… to transform society. I would indeed love to be not only proved wrong but to be proved so wrong that I am shamed into never writing another word of cultural commentary (and I am sure many readers will join me in saying ‘Amen!’ to that). Living in a world where the worst that happens is that I receive critical pushback on a blog post is one thing; living in a world where Christians cannot rent space in order to worship on a Sunday, where millions of abortions take place every year, andmolesworth_reasonably_small.jpg where every ethical value I hold dear is routinely mocked or ignored or characterised as ‘hate’ is quite another. I know in which world I would rather live; thus, I look forward to the transformation of the latter into the former by my critics and truly wish them well in their endeavour.

Bret responds,

Once again Carl takes us on an adventure of missing the point. Carl is again confusing “is” with “ought.” He’s confusing God’s providence with our calling as Christians. It is not in my bailiwick that culture is actually transformed. That is God’s bailiwick. My bailiwick is being faithful to the task to being salt and light regardless of what God providentially ordains for the times and seasons of my life. I absolutely pray that God would be pleased to give Reformation, and so Transformation, but I can’t manipulate it into existence. However, if God would prefer the Church to be persecuted because of it’s faithful stand as opposed to preferring the Church to see Reformation that persecution does not deny that Transformation is the effect of the Gospel eventually where the Gospel takes root.

_________________

Sidenote — Here is a link to a piece that examines how Carl’s worldview has been shaped. I found it most helpful in understanding why the man writes what he writes.

http://www.unashamedofthegospel.org/reflections_carl_trueman.cfm