Posts
Over at White Horse Inn, Jason Stellman and Daryl Hart respond to my post about the strengths and weaknesses of two kingdom theology v. neo-Kuyperianism. Stellman, a PCA pastor in the Seattle area, and Hart, a scholar and elder in the OPC, give a good defense/explanation of two kingdom theology. I appreciate their clarifications and commend their responses to you. I don't think I disagree with any of their comments.
If I had one area of pushback it would be to talk a little bit more about whether the church is ever justified in directly engaging a political issue and/or calling for a specific area of "positive change" in the community. I benefited from Hart's book Secular Faith (more than I thought I might) and quoted from it in Why We're Not Emergent. I agree that except in rare cases, the church as church should refrain from making pronouncements on political issues, but I think there are some cases (i.e. slavery in the South, Hitler in Germany, apartheid in South Africa, abortion in the West) where silence from the pulpit is cowardice. It's very possible Stellman and Hart agree with me on this; I'm not sure.
To give one example, I have said clearly from the pulpit that abortion is sinful (as the arises from the text) and have prayed in pastoral prayers for its legality to be overturned. But I have never said from the pulpit who people should vote for or who I vote for. Nor do I exhort everyone to "do something about abortion." We don't all have the same vocation, as Hart points out. But I would certainly encourage people to consider what God might be calling them to do about this injustice: pray, adopt, volunteer, advocate for change, etc.
Further, if a church started an adoption ministry I would say that this is probably a good thing. A chuch doesn't have to start such a ministry to prove they care about abortion. There are a hundred other ways to care about this issue by means of other programs or no programs at all. But if some people from our church wanted to start an adoption program we would not be opposed in principle to making this an official minisntry of the church (though, we don't automatically turn everyone's good idea into a ministry either; there are a number of factors to consider). Some two-kingdom people I talk to (and really I am more 2K than not) seem opposed to any program in the church besides the weekly worship service and pastoral care. This strikes me as a good instinct taken too far.
Do read the two pieces from WHI. They are very helpful
Jason Stellman here.
Daryl Hart here.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
White Horse Inn Weighing in on 2K
Over at White Horse Inn, Jason Stellman and Daryl Hart respond to my post about the strengths and weaknesses of two kingdom theology v. neo-Kuyperianism. Stellman, a PCA pastor in the Seattle area, and Hart, a scholar and elder in the OPC, give a good defense/explanation of two kingdom theology. I appreciate their clarifications and commend their responses to you. I don't think I disagree with any of their comments.
If I had one area of pushback it would be to talk a little bit more about whether the church is ever justified in directly engaging a political issue and/or calling for a specific area of "positive change" in the community. I benefited from Hart's book Secular Faith (more than I thought I might) and quoted from it in Why We're Not Emergent. I agree that except in rare cases, the church as church should refrain from making pronouncements on political issues, but I think there are some cases (i.e. slavery in the South, Hitler in Germany, apartheid in South Africa, abortion in the West) where silence from the pulpit is cowardice. It's very possible Stellman and Hart agree with me on this; I'm not sure.
To give one example, I have said clearly from the pulpit that abortion is sinful (as the arises from the text) and have prayed in pastoral prayers for its legality to be overturned. But I have never said from the pulpit who people should vote for or who I vote for. Nor do I exhort everyone to "do something about abortion." We don't all have the same vocation, as Hart points out. But I would certainly encourage people to consider what God might be calling them to do about this injustice: pray, adopt, volunteer, advocate for change, etc.
Further, if a church started an adoption ministry I would say that this is probably a good thing. A chuch doesn't have to start such a ministry to prove they care about abortion. There are a hundred other ways to care about this issue by means of other programs or no programs at all. But if some people from our church wanted to start an adoption program we would not be opposed in principle to making this an official minisntry of the church (though, we don't automatically turn everyone's good idea into a ministry either; there are a number of factors to consider). Some two-kingdom people I talk to (and really I am more 2K than not) seem opposed to any program in the church besides the weekly worship service and pastoral care. This strikes me as a good instinct taken too far.
Do read the two pieces from WHI. They are very helpful
Jason Stellman here.
Daryl Hart here.
If I had one area of pushback it would be to talk a little bit more about whether the church is ever justified in directly engaging a political issue and/or calling for a specific area of "positive change" in the community. I benefited from Hart's book Secular Faith (more than I thought I might) and quoted from it in Why We're Not Emergent. I agree that except in rare cases, the church as church should refrain from making pronouncements on political issues, but I think there are some cases (i.e. slavery in the South, Hitler in Germany, apartheid in South Africa, abortion in the West) where silence from the pulpit is cowardice. It's very possible Stellman and Hart agree with me on this; I'm not sure.
To give one example, I have said clearly from the pulpit that abortion is sinful (as the arises from the text) and have prayed in pastoral prayers for its legality to be overturned. But I have never said from the pulpit who people should vote for or who I vote for. Nor do I exhort everyone to "do something about abortion." We don't all have the same vocation, as Hart points out. But I would certainly encourage people to consider what God might be calling them to do about this injustice: pray, adopt, volunteer, advocate for change, etc.
Further, if a church started an adoption ministry I would say that this is probably a good thing. A chuch doesn't have to start such a ministry to prove they care about abortion. There are a hundred other ways to care about this issue by means of other programs or no programs at all. But if some people from our church wanted to start an adoption program we would not be opposed in principle to making this an official minisntry of the church (though, we don't automatically turn everyone's good idea into a ministry either; there are a number of factors to consider). Some two-kingdom people I talk to (and really I am more 2K than not) seem opposed to any program in the church besides the weekly worship service and pastoral care. This strikes me as a good instinct taken too far.
Do read the two pieces from WHI. They are very helpful
Jason Stellman here.
Daryl Hart here.
