The Irradical Reformed

Posted on | July 29, 2009 | 2 Comments

If you have some time, and enjoy dabbling in intra-Reformed squabbles over political theology, you should check out the discussion between Darryl Hart and neo-Calvinist David Koyzis (parts one, two, three, and four). Hart sparked the debate with a seemingly innocuous post about limiting the practical domain of divine revelation; that is, can we honestly “apply” Scripture to every academic discipline? This skepticism is nothing new, of course, even within the more fundamentalist or idealist Reformed circles. But what is interesting to me is the recent Reformed fascination with recovering our own natural law tradition. While the Reformed emphasis on the two-kingdoms does share much with the neo-Thomists, it also possesses a far more pessimistic view of human nature. Perhaps this is why Catholic Thomists still emphasize the “good” of the polis, while Reformed two-kingdoms adherents often lack a similar motivation (more on this in a moment).

At the risk of over-generalizing, I’d say that the Reformed community is split down the middle between realist two-kingdom adherents and the more idealist Kuyperians. In his most recent response to Hart, Koyzis pointed out the tenuous nature of Hart’s counter-argument, which was that the historical failure of the Dutch neo-Calvinist state suggests that its preoccupation with worldly institutions leads necessarily to a neglect of the church. As Koyzis points out, Hart pulls out the old slippery slope cliché without fully explaining the logical connection between neo-Calvinism and ecclesial decline. The primary support which Hart offers for his thesis is an alleged neglect of the sacraments within neo-Calvinist circles. (I’ve heard anecdotal evidence both for and against this charge.)

While my sympathies tend toward Koyzis, I do think the debate may highlight some categorical deficiencies within contemporary Reformed conversations about political theology. These comments are only preliminary, but I’d like to keep them on the table for discussion.

  • Contemporary two-kingdoms theorists seem to argue from a purely negative point of view. As Hart says, they have no hopes for any political solutions this side of the eschaton, so why try and apply divine revelation? But outside the Reformed enclave, other realist political theologies at least attempt to grapple with the concept of political justice and “goodness.” Niebuhr, despite all his detractors, didn’t shrink from the polis. And the early Reformers all had fascinatingly complex relationships with their magisterial counterparts (the application of two-kingdoms theory apparently meant something very different to Luther and Calvin than it does to contemporary advocates). I believe that if two-kingdoms theorists actually began to engage contemporary political theory, they might find it more difficult to maintain their present eschatological indifference. I’m not convinced they are completely self-aware about their own presuppositions, nor historical lineage.

  • On the other hand, I do think that the neo-Calvinists might benefit from an infusion of a full-orbed ecclesiology. While anecdotal evidence is often incomplete and unfair, the historical record of neo-Calvinism is troubling. I would love to see contemporary neo-Calvinists question some of the fundamental tenets of Kuyperianism. What does it mean for the church to be in the world? How does the gospel disrupt the social order? Who is first in the Kingdom, and what place does force have in a Christian society, if any? Kuyperianism sets the church beside the state and the family, and therefore, I’d suggest, accepts the same fundamental spatial distinction that characterizes the neo-Thomists and two-kingdoms theorists. And because both sides share the same presuppositions, I question whether this debate is nearly radical enough.

Comments

2 Responses to “The Irradical Reformed”

  1. Joel
    September 23rd, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

    Do you read Jordan and Leithart?

  2. Davey Henreckson
    September 24th, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

    Joel,

    To say that I’m a fan of both would be inadequate.

Leave a Reply





About

Theopolitical is the weblog of Davey Henreckson, a graduate student in theology at the University of Notre Dame. Topics of conversation are political and historical theology, with semi-frequent forays into literature, economics, localism, and the divine American sport -- baseball.

Subscribe to this blog

Search

Davey Henreckson's currently-reading book recommendations, reviews, favorite quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists

Categories

Admin