Michael, many Christians today believe that we can only justify art, science, music or entertainment in terms of their spiritual value or evangelistic usefulness. Are the arts only valuable because they can be used in evangelism, or do these fields of knowledge exist in their own right?
Yes, I think these fields of knowledge and endeavour exist in their own right. We see this in the earliest history of the human race where culture undergoes some significant development in the line of Cain. Cain, as you know, built the city of Enoch. This happened after he murdered his brother. The Bible writer tells us that God gave him protection so that he could build the city, thereby giving it its own distinctive culture (Gen 4:15). In the genealogy listed in 4:18-22, we discover that some of Cain’s descendants were responsible for developing the fields of metallurgy, engineering, music and animal husbandry. All of these are significant cultural achievements. The interesting thing is that God allows these developments to occur through his common grace, even though they originated in a city renowned for its violence and wickedness. If God had dealt with Cain on the basis of strict justice by punishing him with death, then it’s possible that these cultural developments may never have taken place. It seems that they occurred because of God’s common grace.
But how do you answer Christians who say that these cultural developments came from the ungodly line of Cain? They point to the line of Seth, which was distinguished by its worship, and say that we ought to be devoted to church-related activities rather than general cultural pursuits.
Well, I would remind them that Christians are always citizens of two cities. God’s providence often has Christians in different circumstances, so our responses to situations will vary depending on where the Lord has placed us. For instance, think of Daniel and how God used him in extraordinary ways in Babylon: God located him in the court of Nebuchadnezzar.
What interests me here is that Daniel’s spiritual influence with the king is not lessened because of his secular education and training. He was a leading scholar in the Babylonian academy, just as Joseph had been in Pharaoh’s court. In both Daniel and Joseph, we have examples of believers being faithful to the Lord and yet also being able to participate in the common culture of the nation. When Daniel refused to surrender to the culture of Babylon, he only did so in the area of religion. He refused to surrender his faith in Yahweh, or compromise that faith through the cultic idolatry in which he was expected to participate. I think that Daniel is a great example for us here. Being a Christian doesn’t mean that we have to renounce every aspect of popular culture and learning. It just means that if we are involved in secular education (whether the arts or sciences), we should think about our new-found knowledge from a Christian viewpoint.
Obviously the examples of Joseph and Daniel are influential guides on this issue, but is there any theological justification for thinking that Christians can embrace the arts and sciences?
It’s interesting that when John Calvin criticized the radical Anabaptists (who, by and large, rejected secular culture), he said that all of the gifts we find in secular culture are given by the Holy Spirit. It really is a remarkable statement. When we normally think of the Holy Spirit’s work, we usually confine it to the sphere of the church. Yet Calvin (and, I think, with good exegetical support) regarded the Spirit as being at work in creation, providence and redemption. In other words, the Holy Spirit’s work in the world extends well beyond the work of salvation.
This means that when science comes upon a great discovery that alleviates a particular disease, we should send up our praises to God. We need to recognize that the Holy Spirit is active in the creation, and still upholds everything through Christ’s providence. Once we realize that, we are no longer required to have a Bible verse to justify every great work of art. Nor do films have to include a compulsory conversion scene to validate them in the eyes of Christians. In fact, God doesn’t have to be mentioned explicitly anywhere to make a work of art or science legitimate. For instance, while the book of Esther contains no explicit reference to God, his presence is assumed everywhere throughout it. Nor does the Song of Solomon have to be allegorized as a love story about Christ and his church. It’s possible that it’s just a celebration of human life. Our problem is that we want to elevate creation above creation. We automatically think that there’s something that’s wrong with creation; we’ve got to ‘Christianize’ it in some way. Actually, the problem is in our thinking. The Bible says that the creation itself is fine; the real problem is that, as a result of our sin, creation has been subjected to bondage and death. So creation, as a sphere, is not sinful or evil; it’s just that what is good is a perpetual victim of human sin and distortion.
And Christians are part of that too. We often think that Christians must be always right and good. Well, I’ve got some news for people who think like that: have they forgotten that it was a very pious and devout Christian like Kaiser Wilhelm who developed Germany’s war policy of ‘Deutschland uber Alles’? Again, Otto von Bismarck is another example: he went to church and was supposedly an evangelical pietist. Well, thanks for two World Wars. We’ll send you the bill! Christians often have this mistaken view that if only Christians were in charge, things would be going well. Well, it’s just not so. Christians can make a mess of things. There have been a lot of times when Christians were in charge, and it hasn’t gone well. I’m firmly with Luther on this one: I’d rather be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian!
Calvin also made another interesting point: he said that God has given special gifts and insights to people. He poses the question, “Are we going to say that the investigations of the astronomers are the ravings of mad men? Are we going to say that those who invented medicine for our use aren’t profitable because they’re not converted? Are we going to say that those who wrote great literature are utterly devoid of anything beautiful and sound in their thinking?” Here both Calvin and Luther offer a helpful distinction. They remind us that we need to keep in mind the difference between things earthly and heavenly.
Obviously, when it comes to heavenly things, non-Christians are devoid of understanding. As Paul says, “no one seeks after God, no not even one” (Rom 3:11). Nor do they understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14). However, in things earthly, they can still get a lot done. And when you’re looking for a good architect for a building, you might want to make sure that you find the best architect, not just the most devout one. I remember that my dad, who was a very devout Christian, often said that he never used the Christian Yellow Pages. He said he had been burned so many times by people with a fish on their business card that the ‘Christian Yellow Pages’ was basically a guide to people you shouldn’t do business with. I know he was exaggerating, but there was enough truth in what he said to make us all have a chuckle. I think everyone understands what he was talking about.
Unfortunately, there’s an idea in some Christian circles in America that it’s all right to do a sloppy job for another Christian. Business often circulates among members of the church, and you normally feel duty-bound to hire a plumber who says he’s a Christian. Personally, I have found it wonderfully liberating to say, “You know, the Bible says that God has called us to be good plumbers, not just to have a Christian plumbing business”. Someone once asked Luther, “What will happen if you throw all the monks out of the monastery and make them work for a living? How will their work be Christian?” And Luther said, “Well, maybe they can make a good shoe and sell it at a fair price!”
Here Luther gives us the foundation of a good work ethic: it’s based on the theology of vocation. The problem with so many evangelicals today is that they don’t feel that they are ‘called’ to anything unless they are engaged in full-time church ministry. However, the Bible says that everyone has a ‘calling’. Our trouble in the church today is that we have gone back to a Roman Catholic understanding of vocation and calling. We think that ‘calling’ or ‘vocation’ only refers to ‘full or part-time ministry’ in a church or para-church context. But that’s completely wrong and contrary to the teaching of the Reformation. I am surprised that evangelicals have bought it.
Christians see full-time evangelistic activity and missionary work as being of fundamental importance. But why do they have such difficulty in seeing ordinary callings as being worthwhile in the same way?
It’s all to do with our faulty view of creation. It’s an area that we haven’t thought about enough. For instance, when we present the gospel to people, we almost always start with the Fall and redemption. But can we really understand the Fall unless we start with creation? Prior to the Fall, nothing that God created was evil in its essence or inferior to anything else. When Adam was tilling the soil or when Eve was going about her daily work, were they conscious that this work was inferior to their acts of formal praise and worship? I don’t think so. The problem is that since the Fall, we all know there’s something wrong. However, the difficulty is not with the creation; it’s with sin. It’s not that certain things that God made are now off-limits, but that everything that God has made has been plunged into corruption because of our sin.
Christians should have a positive view of the creation because Jesus tells us to look forward to the restoration of all things, which includes the resurrection of the body. Our hope is not to die on earth and go to heaven in some spirit-form; our hope is the resurrection of the body in the life everlasting. This is a very tangible hope. It is the reality of a creation restored that also basks in the everlasting peace and Sabbath rest of God. This is something Adam never reached. However, the second Adam has entered into that for us, and will bring us with him in glory. And so, “the whole creation”, Paul says, “is waiting for that day with us” (Rom 8:23). It will be a glorious day. If you have a theology that doesn’t have much time for creation, then you are probably not thinking much about the new heavens and earth. However, if you have a strong theology of creation and renewal, then you are more likely to take your work in this world seriously.
It’s interesting that Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, “Make it your ambition to live a quiet life, mind your own business, and work well with your hands so that you’ll win the respect of outsiders and have something to give to those in need”. Now, I know that doesn’t seem like a very ambitious and world-transforming recipe, but it does remind us that we can be highly effective witnesses through our vocations. I think it’s really striking that he said, “mind your own business; don’t turn your office into an evangelistic headquarters. Sure, be a witness wherever God has placed you, but don’t think that somehow you have to convert your business into a ‘Christian organization’ in order for it to be a blessing to people.”
Unfortunately, we’ve forgotten that non-Christians can be a blessing to others when they fulfill their callings well. They are called to their vocations every bit as much as Christians are. Therefore, when they carry out their callings with excellence, they’re serving and blessing us. They’re a blessing of God’s common grace. And so we should receive gratefully whatever non-Christians produce that is good, true and beautiful.
Can you give us some examples of how Christians have taken their calling seriously and have actually transformed the culture around them through the way they have done their work?
Sure. There’s the great epistle to Diognetus in the second century that expresses beautifully the view of the early Christians. The writer says Christians don’t differ outwardly from non-Christians; they participate in many of the same functions; they stand side-by-side at the office (I’m paraphrasing here), and yet they have a hope that non-Christians don’t share. Basically he’s saying that in outward circumstances such as language, dress and appearance, Christians look much the same as others, but when it comes to the things that really drive us, they couldn’t be more different.
What I find so interesting in the church today is that the opposite is the case: Christians nowadays tend to be very distinctive in their style, language and dress. For example, Christians might wear certain T-shirts and use a certain language—“Brother, are you saved? ” To somebody who has never been inside a church, this seems strange and cultish. What does concern me is that at the very time that Christians are being identified by external factors, our churches are becoming less distinctively Christian. This means that our distinctiveness now rests in external matters rather than in our commitment to the ministry of the Word and sacrament. This is exactly the reverse of what was happening in the early church. Back then, the reason why the early Romans thought that Christians were strange was because of their faith and practice, not their lingo, dress and style.
Did the Reformers ever set out to transform their culture?
No. I think it’s important to remember that that was not the Reformation’s aim. Christendom had already tried that at an earlier time, and Calvin called it the ‘contrived’ empire. It’s a good lesson to remember if we ever feel tempted to turn our nations into Christian republics. There has only ever been one ‘holy’ republic in the history of redemption, and that was Israel. And we know what happened there. So in this ‘in between’ time, there are no Christian nations; there is no such thing as ‘redemptive politics’. Every government set up on earth—even Nero’s—is actually instituted by God. This was one of the major contributions of the Reformers; they realized the legitimacy of secular government, of secular business and of secular art and literature. From the Reformation onwards, painters no longer had to receive their daily bread from commissions through the church. They were now employed by merchants or, as in the case of Rembrandt, they worked for various trade guilds. The church was no longer the principal patron in Protestantism, and so painters were now free to paint whatever interested them. They were no longer duty-bound to produce only ‘Christian art’. Incidentally, this allowed artists to thrive in their secular callings, and it also reduced the opportunity for churches to be adorned with idolatry.
This meant that the Reformers never tried to transform culture into ‘Christian’ culture; rather, they sought to liberate culture—not in a godless way, but so that it could exist in its own right. For example, the Reformers thought it was legitimate for artists to paint pictures of people or natural scenes without introducing some religious setting in order to justify them as pieces of art. This is something that Christians need to learn again today. Christians can engage in work and service for reasons other than evangelism.
The Reformers believed that Christians demonstrate their faith best by being really good at their callings and showing that their true motive at work is to love their neighbours by serving them well. There are a lot of Christians today who think that the only reason for having non-Christian friends is so that we can lead them to Christ. Again, some Christians believe that the only reason why we should work in a non-Christian workplace is because it gives us a good opportunity to witness. Others think, “If I help my neighbour fix his roof, maybe I’ll have a chance to share the gospel with him”. Have they ever bothered to think that it would be okay to help their neighbour fix his roof because it was leaking? What a liberating concept! This is especially so because non-Christians can smell ulterior motives a mile away. Most Christians have never realized that they might actually have more luck having conversations about the gospel if they just fixed their neighbour’s roof because it needed repair. I like the line by Luther when he says, “God doesn’t need your good works; your neighbour does”. What a relief that is! It’s so true. God doesn’t need me to do things for other people so that I can get points; it’s my neighbour who needs me.
What are some of the approaches that Christians have taken towards culture throughout the history of the church?
Actually, I have written about this in my book, Where in the World is the Church? There I outlined a number of different approaches that Christians have taken towards ‘culture’—that is, the ‘tastes’ of a particular people—throughout different periods of history. I based my analysis on an earlier work—Christ and Culture by Richard Niebuhr from Yale University. Niebuhr used a number of sweeping typologies to describe these approaches which make it easier for us to get our heads around the different views.
The first view that he dealt with was ‘Christ Against Culture’. This tended to be the view of the earliest Christians because they experienced such intense persecution. It’s hard to have a very optimistic view about your impact on the culture when you’re being fed to the lions! Tertullian expressed the early church’s attitude in his famous saying, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?” In later times, the Anabaptists took this view during the Reformation when they largely retreated from any involvement with society, and refused to be in the army or participate in public life. Christians who hold this view are suspicious of culture and the arts. Basically, their attitude is, “This world is going to hell, so let’s go out and rescue it”. It’s summed up by DL Moody’s saying, “The Lord has given me a life raft and I need to save as many as I can”.
At other end of the spectrum is the view ‘The Christ of Culture’. Those who take this approach tend to equate Christ with their particular culture. For them, Christ simply embodies the prevailing values of their society. When Christians in America think that our nation is a Christian country, they have equated Christ with western secular values. It’s what I call ‘cultural Christianity’. When church leaders in Nazi Germany pledged allegiance to Hitler and supported his nationalistic plans for the Fatherland, they expressed the same view.
A third view is what Niebuhr describes as ‘Christ Above Culture’. This view is a bit more nuanced than the previous ones as it suggests neither antagonism nor assimilation. It is the Christendom model where the church stands over the culture and tells it what to do. It’s an attempt to synthesize Christ and culture without actually ‘baptizing’ the culture. Niebuhr thinks that Thomas Aquinas, the medieval theologian, is the best exponent of this view.
Niebuhr’s fourth option is what he calls ‘Christ and Culture in Paradox’, which he describes as the Lutheran view. However, I am not convinced that it’s necessarily limited to Lutheranism. This view says that every Christian is a citizen of two cities—the City of God and the City of Man. Each of these spheres is separate, and they have different purposes. Luther expressed this idea in his doctrine of the ‘two kingdoms’. On this model, one cannot coerce faith, nor can one accommodate faith to secular modes of thought. However, it’s possible to live out one’s faith in the light of special revelation so that the wider culture can experience the influence of Christianity. Calvin and Augustine also expressed similar ideas.
The last view is called ‘Christ, the Transformer of Culture’. People who hold this view are under no illusion that human culture will be completely transformed by Christian influence this side of heaven, however they do expect partial victories from time to time. Furthermore, they believe that since God is both creator and redeemer, he not only renews souls, but is interested in making everything new. This is the view of Augustine, Calvin and the Reformed tradition.
I think we can dispose of the first three views pretty easily. But how about ‘Christ and Culture in Paradox’ and ‘Christ Transforming Culture’? I think the Reformed approach includes aspects of both, but I think the ‘Christ and Culture in Paradox’ expresses some important truths that we need to hold to in order to keep a realistic view of life in the here and now and what we can expect in the future. We sometimes get overwhelmed with our sense of importance and forget that Jesus said that in this intervening period, the wheat and the weeds grow together, and will be separated only at the end when he returns. So this isn’t the period when we transform the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of Christ; it’s the period in which we participate in the joys and sorrows of this fallen world. And in this intervening period until Christ returns, we are to participate as citizens of two cities. It’s that dual citizenship we often forget; we want to transform one into the other.
So what do you think is the prevailing mood in modern Evangelicalism?
Oh, it’s definitely ‘Christ Transforming Culture’. That’s certainly the view in American Revivalism. Charles Finney said that the church is a society of moral reformers, and revivalism has really given us the Christian Left and the Christian Right in America. Ironically, in my judgement, both the religious Left and the religious Right go back to Charles Finney.
What essentially is wrong with those positions?
Well, I think, first of all, they’re completely consistent with the theology that undergirds them. The problem is that Finney’s beliefs were heretical. He mistakenly believed that people are not inherently sinful; all we need are a few good rules to follow. Furthermore, he said that Christ’s death was not a substitutionary atoning sacrifice for helpless sinners. Instead, he claimed that God forgave people based on their repentance. He even went so far as to claim that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is another gospel. He said that we have to regenerate ourselves. In every sense of the word, he was a Pelagian.
What is interesting is that the former disgraced president of the National Association of Evangelicals Ted Haggard shared Finney’s theology. That was why I wasn’t surprised that Haggard said in an interview with Christianity Today that he was happy to announce that he had a weekly conference call with the President to speak on behalf of evangelicals. He said he encouraged him on the war in Iraq and urged him to spread American democracy around the world. He also said that America has a unique role in the world to bring peace, capitalism and free enterprise to the ends of the earth. You’ve got to hand it to him, don’t you? He’s at least consistent with his theology. However, what troubles me even more are Reformed people who have this cheery, optimistic view about how they’re going to transform the government, the arts, the sciences, the entertainment industry, as well as sports and education, into citadels of Christ’s kingdom. It just seems to me that if the Holy Spirit is the author of all that is true, good and beautiful in the world (even in non-Christians), then we should neither renounce culture nor attempt to transform culture into something cultic.
What implication does your understanding of this issue have for Christian schooling?
Ooh, you had to go there, didn’t you! Of course, the ‘Christ Transforming the Culture’ model (especially as it is identified with Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian) has played a big role in the Christian school movement, especially in the USA. I have a lot of respect for Kuyper and for Christian schools: they have played a significant role in shaping the lives of so many young people. However, I don’t believe that pastors and elders should require Christian parents to send their kids to Christian schools just because they claim to be Christian. In my opinion, it’s a wisdom issue; it’s a matter of prudence.
In my experience, having been a student in both Christian schools and public schools in the same town in northern California, the Christian school I attended was more debilitating and corrosive to genuine faith than the public school. At least in the public school I knew that the teachers weren’t Christians, and I had to be on my guard and know what I believed. The problem in the Christian school, which was very Arminian in its theology, was that although there was a lot of talk about the Bible, it was distorted in serious ways, and this led to some tremendous problems and crises in many of our lives. I can’t remember many kids who went to that school who remained committed Christians once they went to the public high school.
To what extent should Christians try to engage the world intellectually? For example, is it a sign of compromise if a Christian studies philosophy?
No, it’s not. The simple fact is that some of the greatest theologians in the history of the church were trained in philosophy. Some of the greatest philosophers in the history of civilization were trained in theology. There hasn’t always been antagonism between philosophy and religion. For example, the current president of the American Philosophical Association is Alvin Plantinga, an evangelical Christian. He’s president of the American Philosophical Association because he is an excellent philosopher.
If we follow Paul’s advice to the Thessalonians to “live quietly, mind our own affairs, work with our hands so as to win the respect of outsiders, and provide for others’ needs”, then we have done everything we need to with respect to our vocations. This is how we serve God and our neighbours. So it’s possible to serve God using your mind as a philosopher. Many Christians are doing this today in the United States. Some of them have reputations as leading thinkers.
Obviously, there will be times when Christian philosophers will find themselves in conflict with the academy. If that happens, then we have to dare to be a Daniel: we have to stand up for what we believe. As Reformed Christians, we believe that there is no such thing as a neutral intellectual position. All of our thinking is shaped by our ultimate presuppositions, but not all of those presuppositions have to be explicit in our work. A Christian working for a pharmaceutical lab may go to work presupposing such things as creation, fall and redemption. However, she may never publish that in a journal, and may never have the opportunity to express it to her colleagues. Of course, she may get opportunities to witness to Christ at work, but that’s certainly not the reason why she should think that her vocation is meaningful.
Do Christians compromise themselves when they use non-theological sources of knowledge like medicine or psychology to help themselves cope better with life and some of its more traumatic experiences?
Well, I think that we face certain dangers when we are dealing with sources of knowledge that are non-scriptural. One of them, to which pastors are particularly prone, is to abandon their specialized knowledge that comes from Scripture, and give away that domain of authority to other so-called experts. For instance, pastors too easily relinquish matters of spiritual care to experts in human psychology. For instance, if one of our parishioners is receiving psychological counselling and is being told, “You shouldn’t feel guilty because you’re not really responsible”, then as pastors we should be very concerned about that. I would certainly want to uphold a scriptural view of guilt and how we should deal with it. Actually, pastors are better authorities on that question because God speaks directly on the matter.
However, when it comes to diagnosing certain disorders (especially those that fall more typically within the province of medicine), pastors must recognize their limitations. Sometimes that’s difficult. Although I’m not engaged in regular counselling as a minister, pastors often tell me that this is a pressing problem for them. They want to know when to acknowledge their limitations. This area is fraught with problems, especially when pastors can be sued for giving wrong advice if someone gets hurt as a result of it. Don’t forget that if a jury of your peers can convict you of criminal negligence through offering certain advice, then there’s something wrong with a theory that says there’s a spiritual answer for every question. If we were only spirits and our problems were only of a spiritual nature, then we’d have no difficulty. However, we have both physical and spiritual sides to us and that makes us complex creatures. Furthermore, sin is an equally complex phenomenon: we can sin as well as be sinned against. Sometimes that requires medical treatment; sometimes it requires revisiting the circumstances of our past that led us to becoming victims. It’s very easy to criticize the culture of victimization, but we also have to be careful that we don’t trample over people who really are victims. Sometimes we’re not competent to assess that.
Is it possible that someone like Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, who analyzed the various stages of dying, may have something to contribute to pastoral care as a person approaches the end of their earthly life?
Not necessarily. To be able to describe the various phases of death is not the same as providing hope and comfort in the face of it. This is an area where I imagine that Christian pastors are better equipped than anyone else. Pastors may not be trained for many other eventualities, but this is one where they really do have something positive to say. I know that there is now a trend for others to challenge the involvement of pastors at events like weddings and funerals. However, I think it’s important for pastors to retain their traditional functions with respect to those who are dying. I know some pastors think they’re too busy to be handling lots of funerals, but if we’re too busy to comfort the dying and the grieving, then we’re too busy, because that’s our ministry. Pastors ought to be specialists in dying. They should be more specialized in that field than any psychologist.
However, I am not saying that pastors have nothing to learn from secular disciplines such as psychology. However, I think it’s very important for us as pastors and lay people to be thoroughly trained in these areas so that we really know how to bring people the best pastoral care available. This means that we have to be thoroughly conversant with what we believe and why we believe it. We need to be able to use our sanctified common sense and say, “This is where the psychological experts have it wrong. This therapist is transgressing into the territory that I really know something about. It’s in direct conflict with the word of God.” I am firmly convinced that the idea that every spiritual problem has a therapeutic answer has got to be challenged by pastors. Theology is wonderfully therapeutic if it’s not turned into therapy. We need to know the difference between the two, and be well-trained in biblical theology and pastoral practice so that we don’t fall into either a blind embrace or rejection of these other secular fields.
Paul calls us to demolish every argument and every pretension that is raised against God. What place does apologetics have in a Christian’s life? How well-trained should Christians be for that particular intellectual engagement? Is it a calling for all Christians?
Apologetics has a place in every Christian’s life, but ministers should have a more specialized knowledge of it. Ministers are called to proclaim the gospel in a way that is distinct from the calling that every Christian has to be a witness. This means that they need special training for that vocation. It’s really amazing how many seminaries, including evangelical ones, are now doing without apologetics. There seems to be an anti-apologetic mood around at the moment. I suspect that part of it has to do with a retreat from the confidence of modernism (the ‘I have all the answers’ approach) to postmodernism’s more sceptical attitude toward people like that. Nowadays, a lot of people are saying non-Christians don’t want people coming to them with a lot of arguments. They want people to come to them and show them a Christlike life.
If you speak to someone like William Lane Craig, he will say that he meets lots of people who become Christians on the basis of rational presentation of argument. What do you say?
It’s certainly true that people have real questions that they want answered, but we need to remember that they never ask those questions from a neutral standpoint. We ask all of our questions either as believers or unbelievers. Nevertheless, there are unbelievers who are really curious, and it’s our duty, as the Apostle Peter said, to be ready to have an answer for anyone who asks us about the hope that we have (1 Pet 3:15).
So do you have an apologetics component here at Westminster?
Absolutely! Apologetics is definitely part of the core curriculum here. However, I have noticed that a number of seminaries are changing the name from apologetics to philosophical theology. It doesn’t always reflect a paradigm shift, but I think it’s indicative of an emerging trend. It’s kind of like the shift from theology departments to religion departments. There’s a place for philosophy and even for philosophical theology in university graduate programs. But seminaries should have apologetic departments. We are meant to be training pastors and elders who can defend “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). So apologetics is not just philosophical theology, it’s apologetics. We teach it with the specific aim of equipping pastors to be able to persuade and convince non-Christians of the truth of the gospel, and to strengthen doubting believers in their congregations. I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that our churches are not made up of people who don’t ask a lot of questions.
It seems that many within the evangelical community are contesting biblical doctrines that once supported the Christian view of work and vocation. What do you think is going to be a consequence of that?
I think the first consequence will be that many Christians will find that they get less joy from the jobs that they perform over five or six days of the week. If we don’t believe our normal jobs are as important as church-related activities, then for five or so days a week, we are going to have a pretty meaningless life. If we don’t have any biblical justification for our work other than the opportunities it gives us for evangelism and ‘Christian ministry’, then it might become hard to get excited about our jobs, especially if a lot of our work is done alone and gives us few opportunities for witness. So with these doctrines in eclipse, Christians are going to be impoverished. Their lives are going to grow increasingly meaningless, except at the point that they’re writing cheques for missionaries. If they lose their doctrine of vocation, then their main reason for going to work will be so that they can support the church.
What happens when you lose the Reformational understanding of ‘calling’?
Many years ago, a band called ‘Lover Boy’ wrote a song called ‘Working for the Weekend’. That’s what’s happening today: everyone’s living for the weekend. We have lost the idea of Christian calling and the fact that we can find joy in the assignments that God has given us. Sadly, that’s often true of Christians too. I often find that Christians are not only living for the weekend, they are totally consumed with Christian activities throughout the week as well. I remember growing up with prayer meetings, Bible studies—you know, all of those things that go on mid-week in Christian circles. But today, it’s not even prayer meetings and Bible studies as much as it is men’s groups, women’s groups, children’s groups and the like. At the moment, the church caters for every niche demographic. It’s all driven by the idea that we have to satisfy the felt needs of that particular demographic and where they are in their stage of life. In other words, it’s focusing on marketing, rather than on what Christians need to hear.
Before marketing took over the church, we had Bible studies and prayer meetings for people of all ages, backgrounds, problems, ethnic histories and so forth. But now, we have an alternative culture going on so that a Christian can actually be involved in the Christian ghetto 24 hours a day, listening to Christian radio and Christian music, going to Christian functions, taking the kids to Christians sports to the point where they don’t actually know a non-Christian. And no-one at their work would know that they’re Christians because they don’t have any deep relationships with any of their co-workers. They’re so busy with other Christians all the time.
I think it would be great if churches really got back to Bible teaching and catechesis, and word and sacrament ministry. Then we could stop all this mid-week stuff and let Christians have those six days back that you find in the Ten Commandments. If we did that, Christians could really be a part of the world and excel in their vocations. Then they would get to know their non-Christian friends, neighbours and co-workers.
Copyright Australian Presbyterian November 2007. Used with permission.
