Posted on

Common Grace Part 4 : Roots in Post-Reformation Thought

In articulating a systematic doctrine of Common Grace, Kuyper does not see himself as proposing a novelty, but gathering under one correct heading a hitherto scattered body of Christian dogmatics. A sampling of the writings of a few Puritan / post-Reformation theologians gives a us sense the doctrine’s provenance:

  • Firstly from Robert Harris, one of the Westminster Divines called by parliament to conclude the English Reformation and deliver the Westminster Standards. In answering a hypothetical objection of someone drawing attention to the overall goodness of their life as an outright proof of their salvation, he says: “There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle [Paul] has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us” (Harris : 1654, 241) n.b. this work is available on Google Books; here is a scan of the quoted passage.
Scan from p241 of Robert Harris' 'Works' - 1654
Scan from p241 of Robert Harris’ ‘Works’ – 1654
  • Secondly, John Knox the leader of the Reformation in Scotland, writing in C16th says “After these common mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his rich mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect. Such as willingly delight not in blindness may clearly see that the Holy Ghost maketh a plain difference betwixt the graces and mercies which are common to all, and that sovereign mercy which is immutably reserved to the chosen children” (Knox : 1856, 87)
  • Thirdly, the Swiss reformer and Zwingli’s successor, Heinrich Bullinger says “For there is in God a certain (as it were) general grace, whereby he created all mortal men, and by which he sends rain upon the just and unjust: but this grace doth not justify; for if it did, then should the wicked and unjust be justified. Again, there is that singular grace, whereby he doth, for his only-begotten Christ his sake, adopt us to be his sons: he doth not, I mean, adopt all, but the believers only, whose sins he reckons not, but doth impute to them the righteousness of his only-begotten Son our Saviour. This is that grace which doth alone justify us in very deed” (Bullinger: 1850, 329-330)

REFERENCES

Bullinger, Henry. 1850. ‘Decades’ – the third decade, ed. Rev Thomas Harding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, R. 1654. The works of Robert Harris … revised, corrected, and now collected into one volume: With an addition of sundry sermons: Some, not printed in the former edition; others, never before extant …J. Flesher. (Google Books)

Knox, John. 1856. The works of John Knox, on predestination, ed. David Laing. Vol. 5. Edinburgh: Wodrow Society.

Posted on

Recommended: Michael Heiser

In these posts I will offer brief introductions to some resources that I recommend for theology, church and public life.

A friend drew my attention to Dr. Michael Heiser about 18 months ago and I’m very glad he did. Heiser is a Biblical Studies scholar with broad interests and a very fresh, vigorous and faithful approach. His central concern is reading the Bible with the spiritual worldview of its original writers and recipients in mind – what he terms ‘recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible’. Central to this is the concept of the ‘Divine Council’ mentioned in Psalm 82:1 (“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”) about which Heiser writes “The term divine council is used by Hebrew and Semitics scholars to refer to the heavenly host, the pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the cosmos. All ancient Mediterranean cultures had some conception of a divine council. The divine council of Israelite religion, known primarily through the psalms, was distinct in important ways.” (Dictionary of the Old Testament : 2008) If you are interested in this basis he has written an academic monograph on the subject called The Unseen Realm and a popular level reduction of the material called Supernatural.

If this describes his general approach, then his overall passion might be described as stripping back layers of accepted or assumed Biblical exegesis that doesn’t take the supernatural / divine council worldview into account. This is front and centre in the titles of Heiser’s excellent podcast The Naked Bible and his recent book The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on its own Terms. He also writes / podcasts on more (to me) peripherally interesting subjects, such as the academic analysis of the paranormal, and also writes fiction which incorporates some of his theoretical ideas.

My recommendation is glowing but not unqualified: I’m sure I’d disagree with Heiser on several things, most significantly the contemporary church and its potentialities (but that might be a UK vs US thing to some extent).

His material is so interesting and plentiful it can be hard to know where to start but I recommend just browsing the aforementioned The Naked Bible podcast and diving in where you see something interesting. No doubt it will take you down a rabbit warren of related episodes.

REFERENCES

Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings (ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns; Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Inter-Varsity Press, 2008), 112.

 

Posted on

Common Grace Part 3 : What Necessitates the Doctrine of Common Grace?

Whilst common grace as a theological concept offers an answer to a genuine theological tension (outlined in part two), the motivating force in Abraham Kuyper’s development of the doctrine was practical: “Faith-based politics requires some common ground with people of fundamentally different convictions – at least to establish mutual intelligibility and respect for the rules of the game, and at most to build coalitions on issues of common interest” (Bratt : 2013, 198). But even if it was elicited by practical concerns, it was nevertheless a theological investigation. “He unfolded the concept in his theology column in De Heraut over a six-year period – from September 1895, soon after he had re-entered Parliament, until July 1901, when he was forming the cabinet.” (Bratt : 2013, 197-198) and the columns were published in the three volumes of De Gemeene Gratie (Common Grace) concurrently with his term as Prime Minister from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper has been most famous in the English speaking world for his Lectures on Calvinism delivered in English at Princeton in 1898. This set of six lectures present a confessional Calvinist Christian vision for the whole of life and are deeply informed by Kuyper’s concurrent writing of De Gemeene Gratie in Dutch. Although the concerns were brought to the fore by Kuyper’s re-engagement with national politics, the theological programme he developed in De Gemeene Gratie represents a formalising of principles which had informed his wider social programme: as a church reformer, education reformer, journalist for at least the two preceding decades. Others in his orbit had written in a similar vein, notably Herman Bavinck’s rectoral address to the Theological School at Kampen at the end of 1894 (Bavinck : 1989).

In setting out to develop what he wishes to be a coherent and complete statement of a doctrine which he sees latent in Calvin he starts by engaging with Institutes 2.3.3. which concerns the corrupt nature of man. He notes that “When in the footsteps of Calvin, the attention primarily of Reformed theologians was specially directed to this extremely important subject, they managed to work out its main features, but without devoting a separate chapter to it. The subject was treated mostly in connection with “the virtues of the heathen,” “civic righteousness,” “the natural knowledge of God,” and so on, but without ever arranging all the various elements belonging to this subject into one ordered, coherent discussion.” (Kuyper : 2015, 7).

REFERENCES

Bavinck, Herman. 1989. De algemeene genade, rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de theologische school te kampen op 6 december 1894 (kampen: Zalsman, 1894); ET: “Herman Bavinck’s ‘Common grace,’ ” trans. R. C. van leeuwen. Calvin Theological Journal 24 (1): 36-65.

Bratt, James D. 2013. Abraham kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat Eerdmans.

Kuyper, Abraham. 2015. Common Grace (Volume 1): God’s Gifts for a Fallen World (Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology) Lexham Press.

Posted on

Common Grace Part 2 : What is meant by ‘Grace’? (Continued)

At least from the Reformation onwards, common practice has been to associate the doctrine of grace strongly with God’s work in freely (viz. gratuitously), saving sinners. Because of the concomitant insistence on the Bible being rightly understood as teaching righteousness with God being solely a product of God’s gracious action, Reformed thinkers and writers have been very reluctant to allow the term of ‘grace’ to be applied either to works of God towards humankind short of salvation or that are perceived to deal outside the covenant universal salvation – what might be termed ‘universal grace’ (Kuyper : 2015, 596-598).

John Calvin and his work Institutes of the Christian Religion stand respectively as the preeminent founding theologian and the essential grundschrift of the Reformed tradition. In Institutes, Calvin sets forth a Biblical worldview in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism, positioning the whole of humankind as implicated in Adam’s Fall, thus bound to sin and thoroughly helpless before God (Calvin, Instit. 2.1-5), nevertheless a portion of humanity are gratuitously elected to experience the saving favour of God through Jesus Christ (Calvin, Instit. 3.21-24). For the adherent of Calvinism (or of one of its ‘descendant’ forms), this combination of doctrines sets up a tension regarding the attitude of God towards the portion of humanity outside of his electing Grace. One needs to account for God’s seeming goodness towards those who do not or will not acknowledge or worship him as they should. The Bible teaches that God is benevolent towards those who despise him in various places, notably Isaiah 26:10 where grace is said to be shown to the wicked and especially including the words of Christ in Luke 6:35 – “love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.” John Murray poses from a Calvinist point of view, the problem that the doctrine of common grace seeks to answer: “How is it that men who still lie under the wrath and curse of God and are heirs of hell enjoy so many good gifts at the hand of God? How is it that men who are not savingly renewed by the Spirit of God nevertheless exhibit so many qualities, gifts and accomplishments that promote the preservation, temporal happiness, cultural progress, social and economic improvement of themselves and of others? How is it that races and peoples that have been apparently untouched by the redemptive and regenerative influences of the gospel contribute so much to what we call human civilization? To put the question most comprehensively: how is it that this sin-cursed world enjoys so much favour and kindness at the hand of its holy and ever-blessed Creator?” (Murray : 1975, 93).

“There was in that sinful world, outside the church,” writes Kuyper, “so much that was beautiful, that was worthy of esteem, that provoked jealousy. This placed a choice before people: either deny all this good, contrary to better knowledge, and join the ranks of the Anabaptists, or suggest that fallen humanity had not fallen so deeply after all, and thereby succumb to the Arminian heresy. Placed before this choice, the Reformed confession refused to go with either one. We may not close our eyes to the good and the beautiful outside the church, among unbelievers, in the world. This good exists, and that had to be acknowledged. At the same time we may hardly minimize in any way the pervasive depravity of sinful [human] nature. So then the solution of this apparent contradiction lay in this, that outside the church grace operates among pagans in the midst of the world. This grace is neither an everlasting grace nor a saving grace, but a temporal grace for the restraint of ruin that lurks within sin.” (Kuyper : 2015, 9)

To furnish his answer to the question, Kuyper reaches back into the theological resources provider by previous protestant reformers, being very diligent in maintaining a the thorough emphasis on God’s sovereignty in the affairs of humankind. James Bratt writes that, although this what Kuyper had in view was not a saving grace “it was real grace nonetheless, the unmerited favour of God, shed upon all people, for it extended through the whole cosmos, just like the reign of God and the work of the Holy Spirit. It touched the body as well as the soul, peoples as well as persons, things ‘secular’ as well as ‘sacred’. In brief, common grace addressed an old problem in Reformed theology with a classic Reformed answer while warranting Kuyper’s new Calvinistic initiative.” (Bratt : 2013, 198)

 

REFERENCES

Kuyper, Abraham. 2015. Common Grace (Volume 1): God’s Gifts for a Fallen World (Abraham Kuyper Collected Works in Public Theology) Lexham Press.

Murray, John 1975, Collected Writings Volume 2 : Systematic Theology Banner of Truth

Bratt, James D. 2013. Abraham kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat Eerdmans.

Posted on

3 Major Advantages of Free Church

It’s far from the only way, it’s not flawless and it’s only one part of God’s big picture. Nevertheless, I have great affection for the mode of church life in which I find myself leading and, of course, believe it to be faithful to the truth. At the time of writing I am head of Preaching and Research at Emmanuel in Brighton which is part of the Newfrontiers church movement. Each of the advantages I outline below could be expanded and, for each, converse disadvantages could be cited. I’m keen to explore those, but that’s for another day. For now, let me provide some headlines on what I like about our churchmanship, the special opportunities which present to us and the freedoms we enjoy. 

1. Free to obey Christ’s Commission

It is perhaps not coincidental that our first building was originally a mission hall (the one pictured above, in fact). The city mission movement of the C19th was set up somewhat in opposition to the established and, to an extent, dissenting denominational churches. This flowed out of the frustration that they were not heralding the message or doing the works of the Gospel. The church is called to ‘go into all the world’ (Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19) and when power, position and other trappings of establishment come along to muddy the water, this primal commission can be relegated below the maintenance of structures (both literally and figuratively). This creates a great tension: if the Church is successful in its mission it can become the social as well as the religious establishment and its distinctive message can be subsumed and its orthodoxy compromised.

For us, being unencumbered by onerous superstructures, denominational ties, or subservience to the state are great aids to maintaining an ‘outward’ focus: Upholding an attitude of mission rather than maintenance and a conception of the church as a dynamic movement of Jesus’ Kingdom rather than a ‘hospital’ or social club. The church is formed of those who have been set apart for the worship of God and for the expansion of His Kingdom and the free church have the advantage of being clearly separated.

2. Free to Build the Church

Being free of a denominational structure (our churches are ‘locally-denominated’, receiving external input through relationship from those with recognised ‘Ephesians 4’ apostolic gifting), we are free to pursue the New Testament model of Elders and Deacons in local church leadership. This is done on the basis of what we see in the book of Acts, the instruction in the Epistles (particularly the Pastoral Epistles). We take the Scriptural qualifications of Elders and Deacons as the preeminent criteria for appointing individuals to office; academic or institutional qualification might be desirable but only in a strictly supplementary capacity.

We recognise the priesthood of all believers and therefore eschew offices such as ‘priest’ and ‘vicar’ as Christ is the only priest (Hebrews 4:14) and mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). In accord with the consistent teaching of the New Testament, we say all Christians are ‘saints’ or ‘holy ones’ by virtue of their union with Christ and do not need a clerical mediator representing the Church or Christ to them; believers constitute the Church and they are in union with Him.

Our ‘primitivist’ approach (viz. the endeavour to model ourselves on the Early Church) does not deny the intervening centuries of Church history. Rather it allows us to deal critically with subsequent developments in church tradition, appraising them afresh in light of recorded Scriptural practice and doctrine and adopting, adapting or rejecting them as appropriate. Whilst theologians and thinkers in other traditions can theorise about these things, they are often hamstrung by the structures within which they operate when it comes to practical implementation (e.g. Edward Schillebeeckx’s arguments for primitive reform in Roman Catholic ecclesiology which were doomed to remain theory).

3. Free from Earthly Powers

…That is to say, free from the sovereignty of earthly powers over the church. Of course, the Church exists in the world and therefore alongside many other institutions, but the Church straddles the temporal and the eternal in a unique way. So, whilst there should be Christians involved in the state as politicians, civil servants, police, the forces etc. the Church itself should not be in thrall to the state. The ontology of the church as an eternal organism manifesting in the temporal argues against it, but so do practical instances of the church subservient to the state such as the state-compromised Deutsche Christen and the swathes of German Protestants that voted Nazi in 1932 and 1933. Of course, one could point to the phenomenon of free Evangelical voter support for Trump in the USA in 2016, but that will be for my ‘self-rebuttal’ post! Suffice it to say that the contemporary United States experience another manifestation of the encroachment of the secular upon the sacred. Despite the prevalent pride in church / state separation in the USA, many pastors do not shrink from partisan politics and exhorting their flocks to vote for (and hope in), specific candidates in a way that would be rare if not unheard of in the UK (in spite of church / state union). The counsel of Psalm 146:3-4 seems apt: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no help. When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish.” Clearly there are more than one ways for a church to be in the thrall of the external world, including voluntary servitude to powers other than their Lord. This internal amnesia about what a church is as part of the eternal body of Christ manifesting at a point in time, answerable to and controlled by the Head alone.

The free church, whilst not immune to the pitfalls of prioritising secular obedience over sacred obedience, is at least helped by being naturally institutionally alienated from immediate conversation with state power. The Christian politician Jonathan Bartley argues that this ‘advantage’ enjoyed by the free churches will increasingly become the case for all churches in the post-Christendom age. “In Christendom”, he writes, “churches could exert control over society, perhaps most notably by legal means backed by sanctions for law-breakers. In post-Christendom, they have to exercise influence by witnessing to their story and its implications.” (Bartley : 2006, 3) So a posture of humility and an orthodox witness is required of the church. Describing his own upbringing, the late Tony Benn gives a fascinating insight, “I was brought up on the Bible”, writes Benn, “by my mother who told me me about the age-old conflict between the kings who had power and the prophets who preached righteousness. She taught me to support the prophets against the kings.” (Benn : 2003, 226) I think this addresses half of the Church’s responsibility towards state power; the other half being encapsulated by the command of 1 Timothy 2:2 to pray for those in authority.

References

Bartley, Jonathan. Faith and politics after Christendom: the church as a movement for anarchy. Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Bucks, UK: Paternoster Press, 2006.

Benn, Tony. Free Radical: new Century Essays. London: Continuum, 2004.

Posted on

Common Grace Part 1 : What is meant by ‘Grace’?

This series of posts will provide an introduction the protestant Christian doctrine of Common Grace in general and to begin a critical appraisal of its articulation by the Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper. The overall aim is threefold:
1) To describe the theological content of the doctrine
2) To outline the historical conditions necessitating the doctrine
3) To highlight prominent strands of criticism and objections to the doctrine and their counterarguments.
It is necessary to begin with some general definitions of the overarching term, ‘grace’. Viewed externally, the Christian theological concept of grace might be described as “the expression of God’s love in his free unmerited favour or assistance.” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions : 2003) In religious studies and philosophy of religion, this then serves as a comparative term for the description of proximate concepts in other religious systems. Internally as a term of the church, grace is described as “the supernatural assistance of God bestowed upon rational beings with a view to their sanctification. While the need for this aid is generally admitted, the manner of it has been the subject of much discussion.” (Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church : 2006) The second sentence in this description alludes to the broad area of discourse under which the doctrinal considerations of this paper will fall. A more theological reckoning states that “In the Bible, the term grace combines ideas in tension that point to profound mystery. Grace names the undeserved gift that creates relationships and the sustaining, responding, forebearing attitude‐plus‐action that nurtures relationships. Grace concerns the interaction between gracious person and graced recipient, involving the wills of both. The motives of the grace giver; the acceptance, rejection, or forgetfulness of the recipient; the forbearance of the giver; the entire dynamic of forgiveness; the life‐renewing impact of the gift—all these are at issue. All pertain whether the gracious one is divine or human. English translations interchange “grace,” “favour,” “mercy,” “compassion,” “kindness,” and “love” in probing the theme.” (Oxford Companion to the Bible : 1993, 259-260) At least from the Reformation onwards, common practice has been to associate the doctrine of grace strongly with God’s work in freely (viz. gratuitously), saving sinners.

Posted on

Light in Public Life

Welcome to jonest.org, a site where I am posting my ideas and writings on life, faith and politics. I am privileged to be involved in both the church and academic worlds in the UK (see About) and much of the content here will be works in progress for one or the other. Clearly I’m a challenging party guest who can be fairly relied upon to raise issues of both religion and politics and probably any other off-the-menu topic.

Let me begin by explaining a little about that blog tagline ‘Light in Public Life‘. It encapsulates the conviction that theology can and should bring illumination to the whole of life. John’s Gospel begins by saying of Jesus, “in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it… The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.” ‘Light’ then, can be taken to mean a positive theology. The pre-modern world worked with this truth in an unjaded manner: God, through Christ, has flooded the world with his light and we can know and be known in this light. As documented by Charles Taylor, the subsequent turns of history through renaissance, reformation and enlightenment served to replace the full ‘heavens’ with the empty ‘space’. In the modern age, Christianity has to contend with this psychological shift in the Western cultural mindset and theologians must articulate answers across the divide. To my mind, one of the most interesting and arguably the most practically enacted theologies of the past two centuries is that of the Dutch scholar and statesman Abraham Kuyper. Much of my academic work interacts with Kuyper, whose life and thought are becoming more prominent in English-language theology thanks to recent translations.
‘Light in Public Life’ stands for the re-theologising of ‘the political’ in its broadest sense. I have argued elsewhere that politics tends to work on theological assumptions that may well not be acknowledged or properly theorised. That is a dangerous state of affairs and certainly one that needs to be carefully interrogated. That said, my approach is far from alarmist or sombre: I aim to be positive without being glib and critical without being cynical.