Sunday, January 02, 2005

Random Questions for Neo-Calvinism

As a start, and partly to do some of my thinking "online", here is a list of questions that I have scribbled on the front page of The Transforming Vision by Walsh and Middleton:

  • What should the church look like?
  • How is the culture sanctified?
  • Can a culture be sanctified in its praxis without, or apart from, submission to the King?
  • What is more important: What one does or why one does it?
  • Are the body and the soul separable?
  • Is modern science a result of dualism? If so, does that not support the utility of dualism?
  • Can we, or should we, distinguish stuctural dualism from analytic dualism?
  • Does the fact that an idea can be abused, or has been abused, or has led to (non-necessary) errors mean it is wrong?
  • Are we certain that God didn't intend Greek ideas to spread through the west prior to the coming of Christ? If so, was this an oversight on His part? An unavoidable consequence of Alexander's conquests?
  • Do we need to blame dualism to explain the modern idolatry of man?
  • How do we acknowledge the power of science and technology without idolatry?
  • Can we go back?
  • Are democracy and capitalism separable?
  • Does one have to be a member of the Green party to be a Neo-Calvinist?
  • Besides the Dene (essentially hunter-gatherers), what cultures do Walsh and Middleton like?
  • What role does government play in redeeming creation?
  • How do we change the Christian "man on the street", to whom most of this will be either incomprehensible or of no interest?
  • How does one change a view that is pretheoretical?
  • Are we pronouncing our culture dead prematurely?
  • If the answer is community, how do we avoid the irrelevance of the Amish?

In future posts, I hope to begin to consider some of these questions. In the meantime, I invite comment on any of them.

4 comments:

  1. Wow! WONDERFUL questions!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:03 AM

    Great set of questions Joe. I did post them on a neo-calvinist mailing list, so hopefully you may have one or two responses.

    One or two off the cuff comments:
    You asked: Is modern science a result of dualism? If so, does that not support the utility of dualism?

    I wouldn't agree that science is the result of dualism. What do you mean by that?

    Does one have to be a member of the Green party to be a Neo-Calvinist?

    When I first discovered neo-calvinism I did join the Green party in the UK. I liked them becasue they didn't buy into the myth of progress. However, I am not now a member and so the answer has to be no!

    Cheers,

    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4:38 AM

    Joe,

    I posted your questions on a Dooyeweerdian mailing list. Andrew Basden posted the following replies. (I know he'd be interested to know what you make of them.)

    Cheers,

    Steve Bishop
    _______


    Happy reading! I suggest: don't try to read and respond to all them
    them in one go. Rather, take them one by one. Select.

    * What should the church look like?

    If this refers to its manifestation in the concrete reality as an
    institution or organization, I believe there is no one 'should'. Almost
    any structure is valid. Even so-called para-church organizations are part
    of 'the church'.

    This answer is mainly from my beliefs since my youth that were shaped by
    both Brethren, Episcopalian and Presbyterian ideas. But I also can support
    it from Dooyeweerd, in that structured associations involve the formative
    aspect, which is a normative and not determinative one, which implies we
    have freedom that God applauds.

    I am aware that many neo-Calvinist readings of Dooyeweerd tend
    presuppose there is only one 'right' way to fulfil the norms of each
    aspect. I disagree. To me, there are many 'right' ways. (In addition to
    many 'wrong', fallen, distorted ways.)

    * How is the culture sanctified?

    -

    * Can a culture be sanctified in its praxis without, or apart from,
    submission to
    the King?

    Yes and no. It depends on what one means by 'sanctified'. Perhaps Joe
    K would be clearer on the options for this.

    * What is more important: What one does or why one does it?

    Both.

    However, 'Why one does it' could mean:
    # The deliberate purpose (formative aspect)
    # Our stated purpose (lingual aspect)
    # Our pistic commitment as we 'do it'.
    # The multi-aspectual meaning of what we do, the profile of aspectual
    functioning, in all aspects (which includes the above three).
    # Our heart orientation.

    Which does Joe K mean?

    I believe that what God judges in the final analysis is our heart
    orientation, our attitude of pride or humility.

    If we take 'why' to mean one of the first four, then, both what one does
    and why one does it are underpinned by this heart orientation. And, by
    God's wonderful creative grace, both what one does and why one does it can
    have healing repercussions.

    * Are the body and the soul separable?

    What does Joe K mean by 'separate'? We might separate them
    conceptually. But in concrete reality, nothing is 'separate'.

    Also, what does Joe K mean by 'soul'? And indeed by 'body'? The very
    question tends to presuppose the matter-form ground motive. So it might
    not be a very meaningful question outside that ground motive.

    * Is modern science a result of dualism? If so, does that not support the
    utility
    of dualism?

    The *shape* that modern science takes is indeed infected by dualism, in
    many ways.

    The utility of dualism? Interesting. Yes, dualism does indeed have
    some utility, and that utility is not all evil. I say this because any
    utility that it has is not unlike the 'utility' of the analytic aspect,
    whose agenda it is to enable us to separate things. Dualism is an ultimate
    separation.

    Even though it is evil (pistically), it nevertheless is not totally
    evil, and is at least partly a valid result of our functioning in the
    analytic aspect - albeit 'writ very large'. If you prefer, call it 'common
    grace', but I prefer Dooyeweerd's aspects to account for it, because they
    give greater precision of understanding it.

    * Can we, or should we, distinguish stuctural dualism from analytic dualism?

    Probably, given what I said above.

    * Does the fact that an idea can be abused, or has been abused, or has led
    to
    (non-necessary) errors mean it is wrong?

    No.

    But, we must define what we mean by 'it is wrong'. Everything is
    fallen, but everything is also valid in God's creation.

    However, if by 'it is wrong' we mean "we Christians should reject it,
    attack it, avoid it", then my strong answer is 'No!'.

    * Are we certain that God didn't intend Greek ideas to spread through the
    west
    prior to the coming of Christ? If so, was this an oversight on His part? An
    unavoidable consequence of Alexander's conquests?

    A very interesting question. It raises the normative status of
    Dooyeweerd's (and Kuyper's and others') drawing attention to the problems
    of the Greek dualism and the matter-form ground motive. We tend, from
    them, to assume that the MFGM is *wrong*, *evil*, etc.

    But, no, I am not certain. Or, rather, I am happy to believe that God
    allowed it and that the Greek ideas are not altogether evil.

    Partly, because the Greeks were opening up (discovering and activating)
    some aspects of God's creation, especially the analytic and the aesthetic.

    My view of Dooyeweerd's (and Kuyper's and others') drawing attention to
    the problems of the Greek dualism and the matter-form ground motive, is
    salutory and valid. But not the 'whole' truth. Even Dooyeweerd
    acknowledged the validity of much Greek thought. What is not valid is the
    presupposition made by Greeks that Existence is self-dependent and primary.
    By 'not valid' I mean 'it does not work, and ultimately leads to great
    problems'.

    But Christ redeems and transforms.

    * Do we need to blame dualism to explain the modern idolatry of man?

    No.

    Rather, idolatry can explain dualism.

    And there is some modern idolatry that is not necessarily dualistic.

    Remember Roy Clouser's contribution, in Myth, in drawing our attention
    not only to the Pagan and Biblical views, but also the Eastern one.
    Dooyeweerd did not much deal with that one.

    * How do we acknowledge the power of science and technology without
    idolatry?

    Depends what is meant by 'acknowledge the power of ...'. I will take
    just one view:

    I believe that we can affirm and help redeem the proper effectiveness in
    God's plan of science and technology. Science, to me, is the discovering
    the laws of each aspect. Technology is implementing that knowledge to
    enable humankind to do things more powerfully in our responsibility under
    Genesis 1:26-28 and Romans 8:19 of bringing blessing as God's
    representatives to the rest of creation.

    But that this involves not just a small cleaning-up operation, but a
    hugely radical change in our perception of the kernel meaning of each
    aspect. For example, the current perception of the kernel meaning of the
    economic aspect is variously a mix of production+consumption, competition
    in markets, exchange, finance. However, Dooyeweerd suggested that its
    kernel meaning was frugality and management-with-care, which these other
    things are designed to serve.

    If we were to design and devise an economic system based on this, it
    would be almost completely unrecognizeable to today's people, including
    ourselves. I know of no human thinking that even gets close to it. The
    nearest I have found of human thinking pointing in that direction, has been
    carried out by various green groups (especially here in the UK), which
    tries to base economics on frugality, and to serve this revisits things
    like barter, local currencies, size taxes, etc.

    We have a similarly radically distorted view of most post-social
    aspects. The root-depth of the distortion of our understanding of the
    aspects is far deeper than we think, in my view.

    * Can we go back?

    No.

    But we can redeem. And we can point people in (what we think might be)
    the right (or righter) kernel meanings of the aspects. If Dooyeweerd was
    near-right in his understanding of what they are, then they will commend
    themselves to open-minded and open-hearted humankind.

    Not based on Dooyeweerd, I am trying to work out a 'New View' theology
    that starts with God's cosmic plan and which has some answers to this
    question. See "http://www.basden.demon.co.uk/xn/nv/".

    * Are democracy and capitalism separable?

    No idea. Not really interested in that one! I don't 'believe' in either.

    * Does one have to be a member of the Green party to be a Neo-Calvinist?

    Yes. ;-)

    * Besides the Dene (essentially hunter-gatherers), what cultures do Walsh
    and
    Middleton like?

    Dunno. Must re-read it.

    However, I am glad they drew our attention to the Dene, if only because
    we tend to overlook the validity and quality of their culture otherwise.

    I want to try to see both Dene and our cultures from God's point of
    view.

    * What role does government play in redeeming creation?

    Setting up structures to ensure that humanity will tend to give it its
    due. And so that humanity will better fulfil its calling to be God's
    representative to the rest of creation. (See 'new view' theology above.)

    * How do we change the Christian "man on the street", to whom most of this
    will be either incomprehensible or of no interest?

    We don't!

    That is God's work.

    And, from the experience of Jesus, the doctrinally-correct religious
    leaders (the Pharisees) were the most stubborn and condemned. Woe to us
    evangelicals etc.

    Interestingly, I find more interest in Dooyeweerd among non-Christians
    than among Christians.

    * How does one change a view that is pretheoretical?

    I think Habermas has something to offer here, in his insight that the
    modern lifeworld involves 'communicative action' in which people challenge
    each others' validity claims. Habermas' proposal is distorted by the
    nature-freedom ground motive, but IMHO it contains some useful insight that
    could enrich Dooyeweerd. Especially as (to my knowledge) Dooyeweerd
    offered no well-worked-out theory of discourse.

    * Are we pronouncing our culture dead prematurely?

    Yes.

    * If the answer is community, how do we avoid the irrelevance of the Amish?

    Is the answer community? Are the Amish irrelevant?

    Conclusion

    Well done, Joe K. Thank you for coming up with those questions, which I
    think are extremely challenging and force us to think.

    Andrew Basden.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So many blogs and only 10 numbers to rate them. I'll have to give you a 9 because you have a quailty topic.

    Free Access To More Information Aboutonline distance education

    ReplyDelete