A Neo-Kuyperian Assist to the Emergent Church

Vincent Bacote and Daniel Pylman

Wheaton College

 

          How does the legacy of a Dutch intuitive genius intersect with the phenomenon of the emergent church?  The aim of tonight’s presentation is to suggest that neo-calvinism’s emphasis on common grace offers the same vital support to the postmodern-friendly emergent church as it did to the late nineteenth century Dutch reformed church that sought to engage every area of life while maintaining fidelity to orthodoxy.  First, I will introduce the emergent church and highlight a particular emphasis that provides the potential for an intersection with neo-calvinism.  I will then introduce the doctrine of common grace, and finally discuss how it can be articulated in a way that will benefit the emergent church.

        What is the emergent church?  Is it a movement?  A conversation?  There is no agreed upon answer among those who label themselves as participants or sympathetic observers of the emergent church.  They do agree that a group of people has emerged in the last decade or so who have an affinity for the postmodern (in a very broad sense) and a desire for authentic expression of the Christian faith, though a mode of expression different from their evangelical forbears.  Who are these people and what are their concerns?  A variety of descriptions may be helpful.

One description of the emergent generation reflects the shifting context.  Dan Kimball states in The Emerging Church that it is vital to have a discussion “about the fast-changing culture and the emerging church. . . .  While many of us have been preparing sermons and keeping busy with the internal affairs of our churches, something alarming has been happening on the outside.  What once was a Christian nation with a Judeo-Christian worldview is quickly becoming a post-Christian, unchurched, unreached nation. . . .  New generations are arising all around us without any Christian influence.  So we must rethink virtually everything we are doing in our ministries.” (13-14)  Kimball labels this generation as post-seeker sensitive, a group of people cultivated in a postmodern and pluralist context who are interested in spiritual experiences and in an authentic presentation of the Christian faith.  These post-seekers often are turned off by Christians and the church, but interested in Jesus and spirituality.  When members of this generation become Christians, their view of Christian identity and church significantly differs from their evangelical forbears.

        Robert Webber’s The Younger Evangelicals describes the leaders of the emergent church as follows: “The younger evangelical is anyone, older or younger, who deals thoughtfully with the shift from twentieth- to twenty-first century culture.  He or she is committed to construct a biblically rooted, historically informed, and culturally aware new evangelical witness in the twenty-first century. (16)  These leaders aim to maintain the historic Christian faith while recontextualizing it; they want to release the historic substance of the faith from Enlightenment enculturation.  Webber argues that this process of deconstruction and reconstruction is a process evangelicals have carried out through history.  Demographically, the younger evangelicals come from “every branch of the church, every denomination, every parachurch movement, and every ethnic background.” (19)  Webber identifies 24 characteristics of younger evangelicals, among the most important of which are growing up in a postmodern world, ministering in a new paradigm of thought, standing for the absolutes of the faith in a new way, recognizing the road to the future runs through the past, facility with technology, grasping the power of the imagination, communicating through stories, advocating the resurgence of the arts, and demanding authenticity.

        The emergent village website offers a third description: “Emergent is a growing generative friendship among missional Christian leaders seeking to love our world in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Our dream is to join in the activity of God in the world wherever we are able, so that God’s dreams for our world come true. In the process, the world can be healed and changed, and so can we.” (www.emergentvillage.com)  The subsequent elaboration of this description overlaps significantly with Webber’s description of younger evangelicals, particularly the openness to the various streams of Christian tradition, the significance of relationships, the desire to generate new approaches to thinking and practice, and an emphasis on narrative.  For the purposes of this paper, perhaps the most significant word in this description is missional, a term drawn from the work of Lesslie Newbigen that emphasizes Christian belief and practice as oriented toward the service of God and others in the world.  As Brian McLaren expresses it:

“The term missional asks this question:  what is the purpose of the church?  To enfold and warehouse Christians for heaven, protecting them from damage and spoilage until they reach their destination?  Or to recruit and train people to be transforming agents of the kingdom of God in our culture?  The missional church understands itself to be blessed not to the exclusion of the world, but for the benefit of the world.  It is a church that seeks to bring benefits to its nonadherents through its adherents.” (www.next-wave.org, November 2004). 

In the desire to bring benefit to the world, a central aim of a missional church is cultural engagement and transformation. 

        These three descriptions reveal the emergent church as a recontextualization project that aims toward the expression of authentic Christian faith in a culture-affirming fashion.  If the emergent church is to be truly culturally engaged as an expression of missional Christianity, how might this be articulated theologically?  This is the place where neo-calvinism intersects with the concerns of the emergent church.  The doctrine of common grace can provide the emergent church with a significant theological rationale for Christian participation in every area of society.  So what is common grace?

Common Grace

        To understand common grace, one must begin by talking about sin.  Christian theology has long taught a doctrine which in the last few centuries has come to be known as total depravity.  This doctrine teaches that man is inherently corrupted by sin in every aspect of his being.  Louis Berkhof says it most clearly when he states that the effect of sin “extends to every part of man’s nature, to all the faculties and powers of both soul and body;” furthermore, “there is no spiritual good, that is, good in relation to God, in the sinner at all, but only perversion” (Berkhof, 247).  This depravity issues in the complete inability of the one who does not have faith in Christ to do anything that is perfectly pleasing to God. 

While this doctrine is without a doubt Scriptural, it immediately raises another question which must be answered: if Scripture teaches that the heathen can in no way please God, how is it that “there is in this world, alongside of the course of the Christian life with all its blessings, a natural course of life, which is not redemptive and yet exhibits many traces of the true, the good, and the beautiful?” (Berkhof, 432)  The response of many Reformed Christians, throughout the centuries, has been to posit the doctrine of common grace.  My purpose here will be to explain this doctrine in greater detail, primarily as it was articulated by Abraham Kuyper, to elucidate how this doctrine is both helpful and indispensable for the Church today, and to then apply this doctrine to aims of the emergent church.

While many have heard Kuyper’s infamous statement declaring the fact that there could not be an inch of all creation over which God does not claim ownership, the line of thinking in this quote is most often linked to sphere sovereignty and not perceived as a reflection of his doctrine of common grace.  Yet, common grace, when fully developed, is “a theology of public responsibility, of Christians’ shared humanity with the rest of the world” (Kuyper, “Common Grace,”165).  Kuyper offers a concise definition in the Stone Lectures at Princeton in 1898, noting that in contrast to a particular or electing grace there is “a common grace by which God, maintaining the life of the world, relaxes the curse which rests upon it, arrests its process of corruption, and thus allows the untrammeled development of our life in which to glorify Himself as Creator.” (Kuyper, Calvinism, 30-31)  The doctrine stems from the belief that all of creation exists for the purpose of glorifying God and not merely for the salvation of the elect.  After all, as Kuyper notes, “If God is sovereign, then his Lordship must remain over all life and cannot be closed up within church walls or Christian circles.  The extra-Christian world has not been given over to Satan or to fallen humanity or to chance” (“Common Grace,”166).  Rather, all things remain under the providential care of a gracious Creator and exist for the sake of his glory.  As a result of this, it inevitably follows that God has a purpose in all that takes place: history has a direction, events are meaningful, and people, the elect and non-elect alike, are valuable. 

The objection is often raised that with God two forms of grace which have no relation one to the other could not exist and that therefore, common grace does not exist.  Kuyper took this objection seriously and refuted it by noting the fact that apart from the existence of common grace, “[special grace] cannot function” (169).  The reason for this is that when one takes into account the natural condition of man after the fall, if God’s common grace had not immediately followed, humans would not have been allowed to exist in such a sinful state, let alone would the Church of Christ ever have a chance of taking root.  Herman Bavinck echoes this idea: It is common grace which makes special grace possible, prepares the way for it, and later supports it; and special grace, in its turn, leads common grace up to its own level and puts it into its service. (Our Reasonable Faith, 38).  Furthermore, Kuyper notes that the Incarnation itself points to the goodness of creation: Christ chose to become a man, and not merely for the propitiation of our sins, but also to communicate his love for his creation.  To put it another way, the incarnation echoes the pronouncement of Genesis 1:31: “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good….”  Therefore, the participation of Christ in this world has a deep significance for his followers today.  This brings us to the conclusion that common grace exists both for the sake of the communication of special grace and for the sake of the elect on earth.  However, beyond both of these ends, there is an ultimate, which has already been touched upon, that being the glorification of God.  Both common grace and special grace, which Kuyper ultimately saw as united in purpose, flow from one God so as to bring glory to Himself.

This brings us to the question of how it is that God manifests common grace in this world.  Common grace has generally been divided up into two different categories: a negative element and a positive element.  The negative element refers to that aspect of God’s “general grace which restrains the devastating effects of sin” (Masselink, 188).  As William Masselink states in his definition, it is “the divine restraint upon the devastating results of sin in creation and the human race, to make possible the development of history” (Masselink, 210).  This latter definition reminds us that, because of the natural condition of man, the development of history would not even be a possibility without the presence of God’s common grace.  Looking to Scripture, we are reminded of the condition of man in his natural state: depraved and lacking the capacity to do any good.  Apart from God’s intervening grace, man’s life would consist of one evil act followed by another.  The Westminster Confession, speaking of man’s natural post-fall condition, describes man as, “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” (Beeke, 47). 

Therefore, it is the negative element of God’s common grace that prevents man from following the desires of his heart without restraint.  The conscience itself is an effect of God’s common grace: it provides the individual with a sense of direction and with some semblance of a moral compass.  According to Masselink, the conscience is evidence of common grace in that it is a testimony to the operation of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers and unbelievers alike.  The Holy Spirit communicates to all human beings primary logical and moral truths, such as the existence of a God and of the fact that this God is righteous and holy.  The Holy Spirit also communicates to each individual a general fear of God and the ability to foresee the devastating consequences of evil actions; all of this is a testimony to the active grace of God in the lives of all individuals.

There is also a positive element of common grace, or in other words, there is a favorable attitude within God towards creation and mankind.  Throughout Scripture, we find various passages which speak to the fact that “unregenerate men are recipients of divine favor” (Masselink, 220).  Masselink points out the fact that in Genesis 39:5, “The Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake.” Again, we find Jesus in Matthew 5:44-45 commanding believers to follow the example of his Father by loving their enemies.  Furthermore, we see that natural man has a level of moral-consciousness and observe unregenerate men performing deeds that are ostensibly good.  The third point of common grace adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church at Kalamazoo in 1924 states:

Concerning the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, the Synod declares that according to Scripture and Confession the unregenerate, though incapable of any saving good (Canons of Dordt, II, IV, 3), can perform such civic good. This is evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dordt, III and IV, 4, and the Belgic Confession, where it is taught that God, without renewing the heart, exercises such influence upon man that he is enabled to perform civic good; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.

All of this is to be attributed to the common grace of God poured out into this world. 

What follows from this doctrine is an understanding that this world has purpose and meaning.  The world exists for a reason in the plan of God.  Humans, elect and non-elect alike, have purpose.  History, and not just the Gospel story or the history of the Church, has meaning.  This line of thought is dramatically different from how many Christians have been taught to think, particularly in 20th century America.  Kuyper’s doctrine of common grace is incredibly helpful because it allows us to remember a basic tenet of the Christian faith: “the Savior of the world is also the Creator of the world” (Kuyper, 173).  Christ does not merely have significance for the believer’s soul, but also for “[his] body, for the visible world, and for the outcome of world history” (Kuyper, 172).  If we miss this point, we run the risk, as Kuyper points out, of living in two different worlds, only one of which is directly tied to our Savior.  Suddenly scholarship, drama, literature, business, law, politics, etc., are all unholy disciplines.  “Therefore every view that would confine God’s work to the small sector we might label ‘church life’ must be set aside.  There is beside the great work of God in special grace also that totally other work of God in the realm of common grace.  That work encompasses the whole life of the world. . . “ (176).  What follows from this is Christian responsibility for engagement in every area of life.  In his Princeton lectures Kuyper presents the liberating results of common grace:

“Thus the church receded in order to be neither more or less than the congregation of believers, and in every department the life of the world was not emancipated from God, but from the dominion of the Church.  Thus domestic life regained its independence, trade and commerce realized their strength in liberty, art and science were set free from every ecclesiastical bond and restored to their own inspirations, and man began to understand the subjection of all nature with its hidden forces and treasures to himself as a holy duty, imposed upon him by the original ordinances of Paradise: “Have dominion over them”.  Henceforth the curse should no longer rest upon the world itself, but upon that which is sinful in it, and instead of monastic flight from the world the duty is now emphasized of serving God in the world, in every position in life.” (Kuyper, Calvinism, 31) 

This quote presents the stewardly responsibility that Christians have for creation and speaks directly to the emergent church’s aim to engage every area of life.  Kuyper’s view that Christians should serve God in the world resonates with the missional church that “understands itself to be blessed not to the exclusion of the world, but for the benefit of the world.”  How might this common grace emphasis be articulated in a way that benefits the emergent community? 

        Kuyper’s quote calls Christians to recognize that God has called them to a “holy duty” in response to what Reformed theologians call the cultural mandate.  Another way of speaking of this that ties into Emergent’s missional aim is to label the first command as the First Great Commission.  While Matthew 28:19-20 is rightly called the great commission because of the command to make disciples, it is a mistaken notion to assume that the first commission given to humans is to be forgotten or rendered less significant.  While it is a pre-fall command, it is never revoked after Genesis 3 and is restated in the Noahic covenant.  Post-fall, common grace makes stewardly response to the first great commission possible, though admittedly far more difficult than in intended in the first two chapters of Genesis.  The emergent church aims to be missional by seeking in part to serve throughout the world in areas as diverse as politics, environmental concerns and the arts.  Cultural engagement and affirmation are highly valued.  Common grace theologically buttresses this aim, and compels Christians to perform their stewardly duty in creation in obedience to what Kuyper calls the first creation ordinance (what I am calling the first Great Commission). 

There is a vital and often neglected pneumatological aspect as well.  The Spirit compels Christians toward public engagement in two ways.  First the Spirit’s work in creation lies behind common grace.  Recall that Kuyper defined common grace as that which maintains the life of the world, arrests the process of corruption, and relaxes the effects of the curse.  In his doctrine of Spirit, Kuyper speaks of the agency of the Spirit in creation as an animating, preserving, and sin restraining influence.  Though he never explicitly linked them in his own work, Kuyper‘s descriptions make it clear that the Holy Spirit is the agent of common grace.  This in turn means that it is the Spirit in creation who makes broad ranging public engagement possible in obedience to the first Great Commission.  As common grace makes history possible, it also makes political and sociocultural development possible, even though the best developments only provide glimpses of God’s kingdom.  Second, the Spirit’s transforming work in the lives of Christians compels them to be disciples in the fullest sense.  A core aspect of this is recognition of common grace and the Christian stewardly response to the first great commission.  The double compulsion of the Spirit enables Christians to recognize the reality of common grace and then to practice creation stewardship by seeking to cultivate human flourishing within and without the Christian community.  Christian discipleship that permeates every area of life, especially on Monday through Saturday, finds theological impetus in this core neocalvinist doctrine. 

Why call this neo-Kuyperian as in this paper’s title?  Because the articulation of and response to common grace as the doubly Spirit-enabled first Great commission was never explicit in Kuyper and, more importantly, because the twenty-first century response to common grace must bring Kuyper’s legacy forward while being as creative in recontextualization as he was.  To be Kuyperian today is not to merely cut and paste Kuyper from the nineteenth century into ours.  

In light of the stated aims of the emergent church, common grace would be a helpful theological aid in living as truly missional Christians.  Do emergent Christians need to become contemporary neocalvinists in order to adopt this doctrine?  Though it certainly would not be a bad thing, our answer must be “no.”  While common grace emerges from a Reformed environment, the truth it expresses is found in the broad range of traditions which comprise the generative community of friends in the emergent church.  In addition, the neo-Kuyperian project aims to extend the influence of Kuyper beyond the walls of the Reformed world.  The tremendous benefits of Kuyper’s legacy have been confined to enclaves in Michigan, Canada, and Northwest Iowa far too long.  That said, the Reformed tradition should be regarded with critical appreciation like others in the emergent friendship.  In the final analysis, how will the emergent church respond?  We do not know.  We must first offer this neo-Kuyperian assistance to them as part of their ongoing conversation. 

 

 

Back to vanguardchurch.com

To vanguardchurch-the blog