In Onward, Russell Moore provides a manifesto for Christian cultural engagement in a post-Christian society. As Christians, Moore calls us to embrace the “strangeness” of Christianity and to see an opportunity for Christian mission precisely in a society where a Christian veneer of nominalism is now out of style.
Cultural Engagement
Goodreads Review of Living in God’s Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen
Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture by David VanDrunen
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
I finished VanDrunen’s Living in God’s Two Kingdoms on a plane ride to Ethiopia. I generally liked it. There was a lot of good in it, particularly as it relates to understanding (1) the distinction between the realm of God’s saving kingdom and the realm of general society; (2) not confusing God’s kingdom with the state; (3) situating the redemptive-historical role of the church as being in exile in this world, more comparable to the Jews in Babylon or Abraham as a sojourner, and less like Israel in the Promised Land; and (4) establishing Christian liberty, especially in the area of politics and cultural engagement. In this way, this book is a good correction against the current theonomy and Christian nationalism trends.
But it also had some points where I think VanDrunen made some significant missteps, and actually went too far in the other direction: specifically (1) in arguing for Christ as the second Adam who completely fulfilled the cultural mandate (fulfilling God’s law for believers; justification), he seemed to leave no room for the fulfillment of God’s law in believers (sanctification). In other words, not only does Christ keep the covenant of works for us (instead of us, on our behalf), but then as believers Christ now also enables us to perform the law, not as a means of justification but as the growth of sanctification. It seems then that the believers’ current call to cultural engagement (fulfilling the cultural mandate) does not, therefore, jeopardize Christ’s finished work and justification by faith alone, as VanDrunen argues, but would fit within the category of sanctification—the image of God progressively renewed in believers (Col 3); (2) VanDrunen makes too sharp of a distinction between the original and new creation. Rather than seeing the new creation as the renewal and restoration of this creation, he seems instead to view it as a replacement, thus discounting that our current work to care for creation and culture could reflect, be a byproduct of, or have any continuity with Christ’s work of restoring creation (his new creation).
I still think VanDrunen’s work is worth reading; but I would encourage doing so critically, aware of these missteps. I can understand why some have negatively characterized this school of thought as a “radical” Two Kingdoms theology (R2K)–I see that. There are some oddly extreme (reductionistic) applications of some principles. So overall, I am ambivalent about the book, appreciating much of it, while maintaining my concerns and critiques.
Keith Mathison’s review at Ligonier is helpful. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articl…
The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism by Carl F.H. Henry (Book Recommendation)
Originally published in 1947, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism provided a manifesto for evangelical Christians who are serious about bringing their Christian faith to bear in contemporary culture. In this classic book, Carl F. H. Henry, the father of the modern evangelical movement, pioneered a path forward that avoids, on the one hand, the error of disengagement and apathy towards today’s social ills, and, on the other hand, the error that is the social gospel. In our current cultural climate, in which evangelicalism is still wrestling with how to engage social matters, this book is as relevant as ever.
Goodreads Review of Disruptive Witness by Alan Noble
Disruptive Witness by Alan Noble
My rating: 5 of 5 stars
Noble argues that we live in a distracted age. Secularism bombards us with a paralyzing amount of “options” in terms of what to think about ultimate matters of meaning and existence. And the technological forms and habits of our current existence keep us sufficiently preoccupied such that the tide of modern life pushes us towards diminishing space for deep reflection. Both of these factors work to make modern humanity a deeply distracted, shallowly reflective bunch. The views we hold are “thin,” often inconsistent, and performative (cue social media)–perceived not so much as actual truth claims about the core of reality, but expressions of self-identity, and thus on par with personal preferences. In part 1 Noble unpacks this situation, drawing on observations from folks like Charles Taylor; and then in part 2 he offers practical counter-measures for how we can bear a sort of witness that disrupts the distracted, anesthetized age in which we live.
Relating this book to other literature: I felt like Noble’s work here was like a particular practical application of a slice of Carl Trueman’s recent work, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (cf. expressive individualism). In addition, I sensed a lot of overlap in philosophical-cultural analysis with Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option (cf. we live in a now “unenchanted” world). Noble also expressly draws on the work of James K.A. Smith’s “cultural liturgies” and the church’s counter-formative liturgy. And then finally, there’s Charles Taylor of course.
Very thoughtful. Very insightful. Very good.
“Christians Dwell in the World, Yet are Not of the World”: A 2nd Century Description of Christians
The following is an excerpt from “The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus,” an anonymous letter (mathetes [μαθητής in Greek] simply meaning “disciple”) believed to be dated around the 2nd century. Here, “Mathetes” gives us a positive description of Christians (as opposed to the more common descriptions of Christians at this time–confused and/or condescending) from his 2nd-century-perspective.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. Continue reading
Kirk E. Miller 