For some reason blogger erased this, so I am posting it back up again. I think it is helpful to reflect on a Reformed understanding of the magistrate and his duties with the Reformed confessions in view before us. Enjoy.
Tetrapolitan Confession-(1530 Bucer and Capito):
23- … They accordingly teach that to exercise the office of magistrate is the most sacred function that can be divinely given. Hence it has come to pass that they who exercise public power are called in the Scriptures gods… Therefore none exercise the duties of magistrate more worthily than they who of all are the most Christian and holy…
First Confession of Basel (1534 Oecolampadius):
8- God has charged governments, His servants, with the sword and with the highest external power for the protection of the good and for vengeance upon and punishment of evildoers. For this reason, every Christian governement with which we desire to be numbered, should do all in its power to see that God’s Name is hallowed among its subjects, God’s kingdom extended, and His will observed by the assiduous extirpation of crimes.
First Helvetic Confession (1536 Bullinger and others):
26- Since all governmental power is from God, its highest and principal office, if it does not want to be tyrannical, is to protect and promote the true honor of God and the proper service of God by punishing and rooting out all blasphemy, and to exercise all possible diligence to promote and to put into effect what a minister of the Church and a preacher of the Gospel teaches and sets forth from God’s Word…
Geneva Confession of 1536 (Calvin):
21- We hold the supremacy and dominion of kings and princes as also of other magistrates and officers, to be a holy thing and a good ordinance of God…
Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva (1556 Knox):
4- And besides this ecclesiastical discipline, I acknowledge to the Church a political magistrate who administers justice to every man, defending the good and punishing the evil, to whom we must render honor and obedience in all things which are not contrary to the Word of God. And as Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, and other godly rulers purged the Church of God of superstition and idolatry, so the defence of Christ’s Church against all idolaters and heretics, as Papists, Anabaptists and such rascals or antichrist pertains to the Christian magistrates, to root out all doctrine of devils and men, such as the mass…
Scots Confession (1560):
24- … The are not only appointed for civil government but also to maintain true religion and to suppress all idolatry and superstition.
Belgic Confession (1561):
36- …And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God’s law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.
… And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.
Second Helvetic Confession (1566 Bullinger):
30- …The chief duty of the magistrate is to secure and preserve peace and public tranquility. Doubtless he will never do this more successfully than when he is truly God-fearing and religious; that is to say, when, according to the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, he promotes the preaching of the truth and sincere faith, roots out lies and all superstition, together with all impiety and idolatry, and defends the Church of God. We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
About Face!
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110511/D9N512K00.html
I must say that I am completely stunned, and extremely gratified by this policy reversal. Thank the Lord for those five dozen house lawmakers who had the courage to put a stop to this. As encouraging as this might be for the moment, we still need to keep the pressure on. The way this retraction reads is that the reverse course is temporary until all the red tape is in place. Love of country and of love of God demands that we push back on this issue and let our local representatives know that this policy cannot be implimented.
By the way-- and I will revisit this in a series of subsequent posts about classic Reformed reflection on the magistrate -- here are some links you might want to check out so that you can brush up on historic Reformed political thought. There are plenty of leading lights out there who claim to speak definitively for the Reformers, and much of what they say is dead wrong. Enjoy!
John Knox on the magistrate
Bucer on penology
Zanchi on the Godly Prince
I must say that I am completely stunned, and extremely gratified by this policy reversal. Thank the Lord for those five dozen house lawmakers who had the courage to put a stop to this. As encouraging as this might be for the moment, we still need to keep the pressure on. The way this retraction reads is that the reverse course is temporary until all the red tape is in place. Love of country and of love of God demands that we push back on this issue and let our local representatives know that this policy cannot be implimented.
By the way-- and I will revisit this in a series of subsequent posts about classic Reformed reflection on the magistrate -- here are some links you might want to check out so that you can brush up on historic Reformed political thought. There are plenty of leading lights out there who claim to speak definitively for the Reformers, and much of what they say is dead wrong. Enjoy!
John Knox on the magistrate
Bucer on penology
Zanchi on the Godly Prince
George Gillespie (17th century Scottish theologian and commissioner to the Westminster Assembly) Wholesome Severity
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Navy Chaplains to Perform Same Sex Marriage
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/navy-authorizes-chaplains-perform-same-s
Just over a week ago, I was glued to the television set, watching it with rapt attention, as President Obama testified to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. troops. It was some of the best news this country had received on the war on terror in quite some time. Watching Obama’s speech and listening to his description of the courage and the skillfulness of U.S. special ops personnel made my chest swell with pride. This was an “at a boy” moment if there ever was one. And well, now this: the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains has decided that same-sex couples in the Navy will be able to get married in Navy chapels, and that Navy chaplains will be allowed to perform the ceremonies -- if homosexual marriage is legal in the state where the unions are to be performed. "Stop the tape!" “Stop the tape!” Are you kidding me? Can it be true that we are really moving from the glorious headline of Seal Team Six taking out the murderous thug-in-chief of the al-Qaeda regime, to Naval Chaplains performing same-sex marriages in Naval chapels?
This is deeply discouraging news and reveals the heart of the insidious agenda of the gays in the military crowd. We have been told since Clinton's liberal pandering "don't ask, don't tell" policy was instituted back in the 1990's that it was all about allowing patriotic gay men and women to have the opportunity to serve their country. It is obvious what a lie that was. What gays in the military is about is evident now: it is about using the nation's most honored and respected institution to sanction and legitimize deviant social policy, same-sex marriage. Notice the craftiness of the same-sex marriage brigade; while they were busy distracting all the attention and debate toward the issue of patriotic military service, what they were really aiming for was legitimizing the same-sex marriage cause. What they realized is if the military sanctions such marriages, and the tax-payer funds the benefits of same-sex military couples through taxes, then there can be no argument left to stop this agenda at the federal level.
I wish I could say, "wake up people!" The fact is, I cannot, because while we were sleeping the Trojan Horse was slipped in, and now its soldiers have guns fixed on our heads, holding us all hostage. What can we do now? Well, we (Christians) must realize that while the Church's primary calling is to offer true worship to the Lord and preach the gospel, it is the Christian citizen's primary calling, to advance the kingdom of God on earth, right here and now. It is the duty of every patriotic, freedom loving Christian, to band together with other Christians, to articulate a clear agenda, and to proclaim the Lordship of Christ over the nation, calling for both magistrate and citizen to "kiss the Son" lest He be angry. I know I was supposed to say that we should pray, that is a given, but what is really needed is a fully-orbed political policy that is explicitly Christian.
As I call for this, I am aware that the radical two-kingdom crowd out there operating in Reformed circles, which spouts its false-neutrality propaganda and godless cultural agenda in the ivory towers of learning, and over the air waves, will complain that such a response is overreaching. They will say that church and state are to be separate, that the kingdom of power is neutral, and that natural law is all we need to promote a just and peaceful society. I say to that, NONSENSE! Look at how well the Greeks and the Romans faired with natural law alone; they became some of the most morally corrupt regime's in history, and were all toppled in just divine judgment for their decadence, arrogance, and wickedness. Unfortunately, policies such as Naval Chaplains marrying same-sex couples in Naval chapels indicates that this is exactly where the United States is heading. It is heading for the scrap heap of history, where all the rest of the godless, immoral, atheistic nations of the past rest in peace. People of God, we need to do more than just wake up, we need to arm ourselves with the sword of truth and begin to push Christ's kingship over the nation with tactical genius.
Just over a week ago, I was glued to the television set, watching it with rapt attention, as President Obama testified to the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. troops. It was some of the best news this country had received on the war on terror in quite some time. Watching Obama’s speech and listening to his description of the courage and the skillfulness of U.S. special ops personnel made my chest swell with pride. This was an “at a boy” moment if there ever was one. And well, now this: the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains has decided that same-sex couples in the Navy will be able to get married in Navy chapels, and that Navy chaplains will be allowed to perform the ceremonies -- if homosexual marriage is legal in the state where the unions are to be performed. "Stop the tape!" “Stop the tape!” Are you kidding me? Can it be true that we are really moving from the glorious headline of Seal Team Six taking out the murderous thug-in-chief of the al-Qaeda regime, to Naval Chaplains performing same-sex marriages in Naval chapels?
This is deeply discouraging news and reveals the heart of the insidious agenda of the gays in the military crowd. We have been told since Clinton's liberal pandering "don't ask, don't tell" policy was instituted back in the 1990's that it was all about allowing patriotic gay men and women to have the opportunity to serve their country. It is obvious what a lie that was. What gays in the military is about is evident now: it is about using the nation's most honored and respected institution to sanction and legitimize deviant social policy, same-sex marriage. Notice the craftiness of the same-sex marriage brigade; while they were busy distracting all the attention and debate toward the issue of patriotic military service, what they were really aiming for was legitimizing the same-sex marriage cause. What they realized is if the military sanctions such marriages, and the tax-payer funds the benefits of same-sex military couples through taxes, then there can be no argument left to stop this agenda at the federal level.
I wish I could say, "wake up people!" The fact is, I cannot, because while we were sleeping the Trojan Horse was slipped in, and now its soldiers have guns fixed on our heads, holding us all hostage. What can we do now? Well, we (Christians) must realize that while the Church's primary calling is to offer true worship to the Lord and preach the gospel, it is the Christian citizen's primary calling, to advance the kingdom of God on earth, right here and now. It is the duty of every patriotic, freedom loving Christian, to band together with other Christians, to articulate a clear agenda, and to proclaim the Lordship of Christ over the nation, calling for both magistrate and citizen to "kiss the Son" lest He be angry. I know I was supposed to say that we should pray, that is a given, but what is really needed is a fully-orbed political policy that is explicitly Christian.
As I call for this, I am aware that the radical two-kingdom crowd out there operating in Reformed circles, which spouts its false-neutrality propaganda and godless cultural agenda in the ivory towers of learning, and over the air waves, will complain that such a response is overreaching. They will say that church and state are to be separate, that the kingdom of power is neutral, and that natural law is all we need to promote a just and peaceful society. I say to that, NONSENSE! Look at how well the Greeks and the Romans faired with natural law alone; they became some of the most morally corrupt regime's in history, and were all toppled in just divine judgment for their decadence, arrogance, and wickedness. Unfortunately, policies such as Naval Chaplains marrying same-sex couples in Naval chapels indicates that this is exactly where the United States is heading. It is heading for the scrap heap of history, where all the rest of the godless, immoral, atheistic nations of the past rest in peace. People of God, we need to do more than just wake up, we need to arm ourselves with the sword of truth and begin to push Christ's kingship over the nation with tactical genius.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Thoughts on thoughts: Dr. Carl Trueman, megaconferences, and the Reformed celebrity cult
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/04/thoughts-on-marketing-and-conf.php
Dr. Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, has posted some very interesting thoughts up at reformation21 about so-called “Reformed” megaconferences sponsored and promoted here in America. Before relating some of Dr. Trueman’s insights, it is worth noting that his remarks are not the sour grape rants of a petulant wannabe who could only wish to have the kind of slice of fame, even for just 5 minutes as it were, that many of these “reformed” starlits enjoy. Dr. Trueman is probably one of the most educated and seriously enlightened Reformed thinkers on the scene today who not only knows Reformed theology and church life, but knows and can more than capably interact with contemporary intellectual currents. Instead of taking the route which most Reformed “intellectuals” do today, which is to publish in Christian sub-culture magazines which they themselves edit, or turn in one manuscript after another rehashing some previously written about topic, to small fish Reformed publishers in order to keep a steady pay-check coming in from the book sales to their zealous disciples, he actually puts out thoughtful, respectable works which either address real academic issues or advance contemporary Reformed discussions in significant ways. All this I throw out there so that no one will be easily prone to characterize and then summarily dismiss Dr. Trueman's remarks as the bitter sniping of the poor kid left standing on the sideline after teams were chosen up at a pick-up basketball game down at the local park.
Now, to Dr.Trueman’s “deep thoughts.” First he points out the all too obvious problem in American evangelicalism more broadly, and now a huge problem among conservative Reformed types, which is the problem of the celebrity cult. It turns out, that Reformed people, who once thought they were immune to the Billy Sunday’s of evangelicalism, actually now have their own, its just that they don’t have quite the same star power in the eyes of outsiders. Never mind that though, because the sad, but humorous thing is, that we don’t care about that as much as we do that he is “our” Billy Sunday. See, if a man gets enough headlines, publishes enough popular books, speaks at enough conferences, and can throw in a few good jokes while he is at it, well, eventually he can attain a certain level of celebrity status among the Reformed, as long as he is willing to coattail the fame of other evangelical celebrities such as John Piper or John MacArthur by speaking with them at various conferences and backslapping them and refusing to condemn their gross sin of being Anabaptists.
I wish Trueman had said these things at least 10 years ago, because I fear that the time for giving a fair hearing to his message about the celebrity cult is long past. Reformed sub-culture has not only constructed its own superapostles, it has become a veritable superapostle making factory. Many in our Reformed world have taken the cues and studied the lessons well of how the evangelicals built a vast evangelical sub-culture that capitalized on the desire for star power and have now reproduced that with incredible efficiency within the Reformed world. At one time in the Reformed community, we stood shoulder to shoulder in criticism against the appalling atrocities committed in the evangelical empire, simultaneously sounding the criticism and sneering in contempt as we made light of their folly. Now however, we have our celebrity cruises with your favorite superapostles, we have “megaconconferences,” and even some of our leading lights actually know the evangelical superstars on a first name basis and have had the opportunity to shake their hand! Isn’t progress grand? What is next, can you say “Reformation theme park!”?
The second thing worth noting in Dr. Trueman's post is the prescription he offers. One, don’t advertize the names of the people speaking at the conference, instead, advertize the subject matter of the conference. The novel idea he proposes is that people will be attracted to the content not the speaker. Here, I think we should cut Dr. Trueman some slack, after all, he is a foreigner: silly Brit, don’t you know that conferences are the only time that most Reformed people will have a chance to know what it feels like to be at a church related activity that has a megachurch feel and atmosphere, and don’t you know that conferences are the only chance we have to get up close, within 15 feet or so, of bona fide celebrities (even if just a celebrity of our making)? Great idea Dr. Trueman, but it will never work. Two, he proposes that conference organizers should consider inviting small fish, from small ponds to speak at the big conferences. His reasoning is basically, that the small fish pastor has a lot more in common with the rest of the folks he is speaking to on account of the fact that most pastors who waste their time going to conferences serve churches of a 100 people or less (give or take). As much as I appreciate new ideas, and Dr. Trueman has some good ones, this is one I think I will pass on. First, if you invite the small fish pastors and people enjoy what they hear, knowing the Reformed sub-culture, they will do everything they can to feverishly commence the work of preparing this poor small fish to be absorbed into the big sea of the Reformed celebrity cult. Second, this would only reinforce the all too common tendency found among many Reformed pastors now which is to dream about one day making it to the “big leagues.” Look at how many small fish there are out there “publishing” their paltry wares with Timbuktu Publishing House in hopes that one day, just one day, they will finally hit that big break and get a chance to be a warm-up act on the Reformed celebrity circuit. Bad idea Dr. Trueman, although I will concede that your heart is in the right place in what you propose.
Well, let me conclude my thoughts on Dr. Trueman’s thoughts by saying, “seriously!”? Has it really come to the point that we need a xeno to politely tell us Reformed people that somehow in fighting against evangelicalism, we have become like our enemy? I wish it were not so, but all indications are that we really need to turn this ship around or it won’t be long before we start printing the names of our talk shows and radio programs on coffee mugs and t-shirts. Oops, we already do that!
Dr. Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, has posted some very interesting thoughts up at reformation21 about so-called “Reformed” megaconferences sponsored and promoted here in America. Before relating some of Dr. Trueman’s insights, it is worth noting that his remarks are not the sour grape rants of a petulant wannabe who could only wish to have the kind of slice of fame, even for just 5 minutes as it were, that many of these “reformed” starlits enjoy. Dr. Trueman is probably one of the most educated and seriously enlightened Reformed thinkers on the scene today who not only knows Reformed theology and church life, but knows and can more than capably interact with contemporary intellectual currents. Instead of taking the route which most Reformed “intellectuals” do today, which is to publish in Christian sub-culture magazines which they themselves edit, or turn in one manuscript after another rehashing some previously written about topic, to small fish Reformed publishers in order to keep a steady pay-check coming in from the book sales to their zealous disciples, he actually puts out thoughtful, respectable works which either address real academic issues or advance contemporary Reformed discussions in significant ways. All this I throw out there so that no one will be easily prone to characterize and then summarily dismiss Dr. Trueman's remarks as the bitter sniping of the poor kid left standing on the sideline after teams were chosen up at a pick-up basketball game down at the local park.
Now, to Dr.Trueman’s “deep thoughts.” First he points out the all too obvious problem in American evangelicalism more broadly, and now a huge problem among conservative Reformed types, which is the problem of the celebrity cult. It turns out, that Reformed people, who once thought they were immune to the Billy Sunday’s of evangelicalism, actually now have their own, its just that they don’t have quite the same star power in the eyes of outsiders. Never mind that though, because the sad, but humorous thing is, that we don’t care about that as much as we do that he is “our” Billy Sunday. See, if a man gets enough headlines, publishes enough popular books, speaks at enough conferences, and can throw in a few good jokes while he is at it, well, eventually he can attain a certain level of celebrity status among the Reformed, as long as he is willing to coattail the fame of other evangelical celebrities such as John Piper or John MacArthur by speaking with them at various conferences and backslapping them and refusing to condemn their gross sin of being Anabaptists.
I wish Trueman had said these things at least 10 years ago, because I fear that the time for giving a fair hearing to his message about the celebrity cult is long past. Reformed sub-culture has not only constructed its own superapostles, it has become a veritable superapostle making factory. Many in our Reformed world have taken the cues and studied the lessons well of how the evangelicals built a vast evangelical sub-culture that capitalized on the desire for star power and have now reproduced that with incredible efficiency within the Reformed world. At one time in the Reformed community, we stood shoulder to shoulder in criticism against the appalling atrocities committed in the evangelical empire, simultaneously sounding the criticism and sneering in contempt as we made light of their folly. Now however, we have our celebrity cruises with your favorite superapostles, we have “megaconconferences,” and even some of our leading lights actually know the evangelical superstars on a first name basis and have had the opportunity to shake their hand! Isn’t progress grand? What is next, can you say “Reformation theme park!”?
The second thing worth noting in Dr. Trueman's post is the prescription he offers. One, don’t advertize the names of the people speaking at the conference, instead, advertize the subject matter of the conference. The novel idea he proposes is that people will be attracted to the content not the speaker. Here, I think we should cut Dr. Trueman some slack, after all, he is a foreigner: silly Brit, don’t you know that conferences are the only time that most Reformed people will have a chance to know what it feels like to be at a church related activity that has a megachurch feel and atmosphere, and don’t you know that conferences are the only chance we have to get up close, within 15 feet or so, of bona fide celebrities (even if just a celebrity of our making)? Great idea Dr. Trueman, but it will never work. Two, he proposes that conference organizers should consider inviting small fish, from small ponds to speak at the big conferences. His reasoning is basically, that the small fish pastor has a lot more in common with the rest of the folks he is speaking to on account of the fact that most pastors who waste their time going to conferences serve churches of a 100 people or less (give or take). As much as I appreciate new ideas, and Dr. Trueman has some good ones, this is one I think I will pass on. First, if you invite the small fish pastors and people enjoy what they hear, knowing the Reformed sub-culture, they will do everything they can to feverishly commence the work of preparing this poor small fish to be absorbed into the big sea of the Reformed celebrity cult. Second, this would only reinforce the all too common tendency found among many Reformed pastors now which is to dream about one day making it to the “big leagues.” Look at how many small fish there are out there “publishing” their paltry wares with Timbuktu Publishing House in hopes that one day, just one day, they will finally hit that big break and get a chance to be a warm-up act on the Reformed celebrity circuit. Bad idea Dr. Trueman, although I will concede that your heart is in the right place in what you propose.
Well, let me conclude my thoughts on Dr. Trueman’s thoughts by saying, “seriously!”? Has it really come to the point that we need a xeno to politely tell us Reformed people that somehow in fighting against evangelicalism, we have become like our enemy? I wish it were not so, but all indications are that we really need to turn this ship around or it won’t be long before we start printing the names of our talk shows and radio programs on coffee mugs and t-shirts. Oops, we already do that!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Cultural approach to organizations
In the HBO hit series The Sopranos, each meeting of the mafia bosses and “made men” began and ended with a handshake and hug where all the participants gave each other a firm couple of slaps on the back while standing in momentary embrace. Simple social gestures such as these handshakes and hugs are laden with meaning in many different cultures, but they don’t necessarily hold the same measure of meaning whenever they are employed. For instance, in the Sopranos episodes, these gestures functioned as forms of social communication and were designed to reinforce bonds of peace and loyalty between mafia members; however, when these gestures were not exchanged between members at the beginning and of meetings called “sit downs” it indicated that there was division and possibly even hostility brewing between the parties in question, which could eventually have serious if not deadly consequences if the problem was not resolved. It hardly goes without saying, that physical gestures such as handshakes and hugging, communicate that same kind of meaning and significance in most cultural settings. The difference in meaning does not lie in the physical exchange itself, rather it owes to a communal attribution assigned to these gestures when performed in certain situations. This concept of assigned meanings for such mundane social interactions as handshakes and hugs illustrates how certain activities within organizations take on the function of ritual, designed to communicate values and meaning which are important within the framework of a given organizational context. Other communicative features, beyond rituals, of organizational life which provide insight into the values and culture of an organization are stories, myths, vocabulary, and metaphors. These various modes of communication form the backbone of the approach to organizational study called “cultural theory” of organizational analysis.
Cultural theory
Organizational research, from a communication perspective, took a new turn in the early 1980’s when Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) proposed an alternative approach to studying organizations. Three primary issues were identified as reasons justifying the proposal for a different approach to organizational analysis: the conceptualization of what constituted an organization, the managerial bias predominant in organizational studies literature, and the dominant use of quantitative methods of analysis. A case was made by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo that the balance of organizational literature focused too narrowly on business firms and government agencies, while virtually no attention was paid to other kinds of organizations, resulting in a truncated understanding of the operations of organizations. In place of such a narrow focus, they argued that an organization is “the interlocked actions of collectivity” (p.122). What they meant was that an organization consists of places where people gather to get things done including everything from business firms to Friday poker nights to discreet family units. By enlarging the definition and conceptualization of organization, a door was opened for a broader analysis of the inner workings of groups or collectives united around certain loyalties, commitments, values, and associations. Another concern, managerial bias, added a further argument in favor of their proposal. Noting that “more things are going on in organizations than getting the job done” they complained that a managerial bias in research tended to focus narrowly on issues of utility and efficiency without ever looking under the other stones which comprised the life of an organization (p.116). Finally, they pointed out that the almost exclusive use of quantitative methods of analysis biased the research findings and imposed unnecessary limitations on research. To address the research constraints created by a quantitative methodology, they proposed an ethnographic approach to organizational study where researchers would have the opportunity to observe, interview, and analyze so that “the organizational experiences are understood in terms of the understandings of organizational members” (p.127).
Having identified concerns related above, which were typical of what was, at that time, the “traditional” approach to organizational studies, Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982), outlined a cultural approach to organizational studies which was consciously and explicitly “communication-based” (p.121). The underlying rationale for a communication-based approach was their working presupposition that communication creates and sustains organizational life and reality; by analyzing the various modes of communication employed in a specific organization, researchers would be able to understand how communication was used by organizational members to make sense of their experience and thus, would “uncover an organizations culture” (p.124). In order to get at the meaning constructed by organizational members by means of communication, and in turn uncover the organizational culture, they proposed that researchers study “indicators and displayers of organizational sense-making” including, but not limited to: constructs, facts, practices, vocabulary, metaphors, stories, and rites and rituals (p.124-126). Through becoming embedded within a culture in order to gain firsthand knowledge through observation and interviews, the researcher is enabled to build a plausible case for how organizational members “communicatively make sense of their interlocked actions” (p.127). The concerns, methods, and communication focus set forth by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) form the backdrop and constituent parts of the cultural approach to organizational analysis which was further developed in subsequent research by communication scholars.
Cultural theory
Organizational research, from a communication perspective, took a new turn in the early 1980’s when Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) proposed an alternative approach to studying organizations. Three primary issues were identified as reasons justifying the proposal for a different approach to organizational analysis: the conceptualization of what constituted an organization, the managerial bias predominant in organizational studies literature, and the dominant use of quantitative methods of analysis. A case was made by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo that the balance of organizational literature focused too narrowly on business firms and government agencies, while virtually no attention was paid to other kinds of organizations, resulting in a truncated understanding of the operations of organizations. In place of such a narrow focus, they argued that an organization is “the interlocked actions of collectivity” (p.122). What they meant was that an organization consists of places where people gather to get things done including everything from business firms to Friday poker nights to discreet family units. By enlarging the definition and conceptualization of organization, a door was opened for a broader analysis of the inner workings of groups or collectives united around certain loyalties, commitments, values, and associations. Another concern, managerial bias, added a further argument in favor of their proposal. Noting that “more things are going on in organizations than getting the job done” they complained that a managerial bias in research tended to focus narrowly on issues of utility and efficiency without ever looking under the other stones which comprised the life of an organization (p.116). Finally, they pointed out that the almost exclusive use of quantitative methods of analysis biased the research findings and imposed unnecessary limitations on research. To address the research constraints created by a quantitative methodology, they proposed an ethnographic approach to organizational study where researchers would have the opportunity to observe, interview, and analyze so that “the organizational experiences are understood in terms of the understandings of organizational members” (p.127).
Having identified concerns related above, which were typical of what was, at that time, the “traditional” approach to organizational studies, Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982), outlined a cultural approach to organizational studies which was consciously and explicitly “communication-based” (p.121). The underlying rationale for a communication-based approach was their working presupposition that communication creates and sustains organizational life and reality; by analyzing the various modes of communication employed in a specific organization, researchers would be able to understand how communication was used by organizational members to make sense of their experience and thus, would “uncover an organizations culture” (p.124). In order to get at the meaning constructed by organizational members by means of communication, and in turn uncover the organizational culture, they proposed that researchers study “indicators and displayers of organizational sense-making” including, but not limited to: constructs, facts, practices, vocabulary, metaphors, stories, and rites and rituals (p.124-126). Through becoming embedded within a culture in order to gain firsthand knowledge through observation and interviews, the researcher is enabled to build a plausible case for how organizational members “communicatively make sense of their interlocked actions” (p.127). The concerns, methods, and communication focus set forth by Pacanowski and O’donnell-Trujillo (1982) form the backdrop and constituent parts of the cultural approach to organizational analysis which was further developed in subsequent research by communication scholars.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Communication as dialogue
Dialogue and the situated individual
On account of the very nature of the human social situation, all human communication is dialogue according to Eisenberg, Goodall, & Tretheway (2010). Humans are “situated individuals” caught up in the dialectical tension between what Mead calls “the story of I” and “the story of me” (38). This distinction amounts to what a person is in their closet (the story of I) versus the person they are in the world (story of me). In the closet, they have a developed sense of self, with their own unique thoughts, creative insights, and personal identity while in the social world, they feel the pull to think and act according the constraints prevailing within their community. In this sense, constraints are limitations set upon the creativity and freedom of the self in “the story of I” and help form the context for the self in interpreting and then appropriately navigating the social world in “the story of me” (38). Since the human social experience does not exist in radical isolation, but is rather inescapably caught up in this interface between the public and private self, communication is appropriately understood as dialogue. '
Dialogue as mindful communication
Dialogue represents the intersection of the individual and the community in a conversation about the meaning or interpretation of things effecting both groups. At the level of individual self, participation in this constructive conversation begins with conscious thoughtful reflection. This is what Eisenberg et al., call “mindful communication” (41). When a particular group is faced with conflict or possible negative outcomes, individuals come together and communicate mindfully in order to construct an interpretation which is rational and strategic. At the group level, conversation includes “listening” as thoughtful ideas are communicated. This added dimension of listening now draws into the discussion the concepts of equity and quality.
Dialogue as equitable transaction
Equity, in group conversation, addresses the problem of “voice.” Voice, according to Eisenberg et al., involves not only the questions of who may participate in the conversation, when, and for how long, but the additional question of whether individuap participants maintain the confidence that they are permitted to contribute their perspective without fear of reprisal at the hands of the dominant (43). This issue of voice is an especially important consideration in situations where tensions exist between opinions of superiors and subordinates. In a situation such as this, the outstanding concern is not only who will be allowed to speak but who will be heard, and why? This last thought leads to a discussion of the quality of communication.
Dialogue as empathic communication
One response to the set of questions addressed in the concern above, about who would be allowed to speak and be heard is that of empathic communication. Empathic communication is “the ability to understand or imagine the world as another person understands or imagines it” (43). This perspective represents an attempt to try to appreciate opinions of others without being judgmental of those viewpoints which are contradictory to the prevailing opinion. In the sense that it offers voice to members in conversation and permits participation without vilification it does address the questions raised, but only up to a point. It has been successfully argued by Buber, that empathic communication tends to objectify other participants rather than include them as fellow interpreters. Buber’s concern is that merely permitting verbal participation without judgment does not necessarily entail voice for the other person if the opinion is immediately discarded all the while leaving the superficial impression that all parties are equal participants in dialogue.
Dialogue as real meeting
The counterproposal to empathic communication is dialogue as real meeting (43). On this construction, dialogue is built on a foundation of mutual respect for all involved and it acknowledges all parties as equal interpreters. Two components sharply distinguish this perspective from empathic communication. First, in dialogue as real meeting, all who contribute to the dialogue share responsibility for the conversation and are equally responsible for the risks taken as a result of the dialogue. This clearly goes beyond permitting participation without judgment in that it invites participation for all who desire to share responsibility for the outcome whether it ends up positively or negatively. Second, in dialogue as real meeting, discussion is not merely for the purpose of exchanging ideas or information in order to learn, it is engaged in for the purpose of revising how the parties involved actually understand something (46). Obviously, this involves far more than simply getting someone’s “take” on a situation for the sake of information; it involves being open to changing an opinion as the result of soliciting the perspective of another. Taking such a risk in opening up this kind of dialogue certainly requires that enormous respect must be granted up front to those invited into such a conversation.
On account of the very nature of the human social situation, all human communication is dialogue according to Eisenberg, Goodall, & Tretheway (2010). Humans are “situated individuals” caught up in the dialectical tension between what Mead calls “the story of I” and “the story of me” (38). This distinction amounts to what a person is in their closet (the story of I) versus the person they are in the world (story of me). In the closet, they have a developed sense of self, with their own unique thoughts, creative insights, and personal identity while in the social world, they feel the pull to think and act according the constraints prevailing within their community. In this sense, constraints are limitations set upon the creativity and freedom of the self in “the story of I” and help form the context for the self in interpreting and then appropriately navigating the social world in “the story of me” (38). Since the human social experience does not exist in radical isolation, but is rather inescapably caught up in this interface between the public and private self, communication is appropriately understood as dialogue. '
Dialogue as mindful communication
Dialogue represents the intersection of the individual and the community in a conversation about the meaning or interpretation of things effecting both groups. At the level of individual self, participation in this constructive conversation begins with conscious thoughtful reflection. This is what Eisenberg et al., call “mindful communication” (41). When a particular group is faced with conflict or possible negative outcomes, individuals come together and communicate mindfully in order to construct an interpretation which is rational and strategic. At the group level, conversation includes “listening” as thoughtful ideas are communicated. This added dimension of listening now draws into the discussion the concepts of equity and quality.
Dialogue as equitable transaction
Equity, in group conversation, addresses the problem of “voice.” Voice, according to Eisenberg et al., involves not only the questions of who may participate in the conversation, when, and for how long, but the additional question of whether individuap participants maintain the confidence that they are permitted to contribute their perspective without fear of reprisal at the hands of the dominant (43). This issue of voice is an especially important consideration in situations where tensions exist between opinions of superiors and subordinates. In a situation such as this, the outstanding concern is not only who will be allowed to speak but who will be heard, and why? This last thought leads to a discussion of the quality of communication.
Dialogue as empathic communication
One response to the set of questions addressed in the concern above, about who would be allowed to speak and be heard is that of empathic communication. Empathic communication is “the ability to understand or imagine the world as another person understands or imagines it” (43). This perspective represents an attempt to try to appreciate opinions of others without being judgmental of those viewpoints which are contradictory to the prevailing opinion. In the sense that it offers voice to members in conversation and permits participation without vilification it does address the questions raised, but only up to a point. It has been successfully argued by Buber, that empathic communication tends to objectify other participants rather than include them as fellow interpreters. Buber’s concern is that merely permitting verbal participation without judgment does not necessarily entail voice for the other person if the opinion is immediately discarded all the while leaving the superficial impression that all parties are equal participants in dialogue.
Dialogue as real meeting
The counterproposal to empathic communication is dialogue as real meeting (43). On this construction, dialogue is built on a foundation of mutual respect for all involved and it acknowledges all parties as equal interpreters. Two components sharply distinguish this perspective from empathic communication. First, in dialogue as real meeting, all who contribute to the dialogue share responsibility for the conversation and are equally responsible for the risks taken as a result of the dialogue. This clearly goes beyond permitting participation without judgment in that it invites participation for all who desire to share responsibility for the outcome whether it ends up positively or negatively. Second, in dialogue as real meeting, discussion is not merely for the purpose of exchanging ideas or information in order to learn, it is engaged in for the purpose of revising how the parties involved actually understand something (46). Obviously, this involves far more than simply getting someone’s “take” on a situation for the sake of information; it involves being open to changing an opinion as the result of soliciting the perspective of another. Taking such a risk in opening up this kind of dialogue certainly requires that enormous respect must be granted up front to those invited into such a conversation.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ Pt.3 (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
Having addressed the relationship of the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ to the bodily resurrection of believers from 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, I want to focus attention on a different issue. Intertwined around Paul's theologically rich exposition of the guarantee of bodily resurrection, is some very profound insight into the nature of Christ's contemporary kingdom rule. Specifically, this text leads us to engage the debate which centers on the so-called TWO-KINGDOM THEOLOGY. Our aim in this post is to concentrate on defending the Biblical, and confessionally Reformed view that Christ has TWO KINGDOMS.
First, let's set forth some of the classical distinctions and terminology typically used the two kingdom discussion. Historically, Reformed theological reflection on the kingdom of Christ has distinguished between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. The kingdom of power is Christ's rule over creation and providence in view of his concern to rule, build, and preserve his church; and the kingdom of grace is Christ's special rule over the church as the God-man, while the kingdom of glory is the eternal state of glorification following upon the consummation of this age. As we will see below, this is a crucial distinction we must maintain in the kingly rule of Christ; otherwise, failing to distinguish between the two kingdoms, will lead to substantial tension in the theological formulation of the ontological Trinity.
Second, let's just make it clear that the classic, Reformed tradition has made this distinction. John Calvin in his Institutes unambiguously upholds two kingdom construction of Christ's kingly rule when he says:
We must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it (2.2.13)
Let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to perform (see Book 4, chap. 10, sec. 3-6). To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other (3.19.15)
But he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated (4.20.1).
Alright, you might say, "those quotes are fairly clear; Calvin seems to make a distinction in the kingly administration of Christ's rule, between his governance of the church, and his rule over creation in general. But that is just Calvin, and we know he was somewhat influenced by Luther, so probably, the rest of the Reformed theologians who stand at a greater temporal distance from Luther, don't maintain this distinction." That is a false understanding of Reformed thought. Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, commenting on the 2nd petition of the Lord's Prayer, "thy kingdom come," makes the following distinctions regarding the kingdom of God:
The kingdom of God is that in which God alone rules and exercises dominion over all creatures; but especially does he govern and preserve the church. This kingdom is universal. The special kingdom of God—that which he exercises in his church consists in sending the Son from the Father, from the very beginning of the world, that he might institute and preserve the ministry of the church, and accomplish his purposes by it—that he might gather a church from the whole human race by his word and Spirit—rule, preserve and defend it against all enemies (p.1118).
It is very clear from this first, initial comment on the 2nd petition, that Ursinus is making a distinction in the kingly rule of Christ. On the one hand, he acknowledges a kingly rule of Christ that is over all. But then, on the other hand, he explains that along side that rule, which is over all things and creatures, that Christ has a "special kingdom" which is Christ's kingly rule over the church. In subsequent remarks he expands upon and clarifies this twofold kingdom of Christ. He argues that the rule of Christ that we pray for in the 2nd petition is the rule of Christ which is "spiritual" and which he has already identified as the "special kingdom." Then he goes on to characterize this special kingdom in a manner similar to Calvin, explaining, "It is commonly spoken of and distinguished as the Kingdom of grace and of glory" (p.1119). In making use of these categories "kingdom of grace" and "kingdom of glory" he is simply clarifying the point that the kingdom of grace bears within its womb the consummate kingdom, the kingdom of glory, that is, the glorified eternal state. This is precisely the meaning in view today, when Biblical theologians describe and distinguish between this interadventual period and the eternal state by using the terminology of "already and not-yet." The "already" is the current reign of Christ manifest in the his kingly rule in the hearts of believers, and the "not-yet," as the full manifestation and outworking of Christ's saving rule in the glorified, eternal state.
Let's add one more Reformed stallwart to the mix here, Francis Turretin. Expounding upon the mediatorial kingship of Christ, Turretin offers the following distinction: we must distinguish between the twofold kingdom belonging to Christ: one natural or essential; the other mediatorial and economical. Christ possesses the former over all creatures with glory and majesty equal to the Father and Holy Spirit. The latter (according to the economy of grace) he administers in a peculiar manner as God-man. The former extends equally over all creatures; the latter is terminated especially on the church (16th question, p.486, vol.2). Obviously, Turretin is working with the kingdom categories typically used in classical Reformed discussion about the kingdom. In general, we can conclude from these three references that the Reformed were clear to distinguish between the administration of Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, and his kingly rule over the church. The rule over nature was grounded in his eternal being, shared with the Father and Holy Spirity, peculiarly administered for a time as the God-man; while, the rule over the church was Christ's very own special rule, received, exercised, and administered as the reward and fruit of his mediatorial, redemptive work.
Third, having clarified the classic, historic, Reformed teaching concerning the kingdom, let's pause to examine how 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 bears on this important distinction. Without thinking on v24 for too long, one begins to see an apparent problem when Paul explains that Jesus Christ will "hand over the kingdom to the Father." Now add to that indications of the temporal limitations of his rule in v25, implied in the words "he must reign UNTIL." Finally, v28 forces us to grasp at some sort of a distinction in order to save the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when Paul says, "then the Son also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him." Verse 28 falls on the heals of Paul's clarification that the application of the words of Psalm 8:6 to Jesus, "all things are under subject to his feet," does not involve a subjection of the Father to Christ. Rather, the Father is excepted, and once the total conquest of Christ's enemies has been achieved, then "the Son" will himself be subjected to the Father.
This language causes insuperable problems theologically, if Paul's intention is to actually refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity, when he says "the Son" will be subject to the Father. If that language is designed to identify "the Son" with the second person of the Trinity, then it must follow that the Son of God is ontologically subordinate to the Father, and thus we would be forced to conclude that there is ontological hierarchy and subordination within the Trinity. In other words, we would have confess that the Son is less divine, and less authoritative than the Father. Of course, that would be completely out of accord with the full sweep of scripture which repeatedly affirms the full essential parity of the persons of the Trinity. But there have been many unscrupulous interepreters in the history of Christianity who have taken the word "Son" here to refer to the second divine person, the Son, and they have argued that such a referent, with its consequenent subordination, is consistent with the language of v24 that Christ will deliver over the kingdom to the Father, the language of v25 which implies a termination to Christ's kingly rule, and finally, to the exception clause of v27 which not only clarifies that the Father is not subject to the Son, but seems to imply, that the Son is indeed subordinate to the Father.
So, what then is the solution? Well, the solution lies in making a distinction between the kingdoms. When Paul explains that Christ must deliver over the kingdom, has a temporary rule, is subject to the Father, and eventually will yield up his authority and openly subject himself to the Father, we must see these remarks as references to Christ's mediatorial rule. The key is to see that the kingdom rule in view here in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, which he exercises as the God-man, throughout the interadventual period, and maintains with a view to his rule and preservation of the church. Charles Hodge, in commenting on v24, makes this explanation of the kingly rule in view here:
The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In what sense, then, can he be said to deliver up his kingdom? Paul refers here to that dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to his hands. This kingdom, which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, he is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in his mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on his work to its consummation. When that is done, i.e. when he has subdued all his enemies, then he will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God; while his headship over his people is to continue for ever.
With that clarification in view, we are positioned to interpet the reference to "the Son" in the phrase "then the Son Himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him" in way that is contextually sensitive and theologically coherent. The reference to "the Son" in v28 is not a reference to the 2nd person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God; rather, it is a messianic title, designating Jesus as the royal Son of Psalm 2 and 110 who delivers over his rule, once he has thoroughly conquered his foes. Again, Hodge offers a nuanced defense of this interpretive decision when he argues:
This passage is evidently parallel with that in v. 24. The subjection of the Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant by his delivering up the kingdom to God even the Father. The thing done, and the person who does it, are the same. The subjection here spoken of is not predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any more than the kingdom spoken of in v. 24 is the dominion which belongs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the Theanthropos, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate. It is not the subjection of the Son as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the apostle here speaks.
There you have it. Hodge in defending his interpetation of "Son" as a messianic title, grounds his interpretation by appealing to classic Reformed christological categories which include both his person and his offices.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is one passage among others that has led to the classic Reformed distinction between the spheres of Christ's kingly rule. In vew of the theological problems inherent in a one kingdom view,discussed above, it is incumbent upon Christians who want to maintain fidelity to scripture, theology, and the creeds and confessions of the Church, to recognize and uphold the distinction between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. Failure to do so only leads to dangerous theological confusion which can potentially mislead the saints and provide fotter for heretics who seek the destruction of orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology. However, acknowledging the fact and necessity of this distinction, does not by itself require one to subscribe to a single, monolithic view of the implications of this distinction for culture and politics. How the confession of these distinctions in Christ's kingly rule bears upon the issue of the relationship between church and culture will have to be left for the next post.
First, let's set forth some of the classical distinctions and terminology typically used the two kingdom discussion. Historically, Reformed theological reflection on the kingdom of Christ has distinguished between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. The kingdom of power is Christ's rule over creation and providence in view of his concern to rule, build, and preserve his church; and the kingdom of grace is Christ's special rule over the church as the God-man, while the kingdom of glory is the eternal state of glorification following upon the consummation of this age. As we will see below, this is a crucial distinction we must maintain in the kingly rule of Christ; otherwise, failing to distinguish between the two kingdoms, will lead to substantial tension in the theological formulation of the ontological Trinity.
Second, let's just make it clear that the classic, Reformed tradition has made this distinction. John Calvin in his Institutes unambiguously upholds two kingdom construction of Christ's kingly rule when he says:
We must here set forth a distinction. This, then, is the distinction: that there is one kind of understanding of earthly things; another of heavenly. I call “earthly things” those which do not pertain to God or his Kingdom, to true justice, or to the blessedness of the future life; but which have their significance and relationship with regard to the present life and are, in a sense, confined within its bounds. I call “heavenly things” the pure knowledge of God, the nature of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom. The first class includes government, household management, all mechanical skills, and the liberal arts. In the second are the knowledge of God and of his will, and the rule by which we conform our lives to it (2.2.13)
Let us observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to perform (see Book 4, chap. 10, sec. 3-6). To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other (3.19.15)
But he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated (4.20.1).
Alright, you might say, "those quotes are fairly clear; Calvin seems to make a distinction in the kingly administration of Christ's rule, between his governance of the church, and his rule over creation in general. But that is just Calvin, and we know he was somewhat influenced by Luther, so probably, the rest of the Reformed theologians who stand at a greater temporal distance from Luther, don't maintain this distinction." That is a false understanding of Reformed thought. Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, commenting on the 2nd petition of the Lord's Prayer, "thy kingdom come," makes the following distinctions regarding the kingdom of God:
The kingdom of God is that in which God alone rules and exercises dominion over all creatures; but especially does he govern and preserve the church. This kingdom is universal. The special kingdom of God—that which he exercises in his church consists in sending the Son from the Father, from the very beginning of the world, that he might institute and preserve the ministry of the church, and accomplish his purposes by it—that he might gather a church from the whole human race by his word and Spirit—rule, preserve and defend it against all enemies (p.1118).
It is very clear from this first, initial comment on the 2nd petition, that Ursinus is making a distinction in the kingly rule of Christ. On the one hand, he acknowledges a kingly rule of Christ that is over all. But then, on the other hand, he explains that along side that rule, which is over all things and creatures, that Christ has a "special kingdom" which is Christ's kingly rule over the church. In subsequent remarks he expands upon and clarifies this twofold kingdom of Christ. He argues that the rule of Christ that we pray for in the 2nd petition is the rule of Christ which is "spiritual" and which he has already identified as the "special kingdom." Then he goes on to characterize this special kingdom in a manner similar to Calvin, explaining, "It is commonly spoken of and distinguished as the Kingdom of grace and of glory" (p.1119). In making use of these categories "kingdom of grace" and "kingdom of glory" he is simply clarifying the point that the kingdom of grace bears within its womb the consummate kingdom, the kingdom of glory, that is, the glorified eternal state. This is precisely the meaning in view today, when Biblical theologians describe and distinguish between this interadventual period and the eternal state by using the terminology of "already and not-yet." The "already" is the current reign of Christ manifest in the his kingly rule in the hearts of believers, and the "not-yet," as the full manifestation and outworking of Christ's saving rule in the glorified, eternal state.
Let's add one more Reformed stallwart to the mix here, Francis Turretin. Expounding upon the mediatorial kingship of Christ, Turretin offers the following distinction: we must distinguish between the twofold kingdom belonging to Christ: one natural or essential; the other mediatorial and economical. Christ possesses the former over all creatures with glory and majesty equal to the Father and Holy Spirit. The latter (according to the economy of grace) he administers in a peculiar manner as God-man. The former extends equally over all creatures; the latter is terminated especially on the church (16th question, p.486, vol.2). Obviously, Turretin is working with the kingdom categories typically used in classical Reformed discussion about the kingdom. In general, we can conclude from these three references that the Reformed were clear to distinguish between the administration of Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, and his kingly rule over the church. The rule over nature was grounded in his eternal being, shared with the Father and Holy Spirity, peculiarly administered for a time as the God-man; while, the rule over the church was Christ's very own special rule, received, exercised, and administered as the reward and fruit of his mediatorial, redemptive work.
Third, having clarified the classic, historic, Reformed teaching concerning the kingdom, let's pause to examine how 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 bears on this important distinction. Without thinking on v24 for too long, one begins to see an apparent problem when Paul explains that Jesus Christ will "hand over the kingdom to the Father." Now add to that indications of the temporal limitations of his rule in v25, implied in the words "he must reign UNTIL." Finally, v28 forces us to grasp at some sort of a distinction in order to save the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity when Paul says, "then the Son also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him." Verse 28 falls on the heals of Paul's clarification that the application of the words of Psalm 8:6 to Jesus, "all things are under subject to his feet," does not involve a subjection of the Father to Christ. Rather, the Father is excepted, and once the total conquest of Christ's enemies has been achieved, then "the Son" will himself be subjected to the Father.
This language causes insuperable problems theologically, if Paul's intention is to actually refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity, when he says "the Son" will be subject to the Father. If that language is designed to identify "the Son" with the second person of the Trinity, then it must follow that the Son of God is ontologically subordinate to the Father, and thus we would be forced to conclude that there is ontological hierarchy and subordination within the Trinity. In other words, we would have confess that the Son is less divine, and less authoritative than the Father. Of course, that would be completely out of accord with the full sweep of scripture which repeatedly affirms the full essential parity of the persons of the Trinity. But there have been many unscrupulous interepreters in the history of Christianity who have taken the word "Son" here to refer to the second divine person, the Son, and they have argued that such a referent, with its consequenent subordination, is consistent with the language of v24 that Christ will deliver over the kingdom to the Father, the language of v25 which implies a termination to Christ's kingly rule, and finally, to the exception clause of v27 which not only clarifies that the Father is not subject to the Son, but seems to imply, that the Son is indeed subordinate to the Father.
So, what then is the solution? Well, the solution lies in making a distinction between the kingdoms. When Paul explains that Christ must deliver over the kingdom, has a temporary rule, is subject to the Father, and eventually will yield up his authority and openly subject himself to the Father, we must see these remarks as references to Christ's mediatorial rule. The key is to see that the kingdom rule in view here in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is Christ's kingly rule over creation and providence, which he exercises as the God-man, throughout the interadventual period, and maintains with a view to his rule and preservation of the church. Charles Hodge, in commenting on v24, makes this explanation of the kingly rule in view here:
The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In what sense, then, can he be said to deliver up his kingdom? Paul refers here to that dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to his hands. This kingdom, which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, he is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in his mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on his work to its consummation. When that is done, i.e. when he has subdued all his enemies, then he will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God; while his headship over his people is to continue for ever.
With that clarification in view, we are positioned to interpet the reference to "the Son" in the phrase "then the Son Himself will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him" in way that is contextually sensitive and theologically coherent. The reference to "the Son" in v28 is not a reference to the 2nd person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God; rather, it is a messianic title, designating Jesus as the royal Son of Psalm 2 and 110 who delivers over his rule, once he has thoroughly conquered his foes. Again, Hodge offers a nuanced defense of this interpretive decision when he argues:
This passage is evidently parallel with that in v. 24. The subjection of the Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant by his delivering up the kingdom to God even the Father. The thing done, and the person who does it, are the same. The subjection here spoken of is not predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any more than the kingdom spoken of in v. 24 is the dominion which belongs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the Theanthropos, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate. It is not the subjection of the Son as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the apostle here speaks.
There you have it. Hodge in defending his interpetation of "Son" as a messianic title, grounds his interpretation by appealing to classic Reformed christological categories which include both his person and his offices.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is one passage among others that has led to the classic Reformed distinction between the spheres of Christ's kingly rule. In vew of the theological problems inherent in a one kingdom view,discussed above, it is incumbent upon Christians who want to maintain fidelity to scripture, theology, and the creeds and confessions of the Church, to recognize and uphold the distinction between the kingdom of power and the kingdom of grace and glory. Failure to do so only leads to dangerous theological confusion which can potentially mislead the saints and provide fotter for heretics who seek the destruction of orthodox Trinitarian theology and Christology. However, acknowledging the fact and necessity of this distinction, does not by itself require one to subscribe to a single, monolithic view of the implications of this distinction for culture and politics. How the confession of these distinctions in Christ's kingly rule bears upon the issue of the relationship between church and culture will have to be left for the next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)