The chapter on the Sabbath in With Reverence and Awe is worth the price of the entire book. While I certainly disagree with Hart and Muether’s obvious dislike of Kuyperian Calvinsim (considering myself a thoroughgoing Kuyperian), I can’t help but appreciate the concerns expressed in this chapter. Here is a great section in which the authors discuss the difference between Sabbath keeping and revivalism.
God’s intention was to bless his people through the constant and conscientious observation of the day, week after week and year after year. Believers are sanctified through a lifetime of Sabbath observance. In other words, the Sabbath is designed to work slowly, quietly, seemingly imperceptively in reorienting believers’ appetites heavenward. It is not a quick fix, nor is it necessarily a spiritual high. It is an “outward and ordinary” ordinance (WSC 88), part of the steady and healthy diet of the means of grace. North American Protestants, we have noted, are generally not in sync with this rhythm. Attracted to the inward and extraordinary, they commonly suffer from spiritual bulimia, binging at big events, then purging, by absenting themselves from God’s prescribed diet. The problem with the spirituality of mountaintop experiences is that no one can live on the mountain. We all have to return to our day jobs. When people leave the retreat or Bible camp, or even the midweek small group, they discover their life is still the same: jobs are unpleasant, marriages are shaky, sickness and disease afflict. In contrast, the Sabbath is supposed to be a discipline that provides an oasis in the desert for pilgrims, whose life is marked by suffering. Unlike the church activities that clutter the rest of the week, the Sabbath is when believers spiritually assemble on Mount Zion to meet with their God, to hear him speak, and to partake spiritually of their Savior’s body and blood.
Darryl Hart and John Muether, With Reverence and Awe,
p. 65-66
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 12, 2009 at 10:28 pm
wateristhickerthanblood
Great quotation!
If you have the time, would you further delineate yourself from what you disagree with and your understanding of neo-Calvinism. I would definitely love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks,
Timothy Massaro
March 12, 2009 at 11:08 pm
sacramentalpiety
Hey Tim. Great hearing from you. In my understanding there are two brands of Kuyperianism. The first is that of Kuyper and others like him (ex: Bavinck). In this schema, all spheres of life are unique in their own right. The church is not the state, the state is not the church, education is not subservient and answerable to the state, etc. etc. etc. In Kuyper’s scheme, very tight and necessary distinctions are made between the various spheres of life. Each sphere is sovereign in its own right, hence the term “sphere sovereignty.” What makes Kuyper somewhat offensive is his insistence upon the Lordship of Christ via special revelation over every sphere of life. Therefore Calvinism, although certainly tied to specific doctrinal formulations, is much more than a mere set of doctrines. Calvinism also furnishes the believer with the proper worldview through which to evaluate all of life. The truths of Calvinism extend to church, family, educational, state, and private spheres of life. This doesn’t mean that all of life is to be somehow flattened out and thrown into the realm of the sacred. I believe that Kuyper saw a need for a two-kingdoms theology. Thus his very strong insistence upon the separation of church and state spheres which I think emerges into a kind of Christian libertarianism. Kuyper is very concerned with the evils of statism. On the other hand, he is very careful to apply the doctrines of God’s sovereignty via the truths of Scripture to every sphere of life. For example, the moral law of God must regulate church, state, private, and educational spheres of life although in different ways. The other kind of twisted world and life view Calvinism is represented by the likes of John Frame, the Chalcedon theonomist’s, and others. For these guys, there are no biblical distinctions between that which holy and that which is profane. Something like the regulative principle can be attacked with the logic that worship is something we do everyday and not limited to the Sabbath. The perpetually binding nature of the Sabbath law is attacked by appealing to the fact that “every day is sacred to the Lord.” To me, this is not Kuyperianism or Reformed in the least bit. It has taken, in my opinion, the biblical logic of Kuyper into a place where Kuyper never intended to go.
Sorry if this isn’t clear enough. Although not directly related to this, I did a post a while back of some observations I made while reading Calvinism and Politics in Kuyper’s lectures. The post can be found here.
March 12, 2009 at 11:21 pm
wateristhickerthanblood
Thanks for your comments and answers, they are much appreciated. I will definitely take a look at the post.
March 14, 2009 at 4:13 am
Jordan Huff
Hmm…great post, man. It’s so refreshing to read such great posts about the sanctity of the ordinary means. It definitely defies the more “Grudemite” folk who expand the means of grace to include all conceived forms of “spiritual growth.” Lately, I’ve been encouraged to these things from the Psalter, men who desired more than anything else to sacrifice and worship in God’s house, not retire to their journaling or their small group or favorite K-Love song.
Your answer to Tim’s question makes good sense. I’ll definitely have to read Kuyper’s “Lectures”, it’s been sitting on my shelf for awhile now. I’m just reading too many other things.
Again, thanks for the post, you’ve buttressed my affections even more for this coming Lord’s Day.
March 15, 2009 at 1:30 am
sacramentalpiety
Thanks Jordan. And congrats man. I’m sorry we haven’t talked. We seem to miss each other every time we try to call. I’ll try to call you this week.
March 15, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Jordan
Thanks, dude. Not a problem, I know you have a lot going on. We’ll talk when we talk, i’m not goin anywhere.