Christ, Culture, and College Students – A Reformed Perspective (Pt. 2)

Last time I had said that “if we do not allow our theory to move into praxis then we have failed to perform the proper task of theology (orthopraxy).” This blog series aims at orthpraxy. Today we look at the first of four theological concepts regarding Christ and Culture and we will see how it affects the way college ministry is done. Lets talk about culture and the cultural mandate.

___________________________

Culture and the Cultural Mandate

            So there are a bunch of different definitions of culture. Some of these definitions emphasize a view of culture as being “high culture.” These types of definitions spring from the concept of something being “cultural” if it represents the crowning achievements of a particular culture. For instance we could think of “high culture” as being cultural products like poetry, Shakespeare, classical music, fine wines, art, etc. Under this view the things that would not be culture are pop music, blockbuster movies, cheep beer, or action films because these are the “base” things of culture. However this way of understanding culture doesn’t do much work for us theologically. We need to focus on a more substantive understanding of culture. In Christ and Culture Revisited D.A. Carson offered several substantive definitions of culture that were put forward by various anthropologists. For instance Robert Redfield defines culture as “shared understandings mad manifest in act and artifact.”[1] Clifford Geertz says that “the culture concept…denotes an historically transmitted patter of meanings embodied in symbols…which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life.”[2] However the definition of culture that I find most helpful is Andy Crouch’s definition (Its SUPER easy to remember). Crouch says that “culture is what we make of the world.”[3] My own understanding of culture has been shaped by this definition. In this definition Crouch intends to communicate that human beings are creative. Human beings create artifacts, they create meanings regarding those artifact, and they create meanings regarding the world around them. So for Crouch “what we make of the world” could be understood in two senses: creating artifacts and making interpretations.

Crouch grounds this creative task in what has often been called the “cultural mandate.” Richard Mouw presents a basic but informative understanding of what the “cultural mandate” is. Mouw notes that in Genesis God commands humanity to fill the earth and subdue it, Mouw understands this as a command to create culture. Mouw says that God appointed humanity to be stewards over the earth’s resources. Humanity was supposed to take these resources and fill the earthy with God’s glory. Humans were to do this through their “interactions with nature and with each other.”[4] They were also supposed to bring order to the garden and introduce “schemes for managing” it.[5] In doing this humans would be adding to what God created. They would be creating culture; they would be creating new artifacts and new ways of organizing and understanding the world around them. This understanding of the “cultural mandate” is in line with Crouch’s definition of culture; Crouch emphasizes that humans are essentially creative (since all humans are embedded in culture) and Mouw emphasizes that creating culture is a part of what God intended for humanity. These two things are especially relevant for college students that I am working with. If we take seriously that engaging in culture and creating culture is part of what it means to be fully human then this must affect the way we minister to these college students.

There are various ways that this understanding of culture and the cultural mandate will affect a college ministry. I believe that since creating culture is an essential part of flourishing as a human we should take steps to help encourage students to engage creatively with culture. This might be as simple as encouraging students to create cultural artifacts like music or art. Another way that I could do that is by encouraging them to create systems and structures for our ministry or to create new initiatives for ministry. For instance if some students want to reach out and help the foreign students at our local college campus they are engaging with culture creatively by creating a new way to help fellow human being engage in community. A third way that we could help students do this is by helping them form new interpretations of the world. Since creating culture involves creating new meanings for the world around them, I could help resource them to do that. This might take the form of challenging them to think differently, giving them books to read from people outside of our tradition, or helping them process through cross-cultural experiences. These are only a few ways to help them engage in culture and fulfill the cultural mandate. However before the students begin to do this it would be helpful for them to understand some of the areas of culture God desires to transform.

Next time we will take a look at how culture is transformed….

__________________________________________________________

[1] D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 2.

[2] D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, 2.

[3] Andy Crouch, Culture Making, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 23.

[4] Richard Mouw, When the Kings Come Marching In, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 35.

[5] Mouw, When the Kings Come Marching In, 35.

Christ, Culture, and College Students – A Reformed Perspective (Pt. 1)

A while ago I took a class at Fuller Seminary called “Perspectives on Christ and Culture.” In that class we examined various aspects of the relationship between Christ or Christianity and culture. We looked at and assessed various traditions ranging from Anabaptists to those belonging to the Reformed Tradition, we also examined various topics like multiculturalism and western patterns of thought. Having learned so much (theory) it would be a waste to store this information and never allow it to affect our ministry and the way that we live (praxis). If we do not allow our theory to move into praxis then we have failed to perform the proper task of theology (orthopraxy). In this blog I want to cover four theological concepts regarding Christ and Culture and see how it affects the way ministry is done. Now this blog is specific to my own context, but I believe that it serves as a model for how to understand Christ and Culture in regards to numerous ministry contexts.

I currently work with a college-age ministry which is a part of a large mega-church in the San Fernando Valley (a suburb of Los Angeles). Our group primarily consists of middle class, Anglo-American college students. My role in this ministry is directing our small groups. I help write curriculum for the small groups, train leaders, disciple students, and I occasionally preach. My hope is that I can take what I have learned and help these students think through their relationship to culture so that they might live faithfully as Christ-followers in whatever context God places them.

Over the next few days we will take a look at:

  1. Culture and the Cultural Mandate
  2. Transforming Culture
  3. Transforming Culture and the Biblical Meta-Narrative
  4. God’s Sovereignty and Vocation

 

Creation and Providence (Pt. 3)

The relationship between creation and providence is not one that is often considered. Usually when we talk about creation we think about the “7 day” or the creation/evolution debate. When we talk about providence we usually speak of God’s providence in “helping me get that job” or “keeping me from getting in that car accident.” In this blog we will be talking about creation and providence in ways that we don’t usually think about.

___________________________

Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the view that an action is free when an action a person performs is the action that that person wanted to perform, not when a person has alternate possibilities. In other words to say that an agents’ action is free is to say that the action is spontaneous, it flows from who or what that agent is. As an example of a compatibilist free action consider two drug addicts. Drug addict 1 loves and enjoys the fact that he does drugs, drug addict 2 hates drugs and wants to stop. Both drug addicts will end up doing drugs because they are addicted; they have no alternate possibilities. It seems right to say that drug addict 1 was free because she did what she desired, while drug addict two was not free because her action was not in line with her will. Both were determined to act in a particular way but drug addict one was free even though she did not have alternate possibilities.

The advantage of the compatibilist view is that it is compatible with a view of God’s providence that says that God determines the actions of his creation, and thus does not take risks. So if one is a compatibilist one can say that humans and God achieve their ends freely.

However there is a problem with compatibilism, namely that it seems as though for agents to be morally responsible, the agent must have alternatives to their actions. This notion has been called the principle of alternative possibilities. According to Harry Frankfurt this principle states that a person is morally responsible for what she has done only if she could have done otherwise.  In other words a person is morally responsible only in situations where this person has alternatives as to what she can do. So if we keep the notion that God determines agents’ actions, it seems as though we lose the grounding for moral responsibility.

So in order for compatibilism to be a viable option, we must somehow maintain the notion of moral responsibility while affirming that God does not take risks and that humans are free agents. Is this possible? I believe that it is. Harry Frankfurt’s article “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”[1] shows us how. In it he comes up with the following thought experiment: Suppose a man named Black wants a man named Jones to kill the mayor.  Also suppose that Jones wants to kill the mayor for reasons independent of Black’s reasons.  Black is willing to do anything so that Jones will kill the mayor, but Black prefers that Jones does not come to know this so Black makes it the case that Jones does not even know he exists. When an opportunity arises for the assassination to occur Black waits until Jones makes up his mind as to whether or not he will follow through with it.  However if Black suspects that Jones will not kill the mayor Black takes steps to ensure that Jones kills the mayor.  Jones would do this by expelling some chemical into the air that will make Jones kill the mayor.  So it is the case that regardless of what Jones had decided to do before the assassination Black will have his way. In other words, there are no alternate possibilities, Jones will kill the mayor. Since Jones kills the mayor it seems as though Jones did not have alternate possibilities but Jones was still morally responsible for the assassination. Thus Frankfurt shows that the principle of alternate possibilities is false, and moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. Because he shows this, a major objection to compatibilism is deflected. Having defeated a major objection to compatibilism, we can go on to affirm that God does not take risks when it comes to his providential purposes and that humans are free agents.

[1] Harry Frankfurt, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” The Journal of Philosophy 66, no. 23 (December 1969): 829-839.

Creation and Providence (Pt. 2)

The relationship between creation and providence is not one that is often considered. Usually when we talk about creation we think about the “7 day” or the creation/evolution debate. When we talk about providence we usually speak of God’s providence in “helping me get that job” or “keeping me from getting in that car accident.” In this blog we will be talking about creation and providence in ways that we don’t usually think about.

________________________

God’s Providence and Freedom

As Westerners, freedom is something that we greatly value. Living in the United States one is taught from childhood how valuable a gift freedom really is, so naturally people who think about God in America are interested in how their freedom relates to God’s providence. One way to think about freedom is in the libertarian sense. Libertarian freedom is the view of freedom in which an action is free if and only if one has alternate possibilities. That is, if an agent can choose to do x or y, then that agent is free. In other words the agent is free if her actions are undetermined.

When talking about God’s providential purpose we want to affirm that in some sense humans are free agents. Yet an issue arises when we define freedom in a libertarian manner. If an agent is free if and only if the agent has alternate possibilities, how can God ensure that his purposes are accomplished? It seems as though we cannot affirm with absolute certainty that God will accomplish his ends if agents are free in the libertarian sense. For if there are genuine alternatives in the created order then it seems that God is taking a risk in allowing for freedom. How is God taking a risk? It seems as though if there are truly alternative possibilities in creation then God cannot truly know the outcomes of those possibilities, if he did then they would not truly be alternative possibilities. So a consequence of holding a libertarian view of freedom is that we must say that God takes risks. Saying that God takes risks is too high of a price to pay. First if we affirm this position, then we must say that God’s grace will not necessarily be efficacious. That is, it is possible that God’s grace does not actually end up bringing anyone to salvation. This seems strange and contrary to biblical evidence. Secondly another consequence of affirming that God takes risks is that it would mean that God is in time, and so is not timelessly eternal. Some theologians might be fine with this result, but others won’t. Finally and perhaps the highest cost of this position is that if God takes genuine risks, then it is possible that in the end God’s purposes never come to pass. This is too high of a cost to pay.

So how can we hold a position that upholds human freedom and ensures that God does not take risks? The answer is compatibilism.

Creation and Providence (Pt. 1)

The relationship between creation and providence is not one that is often considered. Usually when we talk about creation we think about the “7 day” or the creation/evolution debate. When we talk about providence we usually speak of God’s providence in “helping me get that job” or “keeping me from getting in that car accident.” In this blog we will be talking about creation and providence in ways that we don’t usually discuss.

________________________

Creation and Providence 

The Church has traditionally affirmed several things about God and creation. First, that God himself is the only uncreated necessary being. Second, that God is the creator of all things that exist outside of himself (for all things x, if x is contingent, then God creates x). Third, that God creates ex nihilo, that is God does not create the universe out of some pre-existent matter rather God creates out of nothing. This follows from the first and second points, for if God is the only uncreated necessary being, and God is the creator of all things which are contingent, then it is not possible that there is some matter which exists outside of God but is also uncreated. Finally, God conserves the creation in being for as long as the creation continues to exist. That is, if x is contingent then God has brought x into existence and God conserves x in existence. Some have argued against this final point, that God conserves x in existence. These people argue that God does not conserve things in existence; rather God is continually creating new things. Thus, if x is contingent then God continuously creates x at each moment of its existence. But this formulation of the notion that God continuously creates does not accurately portray what actually happens, because God is not creating x at each moment of existence, x flashes out of existence and God brings into being a numerically distinct entity, y, and so on as long as contingent objects exist. Yet if God continuously creates the world, then it does not make sense to talk about God’s providential action in the world because it is unclear which entity God’s providence is directed towards if that entity no longer exists after it is created. Thus if we are to have a doctrine of providence, it seems as though we cannot accept a continuous creation account of creation. Providence is a concept that we find in the Bible (Mt. 10:29-31, Romans 8:28, Psalm 147) so it is a concept that we want to keep in our theology.

The concept of providence is multifaceted. When talking about providence we can talk about how God preserves his creation in existence. God brings creation into being and God keeps creation in being. We could also talk about how God sustains his creation; although he is transcendent he is also intimately involved with his creation. Finally we can talk about how God has a purpose for his creation. God has certain ends in view for all of creation, for the Church, and for individuals. However in saying that God has ends in mind for his creation, and more importantly for the humans he has created, we are faced with a question: Does God and the humans he has created have the same ends? It seems as though the answer is no, they don’t always have the same ends. So if God has some ends in mind and humans have other ends in mind, which are often quite different from God’s ends, is it possible for God to achieve his ends without limiting the freedom of humans to fulfill their ends? To answer this question we must first look at what it means for humans to be free.

Contextual Theologies of Mission: Samuel Escobar and Jeremy Wynne Compared (Pt. 3)

Today we conclude this series by comparing Samuel Escobar’s theology of mission and Jeremy Wynne’s interpretation of Moltmann’s theology  of mission.

______________________________

Comparison

The fundamental difference between Escobar’s and Wynne’s way of doing theology of mission is how they address the existential realities of human beings. Escobar stresses how social and political realities have affected Latin theology of mission and how any good theology of mission in Latin America must account for these realities as well. This is displayed in his study of the history of Christianity in Latin America. Wynne on the other hand, does not address the existential conditions of humans whatsoever. Although Wynne does not really attempt to construct a theology of mission he argues that Moltmann’s eschatology can serve as a starting point for doing missiology. For Wynne, systematic theology is the foundation for missiology. This difference in method reflects the difference between most western and non-western theology, that is, that non-western theology does not attempt to do theology in an abstract realm far away from the way humans actually live. Although Wynne mentions that for Moltmann salvation is holistic, addressing all aspects of life here and in the future, he does not mention this because he sees the need for holistic salvation but because it logically follows from the meaning of salvation that it would be holistic.

Conclusion

Escobar’s theology is constructed out of biblical revelation and the social sciences whereas Wynne’s theology is constructed out of systematic theology. Should we say that one method is better than the other? I believe that we should not. We must realize that our systematic theology is profoundly affected by our existential conditions. Thus the social sciences which study the human condition must inform our way of doing systematic theology. Yet we must attempt to be faithful to the biblical revelation in our doing systematic theology. If we are faithful to properly interpreting the Bible, as Escobar proposes, then we can allow other areas of systematic theology and the social sciences inform our mission theology. The act of balancing our personal experiences, information from the social sciences, and systematic theology while attempting to give the Bible a privileged position is quite difficult; yet if we are going to do theology of mission properly it is something we must try to do.

Contextual Theologies of Mission: Samuel Escobar and Jeremy Wynne Compared (Pt. 2)

Today we continue this series exploring the similiarities and differences between Samuel Escobar’s theology of mission and Jeremy Wynne’s interpretation of Moltmann’s theology  of mission. In this post we will take a quick look at Jeremy Wynne’s reading of Moltmann.

______________________________

Jeremy Wynee

While Escobar constructs a theology of mission which takes into account social and political realities, Wynee explores the contributions of Jurgen Moltmann’s systematic theology, especially his eschatology, to theology of mission. Wynne suggest that there are four lines of thought in Moltmann’s theology that are especially relevant to missiology: 1-the notion of an eschatologically open future, 2-the Trinitarian sending God, 3-Christian theology of history and 4-the scope of salvation.

Moltmann believes that the “future of history must be kept open as the field of God’s mysterious and unpredictable works” since a closed history robs our hope for the future.[1] This claim is important to missiology because it attempts to explain God’s plans and His identity as he enacts those plans.

Trinitarian Theology is another important contribution by Moltmann to missiology. Moltman claims that “mission has it origins in nothing less than the very being of God” since “mission is an attribute of God, not an activity of human beings.”[2] Thus there is a connection between systematic theology of the Trinity and missiology.

Moltmann’s systematic study of the nature of Christian history is important as well because it attempts to preserve the integrity of the human experience of time and the reality of God’s incarnational participation in time while addressing the nature of God and of time.[3] Moltmann’s theology of history is of great interest to mission theologians because it is a theology which is “future-directed and oriented to the here and now.” This is helpful because if we are to understand God’s mission we must realize that there is a certain amount of tension in the fact that God’s rule is both now and not yet.

These three areas of Moltmann’s theology are very important to missiology but perhaps the most important aspect of Moltmann’s contribution is his understanding of the scope of salvation. Wynne explains that for Moltmann death envelops the whole person, but the hope of salvation is that humans “can live wholly here, and die wholly, and rise wholly there.”[4] Thus for Moltmann salvation is holistic, this is something that missiologists have fought hard to explain. In addition to holistic salvation Wynne explains that Moltman believes in the “intrinsically and inclusive nature of salvation”[5] Since many missiologists are concerned about who will be saved and how they come to salvation, this interesting theory is actually the “greatest obstacle for missiologists interested in Moltmann’s eschatology.”[6] By covering these four areas of Moltmann’s theology Wynne shows that Moltmann’s eschatology is especially important to the task of missiologists.

______________________________

[1] Jeremy J. Wynee, “Serving the Coming God: The Insights of Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology for Contemporary Theology of Mission,” Missiology: An International Review 35, no. 4 (October 2007): 439.

[2] Wynne, “Serving the Coming God: The Insights of Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology for Contemporary Theology of Mission,” 440.

[3] Wynne, “Serving the Coming God: The Insights of Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology for Contemporary Theology of Mission,” 443.

[4] Wynne, “Serving the Coming God: The Insights of Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology for Contemporary Theology of Mission,” 446.

[5] Wynne, “Serving the Coming God: The Insights of Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology for Contemporary Theology of Mission,” 446.

[6] Wynne, “Serving the Coming God: The Insights of Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology for Contemporary Theology of Mission,” 448.

Contextual Theologies of Mission: Samuel Escobar and Jeremy Wynne Compared (Pt. 1)

When studying theology from around the world we come to see how much a theologian’s context affects his or her theology. This is partly due to the fact that different situations beg different questions and demand appropriate answers to those questions, but it is also partly due to the theological tradition in which that theologian finds themselves in. In comparing the theology of the Peruvian Samuel Escobar and the Scottish Jeremy Wynne we see how theological traditions affect the theologian’s way of thinking. Over the next few days in this blog I will be comparing Samuel Escobar’s approach to the theology of mission as seen in his article “Beyond Liberation Theology: Evangelical Missiology in Latin America” to Jeremy Wynne’s study of Jurgen Moltmann’s theology of mission in “Serving the Coming God: The Insight’s of Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology for Contemporary Theology of Mission.”

Samuel Escobar

Escobar’s article attempts to ask the question: what is a Latin theology of mission going to look like? He begins to answer this question by examining the history of Christianity in Latin America. Here he recalls the struggle between the religious hierarchy and the Indians. Yet despite the history of conflict in Latin America he notices what he calls a historical fact: “the liberating power of the gospel in the lives of Latin Americans”[1] Having explained the political, cultural, economic, and religious conflicts in Latin America he goes on to explain that Christianity in Latin America has been influenced by three major kinds of thought: 1-16th Century Catholic Christianity, 2-19th and 20th Century Evangelical Christianity, and 3-Marxism. These three have shaped and molded not only Christianity in Latin America but the entire culture of the Americas. One specific way in which these three strands of thought have affected Latin American thinking is through Liberation Theology. Liberation theology which was mostly a Catholic creation reacts to an Empire building type of Christianity, takes in to account the evangelical gospel which is “a liberating force”, and Marxist ways of thinking. Escobar says that Liberation Mission Theologians apply two principles: “1- an analysis of the social, economic, and political aspects of the missionary enterprise itself and 2- an understanding of the missionary enterprise within a global view of human history.”[2] Missiology which takes this approach attempts to take into account the social and political realities of Latin America. Escobar believes that “we can no longer afford a missiology that refuses to take seriously the social and political realities”[3] yet he believes that Liberation Theology uses incorrect principles for creating a theology of mission. He believes that the basis for a proper theology of mission is the social sciences and Biblical Revelation.[4] Unlike liberation theology which first believes that we must “first perceive God in history… only then do you go to Scripture or to Christian truth in order to read,”[5] Escobar proposes that the Bible, especially biblical Christology, is the foundation for theology of mission. Escobar concludes by saying that Evangelical missiology will be formed with and by the people yet its basis is not in the people themselves but by evangelical commitments.[6]

[1] Samuel Escobar, “Beyond Liberation Theology: Evangelical Missiology in Latin America,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 6, no. 3 (July 1982): 108.

[2] Escobar, “Beyond Liberation Theology: Evangelical Missiology in Latin America,” 110.

[3] Escobar, “Beyond Liberation Theology: Evangelical Missiology in Latin America,” 111.

[4] Escobar, “Beyond Liberation Theology: Evangelical Missiology in Latin America,” 112.

[5] Escobar, “Beyond Liberation Theology: Evangelical Missiology in Latin America,” 112.

[6] Escobar, “Beyond Liberation Theology: Evangelical Missiology in Latin America,” 113.

A Letter to a Confused Christian Artist

Hey Melissa, thanks for writing to me explaining your situation. I can definitely sympathize with you. At one point in life I was in a similar position that you are in now, of course I wasn’t an artist! (Nonetheless I was feeling called to a less “eternal” vocation). Just like you, people around me were disappointed in me that I had drifted from the only thing that matters: ministry within the church. They saw this as the only eternally significant vocation, so when they heard that I was considering doing something else they were quite disappointed in me. I understand that people at your church are making you feel this way too. They say that being an artist instead of a minister is a vocation of less worth in God’s eyes. I want to help you understand that its not. Being an artist is no less valuable in God’s kingdom than being a minister is! Hopefully I can show you this in my brief response to you.

Recently I have been reading some lectures delivered by Abraham Kuyper at Princeton over 100 years ago. Kuyper was a jack of all trades. He wrote theological works, edited a newspaper, founded a university, and he was even Prime minster of the Netherlands. I mention this because like you he was very concerned for ministry but he also had “secular” vocations. Kuyper’s lectures at Princeton were compiled into a book called Lectures on Calvinism.

In this book he describes Calvinism as a life system, which means that it is a system which includes answers to our questions regarding our relation to God, humanity, and the world. Central to Kuyper is his understanding of humanity’s relationship to God. In fact this is what his entire second lecture, “Calvinism and Religion,” is devoted to. He says that humans tend to make religion for the sake of themselves, but in reality true religion is always for the sake of God. Yes it is a blessing for humans, but it does not exist for the sake of humans.[1] He says that all of creation exists for the sake of God; it exists to glorify him. In saying this Kuyper places himself squarely within the Reformed tradition which has placed an emphasis on God’s sovereignty and his glory. Since everything that exists is for the sake of God, “then it follows that the whole creation must give glory to God.”[2] Because all things exist for the glory of God, true religion cannot be confined to a church building. God is present in all of life, since he is sovereign there is no sphere of human life in which God does not demand glory. Thus when humans do anything, whether it be agriculture, industry, commerce, science, or even art they are employed in God’s service in order to bring glory to God. So you see since God is sovereign over all things, not just “religious” things God will get the glory when you do art for his glory.

In his fifth lecture, Kuyper takes up the topic of “Calvinism and Art,” if you get a chance you should read it! In case you don’t get a chance let me tell you what he says. He quotes Calvin saying that art is one of the richest gifts of God to mankind, and that it is a universal human phenomenon.[3] In this chapter he takes on three major issues. First he answers why Calvinism did not develop a distinctive art style. His answer is that Calvinism reached a stage of religion which no longer relied on symbols to express religion, instead as a purely spiritual religion, it did not need to rely upon art to represent its truths.[4]

The second issue he takes on is the place of art within the Calvinistic worldview. Here he says that through art we glorify God, ennoble human life, and bring pleasure to others.[5] He says that these are all good goals, and that art helps us bring about these goals. He also says that art reminds us of the gospel. He says that art reveals to humans a higher reality than what we see in this sinful and corrupted world.[6] This is a good thing, because in art we see beauty and are reminded of God’s good and perfect creation, yet we are also reminded that this beauty was lost at the fall. However in the midst of all this, art’s beauty gives us hope, it helps us anticipate God’s restoration of his creation. So art can help people see the gospel!

The third issue that Kuyper takes up is about what Calvinism has done in order to promote the arts. Here he says that Calvinism helped set art free from the guardianship of the church.[7] He says that art used to be confined to holy spheres, just like religion used to be confined to the walls of a cathedral, but Calvinism set both art and religion free! Another way that Kuyper mentions that Calvinism has helped art is through its articulation of the doctrine of common grace. (Pay attention this is very relevant to your situation!) Art is a gift that God gives generously to believers and unbelievers. Thus it is part of being human. If God deemed it so good to give it to Christians and non-Christians then we should not be quick to dismiss it as unworthy of our attention.

Finally, he also mentions the concept of the cultural mandate. Prior to the fall God has made it so that human beings would create culture that would glorify him. This mandate to create God glorifying culture continues even after the fall. Kuyper says that God “has ordained for humanity all sorts of life utterances (science, politics, religion, etc.), among these art occupies a quite independent place.”[8] Thus even God has made it so that he would be glorified through all our cultural production not only by religion but also by science, commerce, politics, and even art!

I hope that what I have written (or better yet what Kuyper has written) has helped you in your predicament. Hopefully now you can respond to those who doubt your decision and you will also feel more at peace personally. If you ever begin to doubt yourself just remind yourself that the God you serve is not merely the God of the sacred or the religious. Our God is sovereign! He is sovereign over every sphere of life and He intends to be glorified through all of these spheres. So when you are making art you are doing what humanity was meant to do, bring every sphere under Christ’s sovereignty for the sake of his glory. So don’t doubt yourself! In creating art you are participating in God’s common grace, you are fulfilling God’s cultural mandate, and you are declaring his sovereignty over every sphere of human life! I hope this helped! I will be praying for you Melissa!

[For honesty’s sake I want to point out (if you can’t already tell), that this is not an actual letter to an actual Christian artist named Melissa. This was an exercise performed in a class I had on Christ and Culture.)

[1] Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 45.

[2] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 52.

[3] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 143-4.

[4] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 146-7.

[5] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 153.

[6] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 153.

[7] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 157.

[8] Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 163.