“Abraham Kuyper and Transformission Christianity”
April 17, 2006
John H. Armstrong
I spoke on Friday, April 7, in Costa Mesa, California, to a banquet that was designed to encourage and support Christians who believe that the marketplace is a proper place to use one’s gifts and calling to serve the living God. This event was part of the ministry of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Newport Beach, California (www.redeemerpres.com). The basic premise of the ministry is that those who are called to the marketplace do not work there merely to “earn a living” to support their family and local church, but that they work in the marketplace “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” Under the oversight of financial advisor David Bahnsen’s leadership, this effort came to birth in Orange County (CA) just a few years ago. David’s late father, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, was a well-known apologist and theologian, so the name might be familiar to some readers. David’s commitment to the sovereignty of God in all of life is thoughtful, consistent and very admirable. He also possesses a winsome spirit, a generosity of soul and an extremely positive outlook about all of life. He is fun to be around and inspires both faith and action. It was a real joy to be part of this special evening.
In my remarks I tried to answer one basic question: “Why be transformissional Christians?” I grounded my thoughts in Paul’s counsel that we should “do everything for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31b), and in Jesus’ command that his followers “strive first for the kingdom of God” (NRSV, Matthew 6:33). So, how do we actually do this in the marketplace? To use the late Francis Schaeffer’s question: “How should we then live” in the daily work place of the modern business world?
First, we must refuse to accept the dualism of modern evangelicalism, a dualism that says the world is inherently evil and “soon to be destroyed.” In short, we must refuse to accept the kingdom-denying doctrine of “Left Behind” Christianity, which is pure unadulterated escapism. Further, we must reject the secular/sacred distinctions commonly assumed by dualistic approaches to life. Positively, we should affirm that the created world is, as God told us, “very good” (Genesis 1:31). And we should teach believers not to flee this world but rather to “transform it” through consistently pursuing biblical mission rooted consciously in the presence and growth of the kingdom of Christ.
To do this we have to understand that worldliness is a spirit, or a way of thinking, not the actual physical world itself. It is most assuredly not mankind’s work in this created world, which is also good. For sure we are not to be “conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of [our] minds” (Romans 12:2). What this means, positively, is that we are not to live our lives by the fallen ideologies that have driven humanity since the Fall. Rather than live by the various worldly philosophies we encounter we are to assert human dominion (Genesis 1:27-28) over the entire created order through obedience to our sovereign Creator. This world is not destined for complete destruction, but rather for renewal and re-creation in the coming age which follows the great Day of the Lord (Romans 8:18-25).
Second, we should never accept the popular conclusion that “riches” (wealth) in this present world destroy godliness and true spirituality. Jesus clearly warns that there is real danger in having riches, even saying that it is “hard for those who are rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:24). Riches are a snare and they can easily lead us to trust in ourselves and our ability to produce more resources. All of this needs to be kept in proper perspective, especially in the modern West. So, worldly thinking about wealth must be actively resisted. But this does not mean that we should promote poverty, in and of itself, as either a virtue or a desirable end. This is neither biblical nor Reformed Christianity.
Time and time again obedience and spiritual renewal among Christians has produced great wealth. This is a simple historical fact. This in turn has advanced the kingdom and the mission of Christ in obvious ways. A simple illustration of this can be seen in the fast-growing churches in Asia and Latin America. Poor Christians are regularly discovering that faithfulness to the teaching of Christ’s kingdom brings real economic hope and social and family renewal, along with Christ-centered hope for the world to come.
These two points are the reasons why I do not share John Wesley’s rather pessimistic view about the end result of prosperity and riches. Wesley’s perspective was stated in these words:
I fear, wherever riches have increased the essence of religion has decreased in some proportion. Therefore I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of true religion to continue for long, for religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger and love of the world in all its branches.
This common view of evangelical pietism, held by Wesley and countless other godly men and women in our heritage, is simply wrong in the end. I believe the conclusion is not only flawed but, at least to some extent, harmful. Because this view of wealth and piety often proves to be true, in a culture or historical time period, does not mean that it must, of necessity be true in principle. Wesley’s pessimism does not prove to be true if we get a right understanding of the kingdom and this world and practice it in faith, hope and love. My remarks, at the Marketplace Ministries dinner, were meant to help us get this right view back into the mainstream of Christian thought and practice in the twenty-first century.
I believe that the common pessimistic perspective sees the blessing of prosperity as inevitably working toward spiritual decline. I find this a strange kind of fatalism for a non-Reformed view of Christian faith. And I believe this is precisely why so many evangelicals have had such a negative view of wealth, of generating new wealth in and through the marketplace, and of a career track approach to life. The constant exception to this principle, at least within pietism, has been the popular teaching that increased wealth can be invested in “missions,” in the narrow sense. This is about the only reason I have ever heard advanced for wealth and careerism in many evangelical circles. Otherwise, wealth is not really a good thing and pursuing a career path that leads to wealth-making is clearly not a good goal for most Christians. (We allow exceptions, but in general we discourage careerism and tell business men and women that they should make “just enough” to support their church and family and not seek to go higher in their careers.) The emphasis on work, in this context, gets reduced to arguments about “living simply,” as opposed to living with large goals for making wealth and investing it in even more wealth, thereby advancing the kingdom intentionally as missional Christians. (By this point I am suggesting we do not simply make money to give it to others so they can go overseas and do missions, while we stay home and give them this money to remove our responsibility for mission in our own neighborhoods and places of work.)
I gave an illustration in Costa Mesa that I believe is helpful. It is the story of a banker named Robert Lavelle in Pittsburgh. Lavelle decided to use his savings and loan business as a direct means for extending the kingdom in his own city. He saw that the kingdom placed a high priority on helping the poor. (One can’t miss this emphasis if they simply read the Bible!) He decided to loan money to the poorest people that he could, at the lowest rates possible. His plan was against the business sense of almost everyone in the industry. His goal was that these people could own a home, find economic stability for their families, and then learn how to manage their resources better. (Because of this he also offered money management counsel with his low-interest loans!) The result of his plan was a rebuilding of neighborhoods and a growing awareness of the mission of Christ at work in the give-and-take of the world in which people live day-in and day-out. This is the exact opposite strategy of earning money so one can simply pay their bills and give to the church, as an end. It is kingdom thinking and kingdom investing. It is missional, indeed transformissional to coin a word.
My inspiration for these observations, over the years, has been the life and doctrine of Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), a prophetic voice in Holland in the nineteenth century. Kuyper believed that monastic withdrawal from the world was never a kingdom option. He said, “The life of the world is to be honored in its independence, and that we must, in every domain, discover the treasures and develop the potencies hidden by God in nature and in human life.” This thinking led Kuyper to understand the exercise of God’s sovereignty in various social spheres as “sphere sovereignty.” He believed, quite correctly I think, that there is a distinct sovereignty over the realms of education, business, art, agriculture, etc. Kuyper said, in his best known statement of all, that “There is not a single inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: Mine!”
God has delegated his sovereignty in creation to mankind. This dominion is not given to one man, or to one institution, or to the state as an end in itself. It is not even given to the church. Kuyper rightly believed the church did not exist as an end but rather as a means to serve and advance the kingdom. This thinking will, quite simply, revolutionize Christian thought and churches. If you want to see what this looks like very practically, sit down this week and read Romans 12 several times. This is Paul’s blueprint for transformissional living. We would all be better prepared to live more effectively in this present age if we paid more careful attention.
