Christian Worldview & Transformation: Spirituality, Reason & Social Order (Global Voices: Latin America) 1506475205, 9781506475202

Citation preview

Christian Worldview & Transformation

Spirituality, Reason & Social Order

Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite, Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho and Mauricio José Silva Cunha (eds) GLOBAL VOICES: LATIN AMERICA

What’s the point of the church being a global family if we never listen to one another? Or worse, if only some members of the family get to do all the talking? It is vital that the voices of the global church are heard by those in the western churches who have tended to listen only to themselves – especially when those voices are speaking from the cutting edge of the church’s mission. So I heartily commend the vision and intentions of this project. Christopher J. H. Wright, Langham Partnership

Mission is about encounters and participating in what God is doing to bring about God’s kingdom. The new Global Voices Series is a wonderful project that gives voice to those who have been engaged in God’s mission for many decades, but whose voices have not yet been heard in much of the world. Through these books, God’s people will be challenged and encouraged to think about and to practice mission in transformative ways; we will hear God’s call anew in the unique contexts these texts reflect and we will learn how to participate again in our service to the kingdom of Christ. Rosalee Velloso Ewell, PhD, Principal, Redcliffe College Executive Director, Theological Commission, World Evangelical Alliance

The books in this collection expose us to connected themes which provide a foundational canvas for Christianity throughout the world. They approach mission as a challenging invitation to be born again, to break paradigms, to rupture with and change the cultural perspectives with which one perceives the world – our “Worldviews”. They also highlight the need for a profound transformation of our understanding of the Great Commission, suggesting that this is more than just a cross-cultural task, but that it also includes labouring to manifest the Kingdom of God in our daily life space, within our families and our workplaces. Finally, the books in this series also present a valuable approach that broadens the concept of mission itself: salvation through rebirth cannot be merely understood anthropocentrically. Its blessing must reach all of creation. It becomes clear that to fulfil the cultural mandate of Gen. 2:15 it is also necessary to know and understand the functioning of creation as an ecosystem. Marina da Silva, Former Brazilian Senator, Minister of Environment and 2018 Presidential candidate

I have often lamented the fact that much of the most ground-breaking contextual theology is being done in languages that are largely inaccessible to the majority of the world's theologians. I have also often encouraged younger theologians that, instead of learning the classic languages of French and German, they should learn Spanish, or Korean, or Tagalog, or Indonesian. While learning these languages – or some of them – is still necessary today, Regnum Books is providing a great service to the future of theology by inaugurating this series in which hitherto inaccessible, major theological and missiological works will be translated into English. This is one of the most exciting projects that I have ever heard about, and one that has the potential to change the face of theology in our time. Now we are much closer to listening to all the voices! Stephen Bevans, SVD Louis J. Luzbetak, SVD Professor of Mission and Culture, Emeritus Catholic Theological Union, Chicago, USA

English readers will benefit from the wisdom of majority world theologians writing for their own contexts – what a rare and significant contribution to enrich the church. Dr Kang San Tan, General Director of BMS World Mission

REGNUM GLOBAL VOICES

Christian Worldview and Transformation

Series Preface The Global Voices series takes the missiological work of writers who have written in their own language and makes this accessible to the English-speaking world through translation and republishing. The key principle here is that the translated work reflects the context, experience and thinking of the local context. In so doing, Regnum Books seeks to amplify voices less easily heard outside their own contexts. Work of this nature will make a significant contribution to the development of ‘polycentric missiology’; namely, mission thinking and practice that truly reflects the contexts, concerns and contributions of the global church in all its rich diversity.

Series Editors Paul Bendor-Samuel Mark Greenwood

Timóteo Carriker

Executive Director, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies BMS World Mission Overseas Team Leader for South America and Sub-Saharan Africa Mission educator and consultant to the Brazilian Bible Society


REGNUM GLOBAL VOICES

Christian Worldview and Transformation Spirituality, Reason and Social Order

Edited by Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite, Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho and Mauricio José Silva Cunha Translated by Glenn T. Every-Clayton and Joyce E. Winifred Every-Clayton




Copyright © Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite, Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho and Mauricio José Silva Cunha, 2019 First published 2019 by Regnum Books International Originally published as Cosmovisão Cristã e Transformação Regnum is an imprint of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies St. Philip and St. James Church Woodstock Road Oxford OX2 6HR, UK www.ocms.ac.uk/regnum 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The right of Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite, Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho and Mauricio José Silva Cunha to be identified as the Editors of this Work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electric, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying. In the UK such licences are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-506475-20-2 Typeset by Words by Design

All information about individuals and organisations, their websites and contact details were correct at the time of the original Brazilian publication in 2009 (2nd edition)

 
 

 
  


 
 
 



   
   




  
Distributed by 1517 Media in the US and Canada




CONTENTS

Preface Robinson Cavalcanti Introduction Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite, Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho and Mauricio José Silva Cunha 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Evangelical or evangelical? The Brazilian Church in the Light of Examples from the Past, and the Dilemma of the Present Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite and Fernando Antônio Cardoso Leite

xv

1

3

Worldview: The Evolution of the Concept and its Christian Application Rodolfo Amorim Carlos de Souza

17

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society Mauricio José Silva Cunha

29

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation Nilson Moutinho dos Santos

45

The Nature/Grace Dualism and the Influence of Secular Humanism on Christian Social Thought Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho

73

On the Possibility of a Christian Ethic, and the Impossibility of Any Other Ethic Marcel Lins Camargo

113

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy: An Introduction to the Social Thought of Herman Dooyeweerd Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho 123

8.

9.

Nicholas Wolterstorff and the Social Ethic of Dutch Calvinism Luiz Roberto França de Mattos

145

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil and Reformational Social Philosophy: Coming Together Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho

157

Epilogue Maurício José Silva Cunha

189

Bibliography

191

Contributors

197

Editors’ Note on ‘Integral Mission’: In this series we use the phrase Integral Mission to translate the Spanish Misión Integral and the Portuguese Missão Integral. In English this concept is sometimes rendered as Holistic Mission. However, the word holistic has been used widely outside theological circles with widely differing significance. A closer translation of the Spanish or Portuguese phrase would be Wholemeal Mission, as in mission with “nowt taken out”, like Wholemeal Bread. The usage of Misión (or Missão) Integral may vary from author to author but generally refers to both social transformation and spiritual enlivenment as the objectives of mission, perhaps in view of the ‘Great Commandment’ or Jesus' call as found in Luke 4:18-19.




Dedication

To the brothers and sisters of all the Brazilian church, in the hope that, united in Christ, we shall be part of a nation that is transformed by Him and for Him.




Acknowledgments

Thanks To our God, for the opportunity to be used by Him in His work To Gerhard, for believing in this work and supporting it To all who came together at the Laggus in Curitiba, in the winter of 2005 And to all the brothers and sisters who made a contribution, whether directly or indirectly, towards the aim of this book, including those whose work and lives have influenced us personally.




Preface

Listen to what people are singing, see what they are reading, and you get a good idea of where they are in their thinking. These two indicators are not encouraging when we look at the present state of Brazilian Protestantism. Congregational singing is increasingly superficial and inward-looking, poor in content and out of touch with everyday language. The number of evangelical bookshops is increasing across the country, but their shelves are laden with shallow, bad theology that frustrates those serious readers who are searching for something solid to nourish the spirit. So we have every reason to rejoice at the publication of works as substantial as Christian Worldview and Transformation. This book is the fruit of the research of several scholars who have joined forces to expound what might be called ‘social Calvinism’, or the ‘social face’ of Calvinism, a rich heritage of Reformed thought, which needs to be better known, disseminated and adopted in Brazil. The recovery of a Reformed worldview – with its integrated, comprehensive and systematic vision of reality – is all the more urgent in the context of a postmodernity marked by fragmentation and individualism, by the absence of foundational myths and meta-narratives, and by a poverty of thinking, understanding and effective action. This context leaves people restless and unhappy, and facilitates their manipulation by both economic and religious forces. The worldview outlined in these pages has its roots in the Bible and was developed in the Reformation period. However, it is absolutely relevant and applicable in today’s world, and an understanding of it should be part of the curriculum of our seminaries. This book challenges us to understand our interaction with secular thought, the place of ethics in our world, and the implications of Christian thinking for the construction of models of social organization. It is worth mentioning the prominence given here to the example of Abraham Kuyper, who was Prime Minister of Holland, and a Christian thinker fully involved in understanding and engaging with the problems of his generation – even though most Brazilians have never heard of him. However, faced as we are with a geopolitical monopoly, a geo-economic oligopoly, and with an uncontested neo-liberal agenda, it is a Christian duty to understand and change reality; to reject the concept of history as being closed; and to give personal hope to people trapped in the present globalized imperial order. We do this by looking to Providence and the biblical vision of eschatology, but also by examining the meaning of our place and role in history.

xvi

Christian Worldview and Transformation


This book deals with general concepts and historical constructions; at the same time, it contributes to an understanding of Brazilian evangelicalism by looking at examples from the past that enable us to face the dilemmas of the present. It gives a clear outline of the Brazilian journey of the school of thought known as the Theology of the Integral Mission of the Church, whose roots, evolution, assumptions and objectives are examined here. And it is clear that all the practitioners involved have a leaning towards social Calvinism. As one of the exponents of this theology, I see the importance of learning how evangelicals in general see us, and how the present analysis can contribute to the future of our pilgrimage, a pilgrimage full of dreams but also of internal limitations and external obstacles. The national census statistics show growth in the number of evangelicals – and growth (not reduction) in the number of social and moral problems. Newspapers carry headlines of scandals involving well-known political leaders from the Protestant block. Something is wrong. Where is the ‘salt of the earth’ and the ‘light of the world’? What is missing? Could it be that Brazil needs the Reformed worldview as set out in the following pages? I personally am totally convinced that the answer is indeed that worldview, with its ethical content, engagement in society and a project for genuine change. Some urgent action must be taken to avoid Brazilian Church growth becoming a total fiasco or, worse, a tragedy. Christian Worldview and Transformation comes at the right time and deserves to be widely read. The content of this book has the power to provoke deep thought as to the construction of a solid base for the whole of the Brazilian Reformed Christian community in its chaotic divisionism and even more chaotic inner state. Recife, June 2006. Dom Robinson Cavalcanti Anglican Bishop




INTRODUCTION Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite, Guilherme Vilela, Ribeiro de Carvalho and Mauricio José Silva Cunha This book is the result of the first Conference on Biblical Worldview and Integral Transformation, held in Curitiba, Brazil, in July 2005, which also saw the formation of the Brazilian Network of Christian Worldview and Integral Transformation. The latter is a fellowship of Christian individuals, congregations and organizations who meet to share their experiences of working towards the establishment of a genuinely Christian worldview in our nation, in order that the church may become an active agent of transformation and influence in all areas of Brazilian life, making a difference in our history. The first intention of this book is to lay down solid foundations and informed guidelines for the Network. More than this, however, our desire is to make a positive contribution to evangelical reflection, and to bless the Brazilian church. The texts presented are all related to the theme of integral transformation, a theme that in itself is not particularly new. The difference is that our examination of it is set within a specific intellectual tradition, usually called by the somewhat general name of ‘Christian worldview philosophy’. So we grapple with the concept of a Christian worldview and its application to the problems faced in the concrete realities of life as individuals and as a nation. Our ultimate goal is to establish a solid framework and prepare fertile ground for guiding our actions as we work for the kingdom of God on this earth. In the first chapter, Ferdinand and Claudio Leite discuss the dilemma of the irrelevance of evangelicals in Brazilian society, drawing comparisons with two historic examples of the transforming action of the Christian church in the world: the Early Church and the Protestant Reformation. Next, in a reflection of a more theoretical nature, Rodolfo Souza gives a historical and conceptual explanation of the term ‘worldview’, and discusses its importance and Christian application. From a background of ministerial experience with community development and his observation of poor communities, Mauricio Cunha shares his understanding of poverty, highlighting the principles of the Christian response to the problem, and pointing out the difficulties with regard to the Latin American social context. The fourth chapter is a little different, as Nilson Moutinho takes a historical approach, presenting the biography of Abraham Kuyper as a true example of an agent of integral transformation.

2

Christian Worldview and Transformation


In the fifth chapter, Guilherme Carvalho offers a survey of different fields of knowledge, such as theology, philosophy, and socio-political and cultural thinking. Drawing on the ideas of the Dutch Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd, he offers a critique of the influence of secularism on the relationship between the gospel and culture, highlighting its results in the social praxis of the church. Next, Marcel Camargo discusses both the possibility of a Christian ethic in the light of the challenges of the contemporary era, and the foundations of a genuinely Christian worldview. Guilherme Carvalho returns in the seventh chapter, presenting an introduction to the social and political philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd as a significant proposal for Christian action in Brazil. Then follows a text by the late Dr Luiz Roberto de Mattos, originally published in Fides Reformata (Vol. VI, No. 1, Jan./June 2001, 19-34), which reviews a seminal text by Dr Nicholas Wolterstorff, on the social implications of Reformed Christian thought. In the final chapter, Guilherme Carvalho presents a review of the political thinking of the Integral Mission movement in Brazil, and seeks to build bridges between this thinking and the social and political philosophy of the Christian worldview movement. Readers of this collection of essays will detect that all the authors are committed to a Calvinistic understanding of theology and philosophy, although, on this point, some clarification is necessary. None of us participates in denominations whose confession is explicitly Calvinist and some of us are charismatic Christians (which may cause some raised eyebrows). It is not in the interests of the Brazilian Network of Christian Worldview and Integral Transformation to impose on its partners a particular form of ecclesiastical organization, or of one liturgical system, or the confession of a specific faith. Our commitment is rather to what we call the ‘Calvinistic worldview’, which is a certain way of conceiving the relationship between God and the cosmos, creation, humanity, fall, and redemption. Indeed, the very idea that Christianity is a total system of life and thought – the central statement of the Network – is a unique contribution of Calvinism to the whole Christian church, and even the strictest Arminian should recognize this merit. We therefore invite the reader to set aside, as far as possible, personal presuppositions and prejudices and think through these ideas with us. It is not our intention to introduce anything ‘new’ that is not the gospel. The goal of the Christian worldview movement is not to bring ‘new revelations’ nor to produce a ‘new Reformation’, but simply to live out the kingdom of God in all its dimensions. We believe that the ancient truth, as lived out by the Early Church and reclaimed during the Protestant Reformation, should guide the church today and always. In this spirit, we hope that, by God’s grace, this collection of texts will be a useful contribution to the Brazilian church and beyond, in the fulfilment of its integral mission.




1. EVANGELICAL OR EVANGELICAL? THE BRAZILIAN CHURCH IN THE LIGHT OF EXAMPLES FROM THE PAST, AND THE DILEMMA OF THE PRESENT Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite and Fernando Antônio Cardoso Leite Evangelical Christianity: Essential or Peripheral? We evangelicals are typically people who believe in the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of the Scriptures, and the necessity of conversion. Further, we believe that the action of the Christian church in the world is the principal vehicle for the manifestation of the kingdom of God, and that this action has its main focus in the proclamation of the truth of the gospel. We evangelicals characteristically see ourselves as privileged instruments in the outworking of God’s purposes among humankind – and we can hardly imagine ourselves losing that privilege. In the pluralistic and secularized environment in which we live today, this is an uncomfortable position, to say the least! But, besides being instruments of God, we are also the object of academic studies – studies that are often interesting, although not always sympathetic. Research in the area of culture and religious phenomena in contemporary society is a fascinating field, and one of the favourite themes in these investigations has been the evangelical advance in this country [Brazil]. We cannot ignore this research if we want to understand how strongly the world has influenced our way of life, and, at the same time, understand how our faith can transform the world. A multiplicity of spiritual movements emerged at the beginning of the millennium.1 New and diverse esoteric, mystical and magical sects emerged,2 as well as neo-Pentecostal denominations and revival movements within traditional churches, such as the Pentecostal renewal in the classical Protestant denominations and the charismatic movement in the Roman Catholic Church.3 Additionally, all these phenomena appeared on mainstream media, using the media to make strongly emotional appeals and to project images of significant transformations of life and immediate individual satisfaction. As Antoniazzi points out:






























































1

ANTONIAZZI, 1992, 11. CARDOSO, 1999. 3 PIERUCCI, 2000, 288. 2

Christian Worldview and Transformation


4

Emotion is sought first. […] This strenuous search for experiences of salvation, liberation and happiness reveals that contemporary society generates much uncertainty and insecurity. A society – like the present one – full of appeals and seductions that encourage consumption (generating dissatisfaction rather than satisfying it), cannot fail to produce, in the religious field, a search for answers that are practical, utilitarian, immediate.4

Any evangelical, minimally informed, will realize that the recent transformations that the evangelical world has undergone have intriguing parallels with the changes in contemporary society as a whole. At this point, the suspicion arises: how much of what we are is what we should be, what the gospel teaches, and how much of what we are is merely a response to the social and religious environment in which we find ourselves? Every sincere Christian raises this question for themselves at some point – even if at first they conceal it in some remote corner of their memory. After all, the Spirit that moves us in our gatherings, with all their excitement and loud music, is also the Spirit of truth. Let’s face the problem squarely, then. Is this our purpose – to provide modern society with a hedonistic form of religion that is focussed on a pleasurable experience of the divine? Is it to present our contemporaries with the ‘god of their dreams’, a weekend break, customized and with a guaranteed return?5 In the midst of all this religious excitement, do we have nothing to offer that is unique and essential, from the point of view of historical relevance? These questions lead us to examine our ideas about the nature of the gospel and the mission of the church. We believers typically accept that the kingdom of God will ultimately fill the whole earth, and that this will be done in a supernatural way. That is why we place so much emphasis on preaching the gospel, prayer and evangelism. As for the rest of life – art, university, politics, etc. – ‘Well, we do not need to get directly involved with these things. After all, faith is about “spiritual” things, our struggle is “spiritual” and the kingdom of God is “spiritual”.’ We have all heard this kind of talk. This understanding of the gospel, however, is extremely deficient. It does not do justice to the biblical view of creation as something good; nor to the biblical view of the unity of the human person, which demands that the whole of life be an expression of our relationship with God. It does not do justice to the biblical teaching on the cultural mandate, which was given to us long before the Great Commission. It recognizes the effects of sin in all areas of life, but it seems to ignore the cosmic reach of redemption. It loses sight of doing everything to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31) and is content with worship songs. Instead of seeking the renewal of the mind (Rom. 12:2) and so loving God with the understanding (Matt. 22:37-38), it simply conforms to the world – the world of television or, for the more sophisticated, the world of the latest fashion in philosophy. This defective understanding of the gospel does not give






























































4 5

ANTONIAZZI, 1998, 13. LEITE, 2005, 186.

Evangelicals or ‘Evangellicles’?

5

relevant answers to the challenges of the contemporary world and is able to co-exist peacefully with the greatest injustices. It does not help the unbeliever to see why Christianity really is something unique in the midst of all this religious effervescence. It’s not wrong to be on the sidelines. Jesus always lived on the edge of the empire. But his preaching was not marginal; it was nothing less than the announcement of the coming of the kingdom of God. If we are marginal because we are not in the power centres of modern society, that’s all right. If we are marginal because our message is insubstantial and fails to address the whole person, that’s totally wrong. If our form of spirituality is superficial, adapting to modern hedonism without striking at the heart of modern society, then we have already lost the battle. The gospel concerns nothing less than all things (Col. 1:16-20), and the church’s mission concerns nothing less than all things. Seeking first the kingdom of God guarantees us the addition of all things, because all of them are important (Matt. 6:33). Therefore, the mission of the church cannot be merely to save souls or to transform individual lives; it has to be much more comprehensive than that. The kingdom of God, which is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, must show itself in every aspect of the life of a ‘citizen’ of the kingdom: in their devotional life, fellowship and work, in the public market, school, university, leisure and family.6 Or, as Abraham Kuyper, one of the ‘fathers’ of the Christian worldview movement taught: Wherever man is, whatever he does, or whatever he turns his hand to, in agriculture, commerce, industry, or whatever he turns his mind to, in the world of art, and science, he is, wherever he is, constantly before the face of God; he is employed in the service of God, and must strictly obey his God and, above all, should aim at the glory of God.7

That is to say, the Christian must be someone with a different mentality, whose approach to life differs, in every dimension, from one which does not have the mind of Christ. If it is not so, Christianity will not be something really fundamental. But, in fact, it is so. When this truth was believed and lived by the church, history changed; when it is believed and lived by a Christian, their history changes. And when the church forgets this, it degenerates into a powerless mystical exercise. If we are to learn from history, we need to go back to look at those moments where the church made a difference. Let us highlight the two most important examples among the many which could be chosen as being the most important roots of evangelicalism: the Early Church and the Protestant Reformation.






























































6 7

CUNHA, WOOD, 2003, 18. KUYPER in MILLER, 1998.

6

Christian Worldview and Transformation


Primitive Christianity Dr Rodney Stark, a sociologist and professor of comparative religion, in 1996 published a work that immediately became a classic: The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. According to Stark, the reason why Christianity, starting as a tiny religious movement, became the dominant religion of western civilization in a few centuries was because of its profound socio-cultural impact. In his book, among various other questions, he considers how it was that the church could grow from one man to twelve apostles, then to thousands of people during the period of the Acts of the Apostles, and then to about six million believers by the year 300, shortly before the Edict of Milan. That is to say, how could a tiny, inexpressive messianic movement from one corner of the Roman Empire dislodge classical paganism and become the dominant faith of the entire Empire? Shortly after the first edition of his book another edition followed, with a longer sub-title that highlights this very question: The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. Using his sociological insights, Stark’s analysis takes into account variables related to the commercial and demographic dynamics of the time, and investigates the evidence of the strong attraction that the Christian faith exerted on the masses. The thousands of conversions through the early centuries of Christianity were directly related to Christians’ moral attitude towards family and marriage, and the overall sincerity of their way of life. But as well as numerical growth, the expansion of early Christianity brought significant social transformation. Stark points out that in the year 165, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, a great epidemic struck the Empire; a third of the population died over the course of fifteen years, including the emperor himself. A similar epidemic in 251, probably of measles, had similar results. Historians see these epidemics as being among the main causes of the decline of the population of the empire; for Stark, they were also relevant to the growth of Christianity. In the first place, Christianity could live with the fact that ‘bad things happen to good people too’; after all, Christ himself had suffered so much in his death on the cross, despite being innocent. The Christian interpretation was a more effective explanation subjectively than any explanation offered by classical paganism. In addition, the Christian values of love of neighbour, compassion and mercy, as the basis of social service and solidarity in the Christian community, enabled Christians to deal with these tragedies. Therefore, when they struck, it was the Christians who could best cope with such circumstances, and this resulted in greater rates of survival, so that, after the epidemics, the percentage of surviving Christians was greater than that of the pagan population, even without the addition of new converts. This made it evident that the Christians were better able, both socially and spiritually, to confront such difficulties, making Christianity extremely attractive in contrast to the relative inability of the pagans.

Evangelicals or ‘Evangellicles’?

7

Third, Christian faith provided a safe place not only in relation to epidemics but also in relation to the social ills of the cities. Using a demographic analysis, Stark observes that Christianity was primarily an urban phenomenon, and for a very simple reason: it was in this environment that people met, notably the first converts to Christianity, the Hellenic Jews and the first missionaries. Focusing on the city of Antioch as an example, Stark describes the terrible social situation in the cities, and shows how Christians stood out in that context. Antioch, he says, was full of poverty, danger, fear, despair and hatred. Often an ordinary family would be living in squalid conditions, even for three consecutive months. The constant flow of migrants meant there were high levels of fear and ethnic antagonism, producing an atmosphere in which crime flourished. An inhabitant of Antioch had to live with the real possibility of having no roof over his head. It was in this situation that the Christians began to create a new culture, capable of making life in the Greco-Roman cities much more tolerable for people in general. In cities with large numbers of homeless and impoverished people, Christianity offered both charity and hope. In cities with many migrants and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate focal point for newcomers. In cities with many orphans and widows, it provided a new concept of family life in extended families. In cities shaken by violent ethnic strife, it offered a new basis of social solidarity. And finally, in cities plagued by epidemics, fires and earthquakes, Christians offered significant relief services based on their high values of compassion and mercy. Instead of fleeing from the plagues like the heathen, the Christians ran towards them. But Christianity was not just a faith for the masses of slaves and down-andouts. Stark also found that it made great headway among what we would call the middle and upper classes, significantly modifying their attitude towards wealth. In fact, the generosity of these better-off Christians became notorious; they not only contributed to the establishment of a network of social welfare and relief for the elderly, the widow and the orphan, but also to the establishment of Christian cemeteries and, later, places of worship which, prior to the Edict of Milan, were in the family homes of members of the higher social classes. Finally, we cannot ignore what Stark points out in the fifth chapter of his book about the role of women in the expansion of early Christianity. According to this author, the Christian view of women brought about many changes in the culture and society of the time, attracting pagan women to the new faith. The recognition of women and children – as on an equal footing with men and with the same spiritual standing before God – had a substantial impact. They were set free from their status as merely the helpless servants and slaves of men, and became recognized as human beings in their own right, with specific and important social roles, both in the church and in the state. The Christian moral code contributed to their well-being by means of its prohibitions of infanticide, polygamy, divorce, birth control and abortion, among other things. Infanticide and abortion in particular were common practices that resulted in the death of

Christian Worldview and Transformation


8

many girls and mothers; these practices were severely condemned, then lost popularity and finally became illegal.

The Protestant Reformation Another major example of historical transformation produced by the church is the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century and beyond. Evangelicals have tended to have a rather ambiguous attitude to the Reformation, some in theological circles, for example, defending the Reformers unconditionally, and others trying hard to forget them! Francis Schaeffer,8 no less, did not mince his words when he admitted that the Reformation was not a golden age of church history, and that many of the Reformers’ actions were inconsistent with biblical teachings, even though they strove to use the Bible not only as a basis for religious affairs, but also for life. Those who know their history will agree with his opinion. But Schaeffer himself was a modern heir of the reformers, even though, at present, we are seeing an unjustifiable neglect of Reformation theology. There are seminary students who develop an aversion to Luther or Calvin without ever having read a single line of their writings. In Brazil, one reason for this is the unbridled search for ‘relevance’ and ‘contextualization’ – even when we do not know, after all, what it is that we are contextualizing! The only cure for ignorance is knowledge. And as far as the Reformation is concerned, our greatest need is to re-read the history, going beyond the scholastic study of the Reformers’ theology to examine their positive cultural impact. And there is much that could be said about this – about education, art, economics, individual rights and every field of human life. In this text, however, we focus on only three areas: social and political order, the concept of vocation, and scientific research.

The Reformation and the Social Order The collapse of the Roman Empire produced a power vacuum that for centuries was filled by the Catholic Church whose merits deserve to receive due recognition. However, while it was of fundamental importance in preserving and transmitting the legacy of the classical writers to the modern era, its long association with temporal power created confusion between the power of the kingdom of God and political power. And the victory of the papacy only deepened this confusion. Thus, at the time of the Reformation, the Catholic Church operated not only as one of the institutions that exploited the poor, but also, and perhaps chiefly, as the ultimate source for legitimizing the interests of the ruling class. The Reformation coincided with the emergence of Absolutism between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Absolutism held to a notion of hereditary






























































8

SCHAEFFER, 2003, 51.

Evangelicals or ‘Evangellicles’?

9

monarchy in which, via the Catholic Church, the monarch possessed absolute temporal power.9 This system contributed to the Church’s being able to occupy a place at the summit of the governmental hierarchy, thus ensuring for itself the right to own large tracts of land and to govern human affairs. One of the characteristics of Absolutism was the division of society between the church, kings, nobles and the bourgeoisie (who, by dint of accumulating riches, could become nobles), and servants. The latter – the majority – lived in wretched poverty and servitude, justified by the church as a social condition determined by God and imposed from birth. Thus they were to submit to the nobles, who, in turn, justified their position as a sign of divine blessing. The religious instruments legitimating this domination and exploitation were diverse, the best-known example being the system of indulgences. To obtain forgiveness of sins and deliverance from purgatory for themselves and their ancestors and relatives, the faithful could buy a church certificate that guaranteed access to the ‘treasury of merits’ of the saints in heaven; the resources obtained by such means were used in ways that were anything but ‘spiritual’. Another example is the church’s monopoly of Scripture. The Bible was read and copied in Latin, and few people had access to it; moreover, the correct interpretation of Scripture was the prerogative of the magisterium. It was a state of affairs that left very little room for education, for freedom of thought and conscience, and for debates about the structure of society. Such was the religious and political context into which the Reformation erupted, shaking the structures of medieval society and giving birth to a powerful movement for political reform and social justice. Beginning with a series of pre-Reformation movements led by men such as John Hus and John Wycliffe, it began a stream of spiritual and cultural transformations. The stream began to become irresistible with the Augustinian monk Martin Luther. According to Luther, the saving grace of God is granted as a favour that does not depend on human merit. The sufficient condition for the acquisition of this favour is a wholly passive faith in the righteousness of God. In this way, Luther attacked the power of the church to legislate on the life of the people, both in the spiritual sphere, for all would have the right to salvation, as well as in the social realm, for no-one would have to submit to the rules of the church if it despised the authority of the Bible.10 He repudiated every ecclesiastical claim to exercise power in temporal affairs, believing that the power of the state was a divinely instituted structure that was totally separate and distinct from the church. In this way, Luther created a power vacuum capable of being filled by the secular authorities: […] Luther takes his analysis of the power of princes in two directions… The prince has a duty to use according to religious faith the powers which God has bestowed on him, above all, to ‘give orders in the way of truth’. The prince ‘should truly devote himself to his subjects. Not only in his obligation to foster and defend the true religion with them, but also to protect and preserve them in






























































9

AZEVEDO, 1999, 19. SKINNER, 1996, 290.

10

Christian Worldview and Transformation


10

peace and abundance’, and to take upon himself the needs of his subjects, dealing with them as if they were his own needs.11

Luther removed the power of the church over the people by introducing an autonomous sphere of temporal power. While protecting the authority of magistrates and kings, he even went so far as to recognize the right of the people, through lower magistrates, to question the civil authority when it acted reprehensibly and contrary to justice. Thus began the destruction of the hierarchical pyramid of power that had been set in place by the Catholic Church since the fifteenth century: Luther makes it clear that no respect or obedience is due to such unworthy rulers whenever they try to engage their subjects in their impious and scandalous practices. If a ruler removes the mask that identifies him as a lieutenant of God and commands his subjects to act in an evil and ungodly way, he should never be obeyed. The subject must follow his conscience, even if it means disobeying the prince. This point is expressed in the form of a catechism at the end of the treatise on temporal authority: ‘What if a prince acted wrongly? Is his people obliged to follow him also in this case?’ The answer is, ‘No, because no-one has a duty to do wrong.’ Luther (…) treats all pretension to an absolute power as improper, and a perversion of the authority by God conferred on the princes. … To confirm this conviction of his, there is a passage in the book of the Acts of the Apostles which, without any doubt, requires that ‘we should obey God (who desires the law) more than men’. 12

These political ideas were developed and refined by Calvinist theologians, and found their first genuinely revolutionary expression in English Puritanism. The Puritans rejected the whole religious-hierarchical ideology that gave kings and nobles, bishops and the papacy an authoritarian, absolutist and infallible right to subjugate the general population. On the basis of the divine authority of the Scriptures, Puritans found a platform for preaching the decentralization of the power which Absolutism had concentrated in the hands of the king on every possible level: every man, every church, every region. With Puritanism, there emerged in Europe what Michael Walzer has called the ‘disciplined revolutionary’, dedicated to political reform and the struggle for justice. And a school of revolutionary political thought arose whose repercussions continue to re-echo in modern political theory, even from the French Revolution onwards.13 Nicholas Wolterstorff has characterized the Calvinist form of religion as formative, as opposed to medieval Christianity, which was predominantly avertive – that is, other-worldly, looking only to heavenly things. Puritanism was formative because in it religious interest turned to earthly tasks and social reform.14 According to Wolterstorff, Calvinism, more than Lutheranism, embodied the formative character of biblical religion and directed it against






























































11

Ibid, 298. Ibid, 298, 299. 13 SILVESTRE, 2003, 224-69. 14 WOLTERSTORFF, 1983, 4-6. 12

Evangelicals or ‘Evangellicles’?

11

both church and state, rejecting, at one and the same time, the Lutheran separation between faith and politics, the Catholic fusion of church and state, and the Anabaptist denial of the legitimacy of temporal power. In this way, at the climax of the Reformation, there arose a form of Christianity that was profoundly ‘this-worldly’, dedicated to the application of the Word of God to all areas of life. Wolterstorff sums up his thesis: I have suggested that the emergence of original Calvinism represented a fundamental alteration in Christian sensibility, from the vision and practice of turning away from the social world in order to seek a closer union with God to the vision and practice of working to reform the social world in obedience to God.15

The Lutheran emphasis on freedom of conscience and the practice of this freedom in Protestant redoubts, such as the Calvinist Netherlands, also contributed to making the individual free in their choices and, consequently, responsible for their own destiny. The static, and deterministic medieval worldview gave way to a dynamic and progressive worldview that combined biblical eschatology, which focussed on redemption and the future and demonstrated a new appreciation of the power of individuals. God’s will, then, was understood as being the transformation of society, not the maintenance of the status quo. And so social justice became something that ought to be practised, regardless of the position of the king and the ecclesiastical authorities. Later on, under the influence of this new vision, preachers like John Wesley, the father of Methodism, would engage in the fight against social injustice on behalf of the less fortunate and socially excluded classes.

Vocation and Work Reformed ideas about vocation were among the main instruments for the social mobilization of Protestant Christians. The Lutheran doctrine of vocation elevated the common person and gave their ordinary occupations the same dignity as those of the magistrate and the clergy. Even so, the original emphasis was that every Christian should remain in their vocation, and it was only later, under the influence of the Calvinist emphasis on the sovereignty of God in all areas of life, that the concept of vocation underwent a critical modification: […] the Calvinist saw his occupation as something through which he could exercise obedience. Remaining in a certain function is not the thing to be done in obedient gratitude; rather, the actions performed in that function are to be done in obedient gratitude.16

Each vocation thus became a sphere of service and reformation for the glory of God. The housewife, the merchant and the shoemaker became ministers of God as they did their work; economic, political, scientific and artistic engagement received new inspiration, infused by a truly religious ardour. Furthermore, the social order itself became an object of reflection and






























































15 16

Ibid, 11 (emphasis added). Ibid, 16.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


12

transformative action, setting history off on a firm course of social reform that continues to this day. The concept of vocation became an explosive principle when it came into contact with the revaluation of manual labour. Greek influence on medieval thought had discouraged industry because of its sacralization of nature and relative disdain of technology. Religious or purely intellectual activities were considered intrinsically superior. The break with medieval scholasticism and Aristotelian thought, in the first place, opened the way for the removal of the contrast between nature and art; the transforming influence of the reading of the Bible reintroduced into Christianity the positive evaluation of manual labour,17 described by Alister McGrath as ‘[…] one of the major legacies of Calvinism to Western culture’.18

The Reformation and the Scientific Revolution The combination of the doctrine of vocation with the revaluation of manual labour was the necessary condition for the transformation of another field of human action: science. Right from the first generation of Reformers, Protestants believed that God had revealed himself not only in the Scriptures, but also in the ‘book of nature’. He had given to mankind not only the knowledge of God, but also of the universe and of history. As Francis Schaeffer observes: […] many of the earliest scientists had the same view as Francis Bacon (15611626) [a scientist influenced by Calvin], who stated in the Novum Organum Scientiarum: ‘Man by the Fall fell at the same time from a state of innocence and of dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however, can be repaired in part even in this life; the first by religion and faith, the second by the arts and sciences.’ Therefore, science as science (and art as art) were admitted, in the best sense, as religious activities.19

Protestants began to see art and science as divine vocations. Thus there emerged a system of the interpretation of reality that not only ignored the dichotomy between rationality and faith, but also made way for a renewed understanding of reason and nature. The revaluation of manual labour took Protestant scholars out of the libraries and into workshops, dyeing, agriculture and gardening, thus integrating mind and hands. The champions of the new scientific method based on empirical experimentation and the doctrine of creation were, once again, Calvinists. Men like Isaac Beekman, William Turner, John Wilkins, or Robert Boyle, that great exponent of natural philosophy, dedicated themselves to science with religious devotion, worshipping God in the temple of nature. And they combined empirical methodology, induction and systematization without ever breaking the link






























































17

HOOYKAAS, 1988, 111-16. MCGRATH, 2004. 276. 19 SCHAEFFER, 1997. 30. 18

Evangelicals or ‘Evangellicles’?

13

between faith and rationality. On the basis of this powerful combination, the Protestants threw themselves ardently into their scientific studies. The impact of this scientific furore is visible in the initial scientific development of European countries. Robert Hooykaas cites, for example, the studies of A. de Candolle who showed that, between 1666 and 1883, the majority of the foreign members of the Parisian Académie des Sciences were Protestant (twenty-seven for every six Catholics), despite their being a minority in Europe (four for every six Catholics). In England, the presence of Calvinism in science was even clearer: […] among the ten scientists who, during the Commonwealth, formed the nucleus of what would become the Royal Society, seven were notable Puritans. Sixty-two per cent of the members of the Royal Society were of clearly Puritan origin, a percentage all the more significant because the Puritans constituted a minority of the population.20

It is important to keep in mind at this point that the Reformation did more than stimulate critical judgment and curiosity in understanding God’s revelation in the natural world. Calvinist theology also provided positive, metascientific concepts that opened up new possibilities for scientific research and theoretical construction. Dr Robert Hooykaas of Utrecht was one of the pioneers in demonstrating the impact of the Reformation on the formation of concepts of nature, rationality and scientific method, without which the scientific revolution would never have occurred.21

Evangelical or evangelical? Our discussion has focused on two moments of church history: the beginning of the Christian era and the Protestant Reformation. Undeniably, the church has had other glorious moments – and the two we have chosen to present are not flawless. But they deserve special prominence for two reasons: first, because they were the two most significant moments for the evangelical tradition; and secondly, because they were times when Christianity really made a difference; when it was much more than a mere weekend leisure activity, when it really was a power-house of historical transformation; moments when the gospel was understood in its full expression. These were truly evangelical moments. So the question is: Are we, Christians in the Brazilian Church, evangelicals with a capital ‘E’ or a small ‘e’? We all identify as evangelicals, but a slight change to the word using small case instead of capital ‘E’ – indicates decrease and not derivation. Wordplay apart, the point is critical. To be merely an ‘evangelical’ is to follow an incomplete gospel, to present a deficient version of the Evangelical faith. It means living a gospel that is shallow, inferior, incomplete, truncated and mediocre; it means abandoning the commitment to the ‘Kingdom of God’ and betraying the heritage of our ancestors.






























































20 21

HOOYKAAS, Op. cit., 128. Ibid, especially 128-93.

14

Christian Worldview and Transformation


A truly evangelical church should be a church that ministers to the whole needs of human beings,22 in all areas of their life, because ‘in Christ God reconciled all things to himself, both those in heaven and those on earth’ (Col. 1:16-20). Of course, this is nothing new. This was the message of Irenaeus of Lyons, of Calvin, Wesley and Kuyper. It is the message of René Padilla, Samuel Escobar, Lausanne and the Integral Mission movement in Brazil. But to our ears it should sound like great and good news – and it is certainly still an absolute novelty for millions of Brazilian evangelicals who haven’t the least idea how to join up the reality of their experience of God with the realities of contemporary society, and who are often quite happy with this situation. To what extent has Brazilian society been transformed and influenced? Are we seeking to carry out our mission integrally and completely, or not? Do we just want to save souls, or disciple nations? If we want to disciple nations, one thing is clear – we must begin with Brazil. What matters here is not whether we have attained the fulness of all we ought to be; ‘Of course, the pages of church history have been defaced by many smudges and blemishes. […] Christians, though redeemed, are often far from perfect.’23 What matters, rather, is whether we want to be what we ought to be. What is our position as we come up against social injustice and the economic oppression of our people; or against political corruption and the culture of ‘taking advantage of everything’; or against the disorganization of the family, or immorality, or the degradation of our education; or the mediocrity of our science which makes us dependent on foreign input simply because of a lack of investment and intellectual rigour; or the devaluation of art by making it crude; or against the culture of indiscipline and irresponsibility which despises hard work; or on the ethical and legal issues surrounding biological and medical research? Are we making any effort to make sure that these issues are being dealt with according to the will of King Jesus? As many have observed, something ‘of great importance in today’s Brazilian society is the growth in the number of evangelicals. According to the government census of 2000, the evangelical population grew 70.7% from 1991 to 2000, rising from 9.05% of the country’s total population to 15.4%’.24 How have all these new evangelicals interacted with the above questions? How has church leadership taught and trained these new believers? It is still possible for the evangelical church to make a transformative impact but, for this to happen, it will be necessary to present the gospel anew to the evangelicals. It will require an internal mission to open up questions concerning the content of our preaching and our understanding of the task of the church in the world. The gospel of consolation and inner peace, without the biblical doctrines of creation, humanity and the Fall, is more like an escapist religion, suited to the hedonism of contemporary society, incapable of conceiving anything higher than entertainment, comfort and pleasure.






























































22

CUNHA, WOOD, Op. cit., 18. STOTT, 126. 24 LEITE, Op. cit., 175-76. 23

Evangelicals or ‘Evangellicles’?

15

If the church does not disciple society, it will be discipled by society. This dilemma is even more urgent now, when Brazilian evangelicals are growing in social influence and finding it necessary to define their positions in fields as diverse as politics, science, the media, art, sexual morality and education. We have come to this point of cultural influence without having mature proposals to put forward. But we cannot make decisions without adopting some clear proposals or guiding principle. There are three possible ways forward: either retreat into the old isolation, or make a compromise ‘treaty’ in the name of relevance, or move forward with some genuinely evangelical proposals. But where are these proposals? Some of our theological seminaries are proposing ‘solutions’ that reproduce secularized models of thought and social action with a minimum of critique but always in the name of ‘relevance’. We certainly are facing external pressures from society in general and internal pressures from veritable theological ‘Trojan horses’. All of which is a guaranteed recipe for secularization. After all, we’ve seen this happen before. Only God can change the picture, and no-one else, because it is God who works in us to will and to do. Yet that does not exempt us from working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We must return to the sources of our evangelical faith to rediscover what we are; we must delve into our history to find more examples of the kind of Christianity that can teach us what we need to know and do. As Abraham Kuyper said so well, we cannot invent true Christianity, nor can we artificially construct a transforming gospel; we can only take it from history, because it has already been invented by God. And may God himself keep us from continuing to be mere evangellicles.

Bibliography ANTONIAZZI, Alberto. O sagrado e as religiões no limiar do terceiro milênio. in: CALIMAN, Cleto, org. A sedução do sagrado: o fenômeno religioso na virada do milênio. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1998, 11-19. AZEVEDO, Antônio Carlos de Amaral. Dicionário de nomes, termos e conceitos históricos. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1999. CARDOSO, Alexandre A. Os alquimistas já chegaram: uma interpretação sociológica das práticas mágicas em Belo Horizonte. [Doctoral thesis] São Paulo: FFLCH, USP, 1999. CUNHA, Mauricio J.S., WOOD, Beth A. O reino entre nós: transformação de comunidades pelo evangelho integral. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2003. HOOYKAAS, Robert. Religion and the Rise of Modern Science. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1973. LEITE, Cláudio Antônio Cardoso. A ética pentecostal e o espírito emotivo: da ética protestante racional à ética protestante emocional. in: NOBRE, Renarde Freire, org. Teoria e sociedade. Revista dos Departamentos de Ciência Política e de Sociologia e Antropologia da UFMG. Belo Horizonte: Edição Especial: ‘O pensamento de Max Weber e suas interlocuções’, 172-89, 2005. McGRATH, Alister. A Life of John Calvin. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. MILLER, Darrow L. The Worldview of the Kingdom of God. [Lecture notes]

16

Christian Worldview and Transformation


PIERUCCI, Antônio F. Apêndice: As religiões no Brasil. in: GAARDER, J., HELLERN, V., NOTAKER, H. O livro das religiões. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2000. SCHAEFFER, Francis A. The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century. Leicester, IVP, 1970. ______. How Should We Then Live? Wheaton: Crossway, 1983. SILVESTRE, Armando Araújo. Calvino e a resistência ao Estado. São Paulo: Editora Mackenzie, 2003. SKINNER, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge: CUP, 1978. STOTT, John. Basic Christianity. Leicester: IVP, 1958. WOLTERSTORFF,Nicholas. Until Justice and Peace Embrace; The Kuyper Lectures for 1981, delivered at The Free University of Amsterdam. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.




2. WORLDVIEW: THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT, AND ITS CHRISTIAN APPLICATION Rodolfo Amorim Carlos de Souza Worldview and the Brazilian Church When we observe the Brazilian evangelical church today, one fact stands out: the amplitude of its numerical growth has not led to any corresponding concrete influence on the socio-cultural reality that surrounds us.1 When we realize that we invariably live under the influence of the surrounding culture with all that that involves, we must question whether we in Brazil really have experienced a period of genuine expansion of the kingdom of God on earth. According to the historian Martin Marty, all historical religions propose answers to two basic questions: first, they present a message of personal salvation that points the way for a right relationship with God; second, they provide a lens for interpreting the world.2 Brazilian evangelical Christianity has been unable to respond properly to the second question. However, even if we deny that Christianity is a religion like the rest, we believe that the Bible allows us to affirm that one function of God’s revelation is to provide a proper interpretation of the reality that surrounds us. Cultural propositions established by the secular humanism at the heart of western civilization have also relegated Brazilian Christianity to a narrow dimension of life, and rendered it unable to present itself as total truth. The result is that false dichotomies present in our culture remain unquestioned, and the dichotomy between the public and the private spheres, or between the universe of facts and values, continues. According to this secular culture, Christians should live and express their faith only in the private sphere, without the right to have any voice or concrete participation in fundamental issues of public interest, such as politics, the media, science and education. Christian convictions, in their turn, come to be regarded as subjective personal values, unrelated to real-life, rationally verifiable, facts. An inevitable consequence of this is the present inability of Brazilian Christians to integrate their life of faith with the various spheres of the reality created by God. We have learned to relate to and worship the Saviour God, but we have not learned to serve him and honour him as the Creator God. We have not been taught to see created reality within the perspective of God’s revelation




























































1 According to data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the number of Brazilian evangelicals grew from about 9% in 1991, to 15.4% in 2000: cf. www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/08052002tabulacao.shtm. 2 In PEARCEY, 2004, 35.

18

Christian Worldview and Transformation


and to interact with it in accordance with the cultural mandate of Genesis chapter two.3 So, in order to recover this dimension, we need to rediscover historical Christianity as a total interpretation of reality within the perspective of God’s revelation. We must see the world with God’s eyes, and interact with it on the basis of this knowledge and revealed wisdom, for only God has complete knowledge of the reality he created and maintains under his sovereign control. Since the end of the nineteenth century the name commonly given to this aspect of Christianity is ‘Christian worldview’, basically understood as an integrated vision of the world and life according to the principles revealed by God in the Scriptures. According to Wolters, a person’s worldview, even when it is unconscious or incoherent, functions as guide to life, acting as it were as a compass or a map that can furnish us with some general guidance for our journey through the world: it gives us a sense of what is right and wrong in the confusion of events and phenomena that we encounter, and affects the way we access life events, and the subjects and structures of our time and society.4 In the current context of the Brazilian church, it is essential to understand the implications of having a Christian worldview. But, first, we need to understand what is implicit in the concept of ‘worldview’ as a category in itself, so that we may use the term as a useful tool in the service of the kingdom of God and in the enrichment of the Christian life. The rest of this chapter is given over to a brief study of the concept of worldview as a category that can be used by the Christian church. Based on the works Worldview: The History of a Concept by David Naugle and Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity, by Nancy Pearcey, we present a historical survey of the origins of the concept of worldview, and then go on to describe the development of issues surrounding the term, the process of its appropriation within Christianity, and a brief proposal for its Christian application.

Worldview: Origin and Growth of the Concept It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the word ‘worldview’ was originally coined and used in Germany, at some point in the fertile cultural period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is generally thought that Emanuel Kant, a philosopher whose influence in western thought may be considered the Copernican revolution of philosophy, coined the term Weltanschauung – later translated into English as worldview – in his Critique of Judgment, 1790.
































































3 This expression is used by Christian theologians such as Kuyper and Schaeffer to refer to God’s call to care for and cultivate his creation and develop its potentialities, as a fundamental component of the original mission of created humanity. 4 WOLTERS, 2000, 4.

Worldview: Evolution of the Concept

19

Kant used the word Weltanschauung (Welt = World + Anschauung = perception) to signify the human capacity to discover the outer world by intuition as it is apprehended by the senses. This compound term was similar to many others in the German language of that time; with words such as Weltbeschaunung (inspection of the world), Weltbetrachtung (contemplation of the world) and Weltansicht (opinion of the world). It follows, then, that the idea of an all-inclusive conception or view of the world was not Kant’s initial meaning when the term Weltanschauung itself was created. However, it can be said that the later development of the Kantian philosophical position which emphasized the knowing and willing being as the cognitive centre of the universe, led to the term acquiring a broader meaning. It came to signify the concept of the universe held by knowing, morally free human beings.5 German idealism and the romantic tradition were the intellectual movements that went on to enlarge and define the way Weltanschauung would be used in the philosophy and literary works of the main proponents of these movements. Johann G. Fichte (1762-1814), a progressive disciple of Kant, used Weltanschauung in his work, An Attempt at the Critique of All Revelation, to signify the perception of the world that God possesses as he himself observes the unity without distinction of the natural and moral realms that Kantian philosophy had already observed. As early as Wilhelm Schelling (1755-1854), the term acquired its most common usage as signifying a self-contained form of apprehending and interpreting the universe of beings that is both productive and conscious. Schelling’s project for philosophy in general pointed to the need to solve the problem of the existence of the cosmos. Thus a Weltanschauung would be the response of a mind in an unconscious state to the problems of existence and of the meaning of the real world. Instead of a context of sensory perception, a Weltanschauung became, in Schelling’s understanding, an intellectual apprehension of the cosmos. The concept of Weltanschauung as an intellectual apprehension of the world by moral and cognitive beings put down deep roots in the fertile ground of nineteenth-century German thought, being widely used by its leading theologians, philosophers, poets, musicians and scientists. Within this rich intellectual tradition are Friedrich Schleiermacher, Feuerbach, G.W.F. Hegel, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wagner and Alexander von Humboldt. By the early twentieth century, the word Weltanschauung had appeared in more than two thousand works in German, and was used almost as an equivalent to the word ‘philosophy’; it was a concept that clearly expressed the human aspiration for an understanding of the nature of universe. From its use on German soil, the term gained ground in diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, first advancing towards Germanic and Slavic countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Poland and Russia. Then Romance-language countries such as France and Italy began to adopt Weltanschauung, giving it a connotation close to a metaphysical view of the world, an overall view of life.






























































5

NAUGLE, 2002, 59.

20

Christian Worldview and Transformation


In the English-speaking world, Weltanschauung seems have first appeared in 1860, in a letter written by William James, in which he cited optimism as a basic feature of the Greek Weltanschauung. The usual English translation is ‘worldview’ which the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) defines as a particular philosophy or vision of life, the understanding of the world held by an individual or a group. The fertility of the Weltanschauung concept meant that, in only seven decades, it was in widespread use throughout the intellectual universe of Europe and the United States, to signify the understanding or vision of the world and of life shared by an individual or social group. However, this development of the ‘worldview’ concept has not taken place without intense discussion. As a result, important thinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have put forward a variety of proposals to which we now turn our attention.

Worldview: Different Applications of the Concept As we have seen, ever since Kant, Weltanschauung has become a focus of discussion among proponents of various schools of thought in Europe, especially in Germany. One after another has enriched the scope of the term’s use, thus helping in the correct understanding of the questions that its use undoubtedly raises. Among these thinkers are prominent representatives of the idealist, existentialist, historicist, post-modernist and phenomenological schools of thought. George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), the central figure of German idealism, maintained that Weltanschauung corresponded to the way a nation, ethnicity or individual viewed the world in specific historical and geographic contexts. According to Hegel, a Weltanschauung would represent an unconscious unfolding of the Absolute Spirit – which would be God, according to a pantheistic view of reality – in the external world, through the historical process. People born in a particular historical context would invariably be sharing a communal Weltanschauung with distinct manners, perceptions, attitudes and states of consciousness. The meeting up of these dialectically in the historical process would converge towards the eschatological destiny of self-understanding.6 For Hegel, a Weltanschauung expresses itself externally, most notably, in the artistic forms shared by a particular ethnicity or nation. Poets, sculptors, musicians and artists are vehicles of the manifestation of a Weltanschauung, and also reveal its deeper characteristics. According to the post-modern pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty, part of Hegel’s intellectual legacy in the West was the notion that there are alternative conceptual cognitive patterns which human groups at distinct times and places under the guidance of the Absolute Spirit share.






























































6

Ibid, 73.

Worldview: Evolution of the Concept

21

Contrary to Hegel’s proposal, the Danish existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard asserted that a Weltanschauung – or, as he termed it, a vision of life – is not an unconscious response to the spirit of the age. Rather, it is an existential reflection on the meaning of individual experience, and its articulation in a coherent view of reality. Thus the individual construction of a vision of life would have its place at the very centre of the quest for wisdom, a role which philosophy had hitherto claimed as its own. For Kierkegaard, individual existential experience, rather than intellectual reflection, is both the way to the creation of a vision of life and leads to personal transfiguration and conviction. Thus the stages of existence found in Kierkegaard’s writings are different visions of life, the Christian one being the most appropriate for the correct understanding of existence, and superior to the aesthetic stage and the ethical view of life represented by Stoicism. Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), for his part, presents a broad and systematic approach to the concept of Weltanschauung and is one of its main advocates and proponents. His writings expound a broad treatment of the genesis, articulation, comparison and development of worldviews. For Dilthey, a true worldview is an intuition that emerges basically from ‘being-in-the-middle-oflife’ – this latter being an enigma that demands explanation. Universal metaphysical systems are the relativistic and conditioned attempts of individuals or social groups, at certain times and in different places, to explain the shape of reality and express it in absolute terms. Dilthey proposed, not the acceptance of a particular metaphysical system, but an understanding of this endless process of creation and multiplication of these systems. He referred to it as a meta-philosophy of worldview, a philosophy of philosophy. This search for understanding the creation of relative systems to explain the world (worldview) gives the philosopher clues for the path of understanding the mysteries of the universe without falling into the error of metaphysical dogmatic absolutism. In Dilthey, therefore, historicism sought to assassinate metaphysics, for only the historical description of the birth and death of a series of conflicting philosophical systems was accessible to the true scientist. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) represented the apogee of the tendencies of modern philosophy launched by the Copernican revolution of Kant, and the assimilation of the philosophy of worldview. For Nietzsche, the knowing, volitional person is always at the centre of every epistemological undertaking, and there are no transcendental mental categories that could provide a metaphysical reference point. There remain only two possible loci for understanding the world and human life: nature, and the ongoing historical process. Human beings are therefore only products or fluctuations of real entities, called cultures or worldviews, each one articulated in a homogeneous and clearly defined value system. In itself, the human mind has the capability of creating new worlds and the ways of interpreting them, thus multiplying possible perspectives of reality. Thus human beings are subjects, creators of worlds, in order to preserve their existence. Linguistic systems, narratives and moral values are nothing more than the arbitrary creations of individuals at a given time, unrelated to an

Christian Worldview and Transformation


22

external reality; all of this became an accepted social convention, a collective Weltanschauung. In his book, The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche states: There is only a vision of a certain perspective, only a knowing subject of a perspective, and the stronger the emotions we express about a particular thing, the greater the number of eyes, different views, that we focus on the same thing, the more complete our ‘idea’ of this thing, our objectivity.7

Later thinkers such as Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) criticized the degree of influence of the so-called historicist philosophy of worldview – especially Dilthey’s proposal – on western philosophy and its incessant tendency to relativize knowledge and the scientific method, a process that invariably leads to a subjective scepticism. According to Husserl, scientific philosophy as an epistemological method should be independent of specific historical contexts; and the phenomenological method would be one free of presuppositions. This understanding, in his view, represents a definitive separation from the relativistic philosophy of worldview as it is rooted in eternity itself. As can be seen, the concept of worldview has raised important questions which in turn brought new implications for western thinking, and mobilized advocates and critics around the discussion of its genesis, functions, developments and limits. New categories of thought began to emerge, and aroused the attention of Christians who recognized Christianity itself as a view of the world and of life, as over against other systems of life. However, as was noted in the different approaches of some of the European schools of thought, there are new questions intrinsically linked to this attractive category of thought and they demand careful discussion. Is a worldview something unconsciously shared by individuals or ethnicities within a specific historical context, as Hegel asserts, or is it to be constructed individually from existential experiences, as Kierkegaard maintains? Would not acceptance of the category of worldview invariably lead to historicist relativism, as Dilthey argued, in which all forms of conception of the world are equally valid? Would not the centrality of the knowing, volitional person in the process of cognition erode the objectivity of external reality, inevitably leading to Nietzsche’s perspective and the end of scientific objectivity? These issues need to be explored by non-Christians and Christians alike as we deal with the concept of worldview. Notwithstanding the debate around the concept, and aware of the profound implications on the minds and lives of millions, European Christianity came to adopt the category of worldview as a legitimate way of conceptualizing Christianity at a time when its presence and relevance as a spiritual and cultural force was being challenged.






























































7

In NAUGLE, 2002, 102.

Worldview: Evolution of the Concept

23

The Christian Appropriation of the Concept of Worldview It could be said that the adoption of a Christian worldview in the history of the church began with the apostles and is rooted in the whole of Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments. However, it was only in the middle of the second century, with the work of Irenaeus de Lyons, that Christians, separating themselves from Greek ideas, came to create a system of theological thinking based on their own presuppositions. Augustine and Calvin are notable examples of theologians who have depended exclusively on Scriptural revelation for their understanding of every aspect of reality, thus making Christianity aware of its own distinct epistemological, metaphysical and ethical foundations, in clear contrast to non-Christian ways of understanding reality. At the end of the nineteenth century, however, a profound deChristianization of society took place in Europe. All aspects of social life, such as the arts, science, politics, economics and philosophy became predominantly secularised: the only role left for the Christian faith was as a means of inspiring a subjective devotion that was devoid of engagement with the manifest realities of life. This situation came to be accepted by whole movements within the church, such as extreme pietism, liberalism and theological existentialism. However, in the same period, on the same European soil, a dissonant voice was heard, that of the Scottish theologian, apologist and educator James Orr (1844-1920). He called for a return to Christianity and for an integral system of perception of the world, life and thought. Invited to minister in Edinburgh, James Orr worked on a book that was published in 1893, A Christian View of God and the World. In it, he argued that the principles of Christianity provide a starting point, which unfolds in an orderly and total view of life. At the same time as he defended specific Christian doctrines, Orr believed that the worldview concept enabled him to deal with Christianity in its fullness as a system. He held that, if Christianity wished to survive the modernist spirit sweeping Europe, only a coherent presentation of the Christian definition of reality in its fullness would be fit for the task. In Orr’s words: The opposition that Christianity faces is not confined to special doctrines or points supposedly in conflict with the natural sciences… But it extends to the total form of conceiving the world, the place of man in it, the way of conceiving the total system of things, natural and moral, of which we are a part. We no longer have an opposition of details, but of principles. This circumstance needs an equal extension on the line of defence. It is the Christian view of things in general that is attacked, and it is only by exposing and vindicating the Christian view of things as a whole that this attack can be stopped.8

Although, theologically, the contribution of James Orr was not expressive, his idea of conceiving Christianity as a Weltanschauung gave a new strength to Christianity in Europe and in the western world, and inspired followers who would go on to develop his ideas, men such as Abraham Kuyper and the movement called Dutch neo-Calvinism.






























































8

Ibid, 8.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


24

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), Dutch theologian and statesman, was considered a genius both in the intellectual sphere and in the practical and political affairs of his day. With a theology strongly grounded in Calvinism and its emphasis on God’s sovereignty over all aspects of reality, thought and culture, Kuyper defined as the ultimate goal of his life the renewal of the social life of the Dutch Church and nation. This led to the creation of the Free University of Amsterdam, the publication of newspapers with a reformed perspective, the formation of the first modern political party in the Netherlands, and his becoming Prime Minister of that country for a period of five years.9 His comprehensive view of faith led Kuyper to adopt the concept of worldview as a powerful tool for the expansion of holistic Christianity. Like Orr, he believed that Christianity should be set forth in terms of a comprehensive view of reality, leading to worship and submission to God in all areas of life. This new approach has been invariably associated with a school of Reformed thought known as Presuppositionalism. This is basically the recognition that any person, Christian or non-Christian, has their way of conceiving the world and of defining the place and role of humanity in the world. Such assumptions are of a religious origin even if the person holding them alleges scientific rationality or neutrality. Thus the role of Christians should be to act and understand reality from their own Christian presuppositions – which they possess by revelation from God – and at the same time, to point out and expose the religious origin of non-Christian worldviews disguised as possessing supposedly rational or scientific neutrality. His comprehensive approach to Christianity was systematically expounded in 1898 in a series of lectures at Princeton University. According to Peter Heslam, the reading of Orr’s recently published book, The Christian View of Man and the World, would have had a strong impact on Kuyper’s thinking, leading him to present Christianity as a complete worldview based on the Calvinist tradition. At the end of his lectures, Kuyper stated: Modernism now confronts Christianity; and against this mortal danger, you, Christians, cannot successfully defend your sanctuary except by placing, in opposition to this system, a life-and-world-view of your own, founded just as firmly on the basis of its own principle, worked out with the same clarity and brilliance, with an equally consistent logic.10

Biblical Christianity, according to Kuyper, is best interpreted and expounded within the Calvinist tradition, which should be followed and recommended by Christians in general as the basis of a properly Christian worldview. This proposal was followed by Kuyper’s many successors in Holland, giving rise to the movement known as Dutch neo-Calvinism. One of its main proponents was the philosopher and jurist Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977). With over 200 books and articles published in the fields of legal and political theory and philosophy, many Christian authors consider Dooyeweerd to be the greatest






























































9

KUYPER, 2002, 10. Ibid, 198.

10

Worldview: Evolution of the Concept

25

philosopher of the neo-Calvinist tradition. In his philosophical approach, Dooyeweerd followed Kuyper in presenting Christianity as an integral view of life and thought.11 Unlike Kuyper, however, he maintained that worldviews other than Christianity were the result, not of philosophically elaborated intellectual speculation, but of an inner commitment of the heart to basic religious motifs, shared by even the simplest of people. Worldviews are therefore the cognitive effects of this religious process, common to all humans. With the strengthening of Dutch neo-Calvinism, mainly in the persons of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd, the concept of worldview spread from Europe to the American continent, and was widely adopted by well-known evangelical Christians, such as Cornelius van Til, Gordon Clark and Carl F.H. Henry, and by educational institutions in Canada and the United States. Among evangelical leaders who have adopted this concept of worldview is the evangelist and cultural critic Francis Schaeffer, who contributed greatly to the popularization of the concept in the United States and elsewhere. The L’Abri Institute, created by Schaeffer in Switzerland, aimed to present Christianity as an integrated worldview. Charles Colson, Os Guinness, Nancy Pearcey and Darrow Miller are among current Christian leaders influenced by Schaeffer’s perspective. More recently, many authors have begun to interpret Christianity as an integral worldview, publishing several books on the theme; among them are Brian Walsh, J. Richard Middleton, Albert Wolters, Arthur F. Holmes, Nancy Pearcey, Charles Colson, James Olthuis and Nicholas Wolterstorff.

Spread of the Concept in the Brazilian Evangelical Milieu The concept of Christian worldview first appeared in the Brazilian evangelical milieu with the translation, in the 1970s, of Francis Schaeffer’s trilogy: The God who is There, Escape from Reason and He is There and He is not Silent. Currently, several translated books on the subject are available, evidence that the concept is being absorbed and increasingly used by the Brazilian evangelical community. Among the works in Portuguese that deal with the subject are: How Now Shall We Live? by Charles Colson; Panorama of Christian Thought, edited by Michael D. Palmer; The Universe Next Door, by James W. Sire; Discipling the Nations, by Darrow Miller; Philosophy and Christian Worldview, by W. Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland; Calvinism, by Abraham Kuyper; and O Reino Entre Nós (The Kingdom in Our Midst), by Mauricio Cunha and Beth Wood. The appropriation of the concept of worldview by the Christian community, first in Europe and later in North America, Brazil and elsewhere, has brought with it many questions about the correct application of the concept from a biblical, Christian perspective. This aspect is particularly relevant in the Brazilian context, marked as it is by a disengaged and escapist Christianity; the






























































11

For Dooyerweerd, differently from Kuyper, Christianity pointed a direction for thinking, with the believing heart as its basic motive, rather than providing a fully elaborated vision of the world and life.

26

Christian Worldview and Transformation


fruit of a correct application will be seen in the quality of Christian life and the degree to which God the Creator is honoured. Among the questions to be posed are: What are the essential elements of a Christian application of the concept of worldview? What are the fundamental points of a biblically inspired worldview in contrast to non-Christian thought? In a modest attempt to answer these important questions, we now consider the basic elements of a Christian worldview.

Introduction to the Application of the Christian Worldview The proposal for a Christian application of the concept of worldview has been widely broached by Christian authors in works such as those already mentioned. In this brief outline, however, we follow the line of argument of the Dutch neo-Calvinism of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd. The argument is that a Christian interpretative system capable of providing the guiding principles of a comprehensive Christian worldview is to be found in its clearest form in the Reformed Christian tradition going back to Calvin and Augustine, and is derived from a profoundly scriptural vision of the essential aspects of reality. The reformed worldview may be distinguished from some others on several fundamental points. First, it establishes the supreme authority of the Scriptures, understood as the revelation of the mind of God to man, and the only starting point for the construction of an essentially Christian worldview. Second, it offers an integral, non-dualistic, foundation for the formation of a worldview based on the union of the three fundamental aspects of biblical revelation, the creation-fall-redemption triad.12 Lastly, the reformed view stresses the sovereignty of God over the creation, the full extent of the Fall, and God’s total redemption in Christ Jesus. In the integral vision of the Reformed worldview, some fundamental aspects of the Christian perspective concerning the various areas of life are emphasized. First, the place of creation is emphasized in the concept of the Christian world and life. The Christian message does not begin with the call to salvation, but with the doctrine of the good creation of God, the only source of the created order. There are no independent natural forces. God establishes the order and structure of the cosmos in its various dimensions – both in its physical dimension present in natural laws, and in its human dimension present in the principles of morality, justice, ethics, economics, aesthetics and logic. There is no sphere of reality outside the scope of God’s good creation, and every Christian is responsible for cultivating and developing the potentialities of that creation. Second, the Reformed concept of the Fall affirms that the totality of creation was corrupted by the universality of sin, therefore all the above-mentioned spheres were affected by the universal scope of sin and are now in a state of
































































12 Cf. WOLTERS, Albert: Creation Regained: Biblical basis for a reformation worldview. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Worldview: Evolution of the Concept

27

rebellion against God. This does not indicate, however, that the structure of creation is evil, but that the direction of these spheres, in both the physical and the human dimensions, is in a dysfunctional state, in need of restoration. The recognition of the effect of sin upon the human mind (the noetic effect) is of singular importance in the Reformed conception, and renders null and void any autonomous attempt to recover true knowledge about God and reality apart from divine revelation. Concluding the biblical triad, the concept of redemption is as comprehensive as that of creation and Fall. In the Reformed tradition, grace restores nature – that is, the scope of Christ’s salvation applies not only to the spiritual dimension of humanity but to the whole creation, which was originally good. The whole human person is restored by the grace of God, including their mind. God in his grace will restore all dimensions of life, since all were distorted by the Fall; redeemed humanity has the ability to act in the present with the aim of establishing the kingdom of God on earth. These three basic elements of a Christian worldview must be held in a constant state of equilibrium since they form one truth. If creation with all its potential is over-emphasised and the Fall downplayed, there is a risk of adopting a utopian and romantic view of reality. If the opposite occurs, Christianity becomes a pessimistic religion that turns its back on the reality created by God. If the emphasis is on redemption to the detriment of sin, there is a risk of the adoption of a super-spiritual Christianity. And so on. As James Orr has maintained, Christianity’s main challenge to modern culture is not an opposition of detail but of principle, therefore our defence must focus on principles. Because it is the Christian view of things in general that is being attacked. Only by exposure and vindication of the Christian view of the whole of reality can this attack be turned back. This is the proposal of the Reformed Christian worldview: it presents general principles of Christianity that are able to guide us in its integration with the various dimensions of life and enrich the Christian life and the capacity of the church to extend the kingdom of God on earth.13

Challenges Related to a Christian Worldview As we have seen, the history of the Christian worldview concept involves cultural enrichment but also controversy as to its application. The idea of using
































































13 The Christian application of the worldview concept has led to the rise of new perspectives on the Christian way of life and interaction with the world. However, alternative approaches have also arisen, with equal force, in the fields of Christian thought and theology. Among these currents, we draw attention to the post-modern evangelical tradition, which calls for a return to the Reformed bases of sola scriptura and sola fide, doing away with any attempt to create systems for interpreting reality on the base of revelation, as a Christian worldview would propose. Cf. RASCHKE, CARL: The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals must embrace postmodernity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academy, 2004.

28

Christian Worldview and Transformation


it as a tool for Christians to integrate their faith brings with it several questions to be answered. Aware of our responsibility before God, we need to investigate how it may be applied in the most fruitful and enriching way. Among the questions raised by the concept of worldview are: What is the relationship of Christianity interpreted as a worldview with the purely personal and relational dimension of the life of faith? Could the search for the construction of a coherent Christian worldview supplement the Christian purpose of love for God and neighbour? To what extent is the simplicity of the Christian faith threatened by the intellectual task of constructing a comprehensive Christian worldview? Certainly an integral Christianity, lived out of a Christian worldview, is God’s way forward for our time of alienation and Christian escapism, for the whole earth is the Lord’s. Returning to Kuyper’s words, there is ‘not a single centimetre of the whole domain of our existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over everything, does not cry: It is mine!’




3. CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY Mauricio José Silva Cunha The understanding of Christianity as a total system of life is fundamental to our engagement in issues of development and in the pursuit of equity and social justice in our time. For our generation in Brazil, one of the most relevant responsibilities facing the church is the search for the application of biblical truths in the area of social development and the eradication of poverty. As far as the task of discipling our nation is concerned, this is a crucial unresolved issue, especially bearing in mind our context. The prerequisite for truly transformative action is a theoretical reflection that can provide the basis for responsible intervention that is fully committed to Christian values. The purpose of this chapter is to contribute, in an introductory way, to this reflection.

The Problem of Poverty in Three Worldviews The question of poverty and wealth has always been a matter of human concern. As we see the reality of absolute inequality, it is almost impossible to ignore the question: Why are some individuals and nations poor and others rich? How can we solve the problem of poverty that afflicts us to such an extent? The most varied responses have been formulated. We will briefly analyse three classic conceptions, linked to the dominant macro-systems of belief in the minds and hearts of contemporary people: secular humanism, animism and biblical theism. This is a simple typological classification, which will allow us to better understand the contrasts between belief systems. In the secular humanistic conception, present in the modern West and in scientific circles in general, the term ‘poverty’ basically means material poverty – that is, a lack of resources to meet specific material needs. Within this secularized perspective, physical reality is primordial and material resources are scarce and limited. The universe is seen in an impersonal way, as having its origin in pure chance and the blind forces of nature. In this universe, human personality is seen as a sort of ‘accident’, as something that does not correspond to ultimate reality – and this creates the tendency to ignore the role of human personality in explaining social problems, as if it were a kind of ‘noise’ that does not bring us closer to the true structure behind the social order. For secular humanists, therefore, the problem to be tackled is physical poverty and chronic under-development. In their analysis of the problem, the

30

Christian Worldview and Transformation


causes are referred to wrong structures, social injustice, imperialism, the exploitation of rich nations over poor nations, excess population, and so on. So the methods for solving these problems would be, for example, redistribution of resources and income, birth control, allocation of material resources to meet specific needs, revolutions. The ultimate aim of development would consist of material equality, abundance of financial resources, and economic justice. At the other extreme, animism conceives the primordial reality as being merely spiritual. Poverty is understood as a result of what happens in the spiritual realm, such as the ‘wrath of the gods’, the action of evil spirits, karma and curses, all of which manifest themselves in the physical environment, with floods, droughts, diseases, infirmities, calamities, poverty. The methods for solving the problem would then consist of mechanisms for placating ‘the wrath of the gods’ or the spiritual forces that are supposed to have complete control over human life. Such methods could include sacrifices, indulgences, passive resignation or other practices of a magical or spiritual kind. Thus the ultimate aim would be harmony with the forces of nature and with the gods, and, in some forms of animism, the disappearance of the ego and total detachment from physical reality. In our own context, it is interesting to perceive the syncretism of animistic practices with some structural foundations of the Christian faith, which has generated simplistic solutions to the problem of poverty. In this case, Christianity merely adapts to animist thought patterns that dominate our culture. Within the biblical theistic framework, the problem of poverty arises from the estrangement of human beings from their Creator because of sin. This estrangement affected all human relationships and creation itself. God had not planned misery and hunger – they are the fruit of man’s fall, with all its consequences. The primordial reality is personal. Personal and collective sin subjected humanity to fallen thought patterns, making us vulnerable to Satan’s action through personal and cultural lies. Ignorance of the truth condemned humanity and creation to an existence far short of God’s plans for the world he created. All problems of personal and collective poverty, whether structural or not, stem from this condition, imposed by the penetration of evil on both the personal and the systemic level, by humanity’s consent to sin. In accordance with this belief, the methods for solving the problem would consist of personal and cultural conversion – that is, a significant return to the original purposes of the Creator, through the knowledge of the truth. This knowledge and experience would open up a space for the enjoyment of a full and free life at the individual level, a life which, at the collective level, expresses itself in the building up of just and prosperous societies by establishing institutions based on the principles of the kingdom of God. It would open the door for the manifestation of these principles in all areas of society: spiritual life, economy and work, education, health, media and communication, the arts, leisure, politics, etc. Christianity is more than a religious system; it is characterized by a total cultural system. In the Christian conception, the ultimate aim would then be a restored harmony with the

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society

31

Creator, substantial healing for individuals and nations, and the significant restoration of wholeness.

The Historical Christian Response Despite the resistance of some Christian sectors, the church has undeniably contributed to the transformation of the various spheres of society. During most of the church’s history, the following elements have been evident in its transforming work as the Body of Christ on earth: an understanding of the kingdom of God and Christianity as a complete system of life; a militancy generated and strengthened by the Holy Spirit; an awareness of the church’s prophetic role and of its action in the restoration of all things; and a commitment to love of God and humankind, especially the most needy. Specific examples are: the idea of education for everyone, political reformation in Europe, the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, the establishment of Sunday Schools (originally to help poor street children), the eradication of countless perverse cultural practices in various contexts, the encouragement of scientific research, the production of a workforce committed to a Protestant work ethic (one of the key factors in the success of the Industrial Revolution) – and a myriad of other historical milestones, small or large which, like an ‘invisible hand of God’, steer history by means of men and women who are totally committed to him. Analysing Calvin’s thought, we notice his desire to restore the idea of the year of Jubilee in order to promote income redistribution. We also discover that: The pastors of Geneva interceded continuously with the Municipal Council on behalf of the poor and the workers. Calvin himself interceded several times for wage increases for the workers. Pastors preached against financial speculation and monitored prices against rises caused by monopolies. Thanks to the influence of the pastors, the Council limited the working day of the workers and vagrancy was prohibited.1

And further: Calvin believed that the city [Geneva] needed to be organized along the lines of Reformed biblical Christianity, but this would require a radical change in the spiritual life of its people. And so Calvin set to work, preaching against animism and sending to the Council of the City a proposal of regulations in order to reorganize the political life and even the manners and customs of the city. He saw in education a powerful instrument of evangelization for the nascent Reformed Church, as well as inaugurating the Geneva Academy.2

Calvin’s teaching also had an influence on the question of the duty of the state to assist the needy and on the duty of Christians to honour and submit to the state. In his writings we find numerous references to social and economic issues. Biéler says that:






























































1 2

FERREIRA, 2000. GOMES, 2002.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


32

Calvin was the first to show that material life is actually one of the objective places where, through his concrete behaviour, man lives out the testimony of his faith in the redeeming Christ. He understood, then, that the economic relations between men – men naturally corrupted by sin – could be restored by the spiritual renewal of the human creature. Evangelization and the Christian mission therefore have a direct bearing on economic life and become the condition of its restoration and of a harmonious social life.3

According to Gomes, the great contribution that Calvinism may have had is precisely in the fact that all this contributes to the construction of an ethic of work… In Reformed Protestantism, work is considered a blessing from the Lord. This vision, coupled with a simple, unostentatious, ascetic way of life, produces savings … but Protestant savings cannot be considered the only variable responsible for the production of such a complex phenomenon.4

In Wesley, we note that the context of the poor is a reference point for the formation of the Methodist movement in response to the needs of these people, and a key factor in Wesley’s theology and practice was his relationship with the poor, which has been well attested and documented. In other words, his pedagogy and theology were profoundly shaped by everyday life, by participation in the social order and in culture: We must remember that Wesley came to cultural participation by ‘immersing himself’ and combating existing prejudice against the active participation of Christians in society, alongside the excluded, in popular culture.5

It is now up to us, in our generation and in our context, to understand the part we have to play in the realization of the ‘righteous acts of the saints’, as co-workers of God in the work of discipling the nations.

The Ethics of Development According to Gomes, a worldview that reflects the values and even the ideology of a particular people or social group is the basis for the construction of the ethics and morals of this people or group. Ethics, a word derived from the Greek ethos, is a conceptual theory made up of the principles that reflect the will of a specific social group. In this way, each group of individuals, and even each culture, assumes a set of beliefs and values about their praxis, which we here call ethics. The origin of these beliefs and values lies in their worldview – that is, in their general perspective on the cosmic order. Our thesis is that, while there is a set of beliefs and values that would be able to lead a people towards development, there could be other groups or cultures with an ethic that would lead them towards






























































3

Citado por FERREIRA, 2000. GOMES, Op. cit. 5 RENDERS, 2003, 56. 4

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society

33

under-development, because their belief system includes distorted perspectives of reality. According to the Judæo-Christian worldview, based as it is on the Scriptures, poverty is more than a material condition or circumstance. It is a way of seeing and organizing the world and life that leads to underdevelopment. This poverty is both personal and, on a wider scale, cultural. The belief system of a culture determines whether or not it will progress in the material world. The anthropologist Oscar Lewis used the term ‘poverty culture’ to describe a ‘poor’ way of perceiving and integrating reality, as opposed to the idea of ‘poor’ as a mere economic condition. Personal poverty begins to be alleviated when an individual changes their mind and vision of reality, a process we may call ‘repentance’ (metanoia, or ‘change of mind’). Similarly, cultural poverty begins to be alleviated in two ways: first, through a reformulation of ideas – that is, the gradual substitution of values that produce poverty by an ethic of development. Second, through a recovery of structures – that is, the application of this ethic of development to create structures which promote life. The community development agent Alan Voelkel calls this process of a change of worldview ‘development by discipleship’ and affirms that it is applicable both to individuals and to cultures. According to promoters of this theory, developmental ethics does not consist merely of wishful thinking, but is manifested and affirmed historically and pragmatically. Moreover, this set of values transcends culture – that is, it is based on immutable principles that have been observed in cultures all over the world. For this reason, ‘development by discipleship’ does not destroy a culture just for the purpose of introducing ‘modernisms’; on the contrary, if the process is a healthy one, it can be reinterpreted in line with the culture in question, transforming, affirming or integrating it. Although Oscar Lewis’s approach and the notion of ‘poverty culture’ have been severely criticized by anthropologists, we find his notion valuable in understanding the influence of worldviews on the material reality of a particular community. The concept of an ethic of development can best be understood by studying the work of Max Weber (1864-1920). In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, published in 1905, Weber demonstrated that the economic behaviour of the capitalist entrepreneurial class was influenced by their conceptions of the world and by their value system. According to Weber, this class was characterized by a lifestyle, or way of life, that constituted a new ethos, defined as ‘secular asceticism’. The major difference in this new conception of life was related to the value of work, now seen as something that gave meaning to life, an activity with an end in itself: the glory of God. The Protestant Reformation had laid the foundations for the idea of Christian ‘vocation’ manifested in everyday life and not only in the monastic life. Puritan Protestants were thus able to transform religious asceticism into secular asceticism, transposing into the world of work a morality based on their faith and worldview. It was a system of life based on virtues, such as the desire to

Christian Worldview and Transformation


34

save money, to abstain from alcohol, to do hard work – virtues which constituted the very foundation of the discipline of industrial societies. According to Denys Cuche, Weber notes a congruence between the ethics of the Protestant Reformation and the spirit of modern capitalism. It was as if Calvinist Puritanism had created a cultural environment conducive to the development of capitalism by the diffusion of secularized ascetic values. This explains why it is the individuals culturally marked by Protestantism who initially form the class of the new entrepreneurs. The Protestant ethos allows us to understand the logic behind behaviours that might seem contradictory: the capitalist desire to accumulate wealth and its refusal to enjoy it.6

Weber’s sociological study sought out the links between capitalist economy and the doctrinal content of Protestantism, and pointed out that this content, by generating a particular ethic, contributed decisively to the formation of the spirit that has driven the modern western economy. Within Weber’s analysis, I wish to draw attention to the importance of the Protestant concept of vocation in the shaping of a distinctive, transforming mind-set rooted in a Calvinist worldview. According to this concept, … the only acceptable way of living for God was not in replacing secular morality by monastic asceticism, but in fulfilling the ‘this-worldly’ tasks incumbent upon the individual by his action in the world.7

Calvinism was literally the first Christian ethic that attributed to work a religious character, considering it a vocation. A similar concept of ethics and thought, tied to economic morality, was echoed in John Wesley’s teaching, and, still today, in many historical Protestant circles Wesley’s maxims, ‘Make as much as you can,’ ‘Save as much as you can,’ and ‘Give as much as you can’ are understood to be typical of his teaching in this area. For some analysts, Wesley’s influence on his disciples was of fundamental importance for the development of England, which became the richest country and international leader in the nineteenth century. Weber’s thesis has been much questioned – ‘After all, didn’t capitalism take over the Calvinist concept of work?’ However, it was of great historical importance for it showed that: […] symbolic and ideological issues (related to the belief system) are possessed of a relative autonomy and can exert a real influence on the evolution of social and economic phenomena.8

Weber concluded that ‘religious ethics was one of the most influential variables in man’s conduct in different societies, for humans act according to their worldview, and religious dogmas and their interpretations are integral parts of this view of the world’.9 In drawing this conclusion, ‘he opposed the






























































6

CUCHE, 1996, 165. FERREIRA, Op. cit., 53. 8 CUCHE, Op. cit., 165, 66. 9 GOMES, Op. cit. 7

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society

35

thesis of historical materialism, which he considered simplistic. According to this thesis, ideas, values and representations would be merely the reflection or superstructure of particular economic situations.’10 As Gomes says: In establishing the theory of partial and rational causality, Weber sought to refute the common interpretation of historical materialism, because it excludes the possibility that one element of reality may be considered as a determinant of the other aspects of reality.11

The Foundation for the Development of Communities The cultural life of a people grows out of a dialectical relationship between ideas and empirical conditions – that is, between symbolic/ideological issues and their daily experience of life in all its aspects, and it lays the foundation for a community’s development or lack of it. In this sense, knowledge and truth form the base for the construction of fuller, fairer and freer societies. To follow the way to transformation, we must first of all know God’s full and restorative truth, revealed in the Scriptures, and practise it. On the other hand, lies and ignorance guarantee the destruction of communities. Rarely is the problem of poverty explained or justified, on a collective level, simply by a scarcity of material resources. The big question is, ‘What is the mind capable of doing with these resources?’ The conclusion is that the more a society has impregnated itself with beliefs based on principles contrary to the Word of God, the more it will be in darkness, with visible consequences in the form of spiritual and physical poverty, injustice, deprivation, hunger, discrimination, despair, oppression, pain and death. By the same token, the more a culture is founded on truth – that is, on the biblical worldview – the greater will be the manifestations of justice, peace, prosperity, solidarity, equity, development and life. That is, it will be closer to the kingdom of God. Some elements of the biblical worldview that have an essential role in the process of social transformation, and which should be present both in the elaboration of possible social projects and in the establishment of parameters for a coherent praxis, would be: • the absolute value of human life, founded on the belief that humanity was created in the image and likeness of God; • the understanding of nature (creation) as an open system, susceptible to God’s intervention and human ingenuity, an aggregator of wealth; • the value of time; • the Reformed theological notions of creation, fall and redemption; • humanity’s ability to build history, and not be a victim of it; • the sense of personal and collective responsibility;






























































10 11

CUCHE, Op. cit., 166. GOMES, Op. cit.

36

Christian Worldview and Transformation


• the presence of evil in humanity, which reinforces the imperative for the distribution of power; • equality of value between persons, refuting any theses of racial superiority; • equality of value between genders, affirming the intrinsic dignity of women; • the primordial reality as being personal; • the idea of an absolute truth; • the immutable character of God with his attributes: goodness, truth, justice, mercy, compassion, etc.; • human beings as faithful stewards of creation, laying the foundations for the proper management of nature; • love of neighbour, expressed in the form of work in favour of the welfare of the community.

‘Strength’ and ‘Scope’ for Social Transformation In his book Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia, Clifford Geertz examined the penetration of Islam, and later colonialism, into two different traditional societies, and the cultural transformations that this brought to each society from the different world of Islam. He analysed the religious question by means of the dialectical relationship ‘social experience versus worldview’, and introduced the concepts of the ‘strength’ and ‘scope’ of cultural patterns in terms of social transformation. ‘Strength’ is defined as the ‘efficacy with which a pattern is internalized in the personalities of the individuals who adopt it, its centrality or marginality in their lives’. By ‘scope’ is meant the ‘spectrum of social contexts in which religious considerations are understood as more or less relevant’. Geertz concluded that, among the societies studied in Morocco, the strength of religion is much greater, but with less scope, compared with Indonesia, where almost everything is touched by a metaphysical meaning, but with less force. In other words, we can speak of ‘vertical penetration’ and ‘horizontal penetration’ of transforming values in culture. Looking at the animist context in Brazil, we observe the message of salvation reaching many people, from different social classes, in all regions of the country, with great numerical growth of the churches (horizontal penetration), but without effective change in the culture and the social reality (vertical penetration). That is, we have ‘scope’ without ‘strength’ – I mean ‘scope’ in the sense that ‘the masses’ are joining the evangelical church, but without any subsequent cultural transformation. The basic premise we deduce from this is that, in order for social transformation to be made viable, there must be strength and scope – that is, not only horizontal penetration, but also vertical, into our animistic cultural patterns. In this way, the spiritual dimension would become manifest in our material reality through the culture. That is what ‘discipling the nation’ means.

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society

37

What Kind of Programmes Do We Want to Generate? Our social projects will reflect the concepts and the belief systems that underpin them. Clearly, there are some well-intentioned and productive programmes, but they are based on the secular humanist worldview, and their efforts cannot bring about real transformation, as defined in a biblical perspective. Obviously, our concepts of development – of what life and humanity mean, of who God is, how we can generate resources, what are the causes of poverty, etc. – will decisively influence the strategy to be used in aid programmes. It is the belief system (worldview) that determines the fundamental issues of life, and is at work in the personal values of the leaders of a programme and the ‘cultural’ values of an organization. These values, in turn, define the criteria, the goals, the ideas and the work environment. One of the ways in which these values manifest themselves is to with the concept of development that a person or organization possesses. Is development an increase in Gross Domestic Product? Is development industrialization? Is development the distribution of basic food aid? Is development harmony with nature? Is development growth ‘towards the intentions of God’? In reality, it is the concept of development that determines the problems to be faced, that defines theories, sets goals and objectives, and proposes solutions. The same concept will define the programmes or projects that will select human resources according to predefined criteria; it will define the target public, the structures, and the methods of working, as well as the criteria and instruments of evaluation in terms of the vision provided by the original worldview. Because of this, there are programmes that seem similar as far as their praxis is concerned, but that are based on totally different conceptions and give different results. Several ‘Christian’ projects devise strategies based on a secular humanist worldview, bringing solutions that are exclusively materialistic, and not attempting to transform the belief system or the spiritual reality of the community they are seeking to help. As to their motivation, they are Christian projects, but their content is not Christian. At the other extreme, there are groups who despise material questions, believing that the causes of transformation are purely spiritual or ‘magical’. This remains the great challenge; how to go forward with biblical balance, to formulate a theory and, above all, a transforming practice that is based on the Scriptures, that puts God in the centre, with the goal of growing into the will of God – that is, the coming of the kingdom. Transformative development begins with repentant souls and regenerated lives (transformed beliefs). The renewal of the mind – the process of replacing fallen thought structures by God’s thought structures – is the path to transformation (Romans 12:1-2), both individually and collectively. In this way, values are changed, so that the behaviour of individuals is transformed and cultures are reformed. Starting from a change of social behaviour with ‘strength’ and ‘scope’, societies are reconstructed, decisively affecting the external / visible / material reality, on

38

Christian Worldview and Transformation


the basis of internal / invisible / abstract concepts. These two levels of reality (visible and invisible), in dialectical synthesis, provoke cultural change.

Principles of Social Transformation Linked to the Biblical Worldview To speak of social transformation is, above all, to speak of a practice, an experience, a commitment usually aimed at the poorest sections of the population. Regardless of the strategy we are going to use, there are principles that should guide our action – principles based on values and concepts found in Scripture. Here are some of these basic guidelines, most of which have been set out in O Reino Entre Nós (The Kingdom in Our Midst).12

Integral Vision of Humanity The work of social development is completely meaningless when it is not accompanied by an adequate vision of human wholeness, and of the way in which God relates to and cares for humanity and his creation. As the church of Jesus, we are called to proclaim, live out and fulfil God’s total intention for creation, and we do it in obedience to his call. An understanding of the biblical worldview cannot fail to take into account the integral dimension (spiritual and material) of the gospel in the work of redeeming humanity and creation. Our social projects must be based on this theological premise – that is, they must be given a deep biblical-theological foundation concerning the whole spectrum of God’s intentions for humanity and his creation. Otherwise we run the risk of falling into a series of errors, such as manipulation, using material incentives as a ‘hook’ for evangelism, reductionist or even illusory gospel presentations, paternalism, etc. Identification In our work of social transformation, it is fundamental that we identify with the people to whom we minister. Identification is a basic missionary principle that can be found in the Bible very clearly in the lives of Jesus and Paul. In Philippians 2:5-8, we see the example of Christ as the ultimate model of humility. Although he was God, Christ’s unspeakable love led him to become like one of us. In this way, Jesus is able to identify with us, becoming an intercessor and a merciful Saviour. We are able to love him because he has made himself accessible without, however, giving in to sin or human injustice. Jesus knows what it is like to be human, with all its failures and limitations. More than that: Jesus, the Lord of the universe, but he became poor. Our aim is to be like Jesus; he is the perfect model for our work. Each of us must also become an example worthy of imitation by the people we serve as we show them the ways of transformation. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 we see the example






























































12

CUNHA, WOOD, 2003, 97-120.

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society

39

of Paul who had a very strong sense of the importance of identifying with the people to whom he ministered; he became one of them. This was certainly one of the key factors in the effectiveness of his ministry. Likewise, when we are serving in the community to which we have been called, we must become, as much as we can, one of the people. This is a principle that involves daily acts of wisdom. The wise development agent is loved and respected by the people precisely because he or she loves and respects them. Wise agents affirm what the people affirm, be it music, food, culture, values, tradition, history, the way of relating to each other, and even future projects and dreams. Instead of wanting to impose their own way of life and culture, they love the people enough to become one of them. All of this, of course, applies – provided that none of these cultural factors contradict some principle of God’s Word, our highest rule of life and conduct.

Emphasis on Relationships In the biblical perspective, development is primarily based on relationships. Programmes and projects are important, but they can never replace the essence of the process, which is a relationship of love and trust with people. Structures help us with form, not content. It is important to emphasize this principle because it must be made clear to the person who wants to be involved in the work of social transformation that their ministry will not be limited to providing a service, offering a vocational course, or to attending or starting a project. One must be willing to relate to the people, to be involved with their problems, their struggles, their difficulties, their yearnings and their dreams. We do not want technically well-structured projects with little ‘heart’. It is the life of the worker transferred to the life of the people that will generate growth and transformation. The quality of a development project can be measured, not by the amount of resources involved, nor by the number of services rendered, nor by the good ideas put into practice, but by the willingness of those working in it to give themselves to the people in relationships of love and trust. None of this means we can ignore the importance of strategic and well-designed programmes and projects. Herein lies the difference between development programmes based on the biblical worldview – with the basic premise of a personal and relational God – and governmental or humanistic programmes, which generally ignore this dimension. Christian social action today needs to take care not to be influenced by the secular worldview to such an extent that, abandoning this principal, it builds ‘recovery houses for the prodigal son’ instead of considering the relational dimension emphasized in the Bible: giving a party, embracing and kissing the prodigal who returns home. Discipleship is a transfer of life that can only come through relationship. Likewise, development, which is nothing more than the discipleship of a community or nation, is grounded in the relational dimension.

40

Christian Worldview and Transformation


Participation God created human beings to participate with him in the development of his creation. Therefore participation is an essential feature of the work of social transformation. If we do not include people as active agents of the process, and not just passive recipients, there is no way we can generate real development. This can be a contentious issue and most leaders and churches, especially in Brazil, find it difficult to accept. Many fear that, if they encourage participation, they will lose their authority; they do not know the model of authority found in the Word of God. Others come from extremely autocratic ecclesiastical models and feel threatened by any possibility of change. Still others confuse the biblical principle of authority, one of the pillars of the kingdom of God, with autocracy. Participatory work is the best way to avoid paternalism. Now, every ministry principle has its origin in the very character of God, and it is interesting to note that God is Father, but he is not paternalistic. Those who have walked with God for some time know very well that each one has to play their part – God does not do it all for us. And this is true love, for it liberates us to be totally free and grow into our full potential. There are several biblical texts and contexts that encourage participation and they should be specially studied and affirmed in the case of social development work. To my mind, the practical expression of this concept is possible only with the internalization of a fundamental premise of the biblical worldview: the notion that ‘I was made to change history’, in contrast to the fatalistic view that ‘history is something that happens independently of me’. When each one sees himself as an agent of transformation, co-operating in the work of God and capable of influencing history, the foundations are laid for the cultural defeat of the fatalism – that belief-system which perpetuates deprivation, considering life as a set of factors beyond human control. Such a vision inevitably limits the responsibility and potential of peoples to overcome their own problems. The guilt of misfortune or the solution to problems is always related to someone else – to the Devil, the government, or whatever. Prophetic Actions of Transformation We are calling ‘prophetic action’ that action which, pointing to the future reality of the kingdom of God, destroys a lie of Satan. Thus, the prophetic action is a practical demonstration of the Christian worldview, for it transforms a distorted mental pattern, bringing it into obedience to Christ. The concept of prophetic action is important because it goes beyond the commonsense idea of ‘social action’, linking it to the spiritual realm, through the manifestation of God’s will in an action performed in a given context. Prophetic action, done in God’s name and in order that his government (his kingdom) is implanted, always brings life and transformation. We must seek to discern wisely what kind of satanic belief is binding our community, and as a consequence, what it means to employ prophetic actions of transformation in that context.

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society

41

Prophetic action aims, through some sort of practical work, to replace lies by truth and thus transform the pattern of the collective mind. It also seeks to communicate that the kingdom of God has already been revealed to us, and to restore God’s government in a specific area instead of being content with a mere discourse. Projects of transformation based on the biblical worldview must be accompanied by such action for it manifests the coming of the kingdom.

Exercising Compassion-Action One of the best definitions of compassion is ‘to suffer together, with passion’. Compassion is an attribute of the character of God himself, the essence of who he is. Jesus, the Father’s exact expression, lived out and clearly manifested his deep compassion while on earth. Divine compassion is never only a feeling that produces emotional charge, abstract commotion, without practical expression (just ‘feeling sorry for’ or ‘pitying’). On the contrary, biblical compassion always leads to practical action, to the elaboration of a plan, a base from which it is possible to intervene in a given context to change history, just as God did with us in his plan to restore all things. There will be no change without the manifestation of the character and essence of God himself in our praxis. This is one of the values of real transformation. Transformation of Worldview and Ethnocentrism: Open Questions Anthropology arises from an encounter with otherness; so Europeans of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when confronted with so-called ‘savage’ or ‘primitive’ cultures, formulated evolutionary theories, on the basis of which all societies would evolve linearly until they attained the status of ‘civilized’ societies – that is, civilized according to European or western standards. It was necessary to find answers to the marked diversity of humanity, as opposed to the sense of universality of the human race. This experience of ‘strangeness’ and the need to explain differences was the driving force of scientific anthropology, taking into account both the enormous cultural diversity of humankind, and the concept, inherited from theology, that we are all part of a single human family. The conclusion reached by theorists of the time was that primitive cultures would represent less advanced stages, embryos of so-called ‘civilized’ societies. In other words, societies would be separated only by time, with all of them on the way to that stage of civilization in which science would be the dominant paradigm, as it was in the western world. This ethnocentric stance was not questioned until the early twentieth century when several theories were propounded, one of which would become widely diffused. The American ‘Culturalist’ school postulated that each culture has a ‘collective personality’ – that is, psychological attributes that characterize the group in general. In this way, culturalists constructed ‘cultural types’ – that is,

42

Christian Worldview and Transformation


personality types – by comparing one culture with another. The unity of a culture would then come about through the ideas and behaviours shared by its members (‘the Brazilian is like this’, ‘the Italian is like that’). With the characterization of cultural types, it became possible to compare cultures, to suggest why one culture shows itself in a certain way and another not, what the specific meanings things might have in specific cultures, and so on. Criticism of this approach was not long in coming, some arguing, among other things, that this type of analysis generalizes a culture too much by treating it as a homogeneous whole, and that the analysis is based on subjective criteria on the part of the observer. Much of the literature on social development issues comes from the United States, a country with a strong ‘culturalist’ anthropological tradition; critiques of this literature point out that by comparing different cultures and characterizing them as under-developed or developed, as Third World and First World, is to insist, albeit indirectly, that the target should be to reach a stage of development defined in terms of western standards of urban and industrial society. In contrast to the concepts of primitive and civilized as per the evolutionary paradigm that guided the nineteenth century, we would be introducing the categories of under-developed and developed, but using this last stage as a reference. The question is whether or not this is a form of neo-evolutionism applied to social development. Or that it risks being ethnocentric because it affirms our own cultural superiority, setting it as the standard to be followed unilaterally by those whom we hold accountable for their own poverty. Thus, in the formulation of a social programme, we might, on some occasions at least, be setting our goals in line with western patterns of development instead of looking to biblical theism to help define ‘development’, ‘wholeness’ or ‘transformation’. There is an urgent need for consensus among the evangelical community in Brazil over the formulation of a Christian social theory – if we are truly committed to the establishment of the kingdom of God in our country. Are we really thinking creatively about the subject in the light of the reality we face as a nation, or just importing concepts and techniques that certainly can be extremely useful, but that do not reflect our situation? Are we being critical enough in our assessment of the extent to which a social technology represents the values of the kingdom of God, or just cultural values? How much secular humanism have we adopted in our projects as we formulate our strategies and actions in designing and evaluating results? For this reflection to proceed, we need to ask other questions: What does social development represent in the biblical perspective? How much of our own perspective on the subject is so influenced by the view of western culture that we do not even perceive it as we formulate our intervention strategies? Or, on the other hand, how much have we simply waited for magical solutions that contemplate only the spiritual dimension of life when we are dealing with a project of the transformation of a country, Brazil, which is rooted in the animistic worldview under a Christian veneer?

Christian Worldview and the Transformation of Society

43

In analysing Weber and his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Franklin Ferreira states that: ‘[…] in the light of the neo-liberal economic context and its policy of social exclusion, we need to ask ourselves how Reformed social theology could help us today, here and now, in Brazil. It is obvious that there are deep cultural, political and religious differences between medieval Switzerland and modern Brazil. But there are many similarities too, particularly with regard to social problems. Moreover, the principles Calvin developed to address social and economic issues are valid for us today, as they are biblical. It remains as immutable truth the fact that the root of social oppression is spiritual and moral, as well as the fact that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all things, everywhere, and in all ages, and that his kingdom extends to politics, society and the economy of both Geneva and Brazilians. Because of this, the Brazilian evangelical church should be involved in all aspects of society, using appropriate, lawful and legal means to protest, warn and resist social injustice.’13

Much of the teaching current in the evangelical Christian world, both in the area of social development and of philanthropy in general, comes from contexts completely different from Brazilian reality, which has its own complexities of historical background, power relations and its own multi-ethnicity. For example, linking the problem of poverty only to the questions of the worldview of the poor, holding them accountable for their condition – ‘they are poor because of their inner poverty’ – seems to me a case of serious reductionism. And explaining the problem exclusively through magical paradigms – ‘they are poor because of curses’ – is even worse; in spite of this being a noticeable tendency in our broader context, it can only bring more problems than solutions. In the same way, as Christians, we reject Marxist orthodoxy with its historical-dialectical materialism, and answers situated in the purely material field: the unjust distribution of wealth, class exploitation, imperialism, etc. We cannot ignore the relevance of some responses from the Marxist milieu when analysing the centuries of exploitation to which slaves from Africa were subjected, the striking inequities of Brazilian society today as revealed in the unjust distribution of wealth, the history of authoritarianism in the political arena, the exploitation of labour, and so on. However, in our search for authentic social development, any attempt to over-simplify the explanation and solution of a problem as complex as poverty without taking into account the specifics of the context can only raise false expectations. On the basis of a clear understanding of the Scriptures and a critical awareness of Latin American reality, we need to think of intervention strategies that both avoid simplistic and reductionist theories and present viable and sustainable transformation solutions that clearly express the biblical worldview.






























































13

FERREIRA, Op. cit.




4. ABRAHAM KUYPER: A MODEL OF INTEGRAL TRANSFORMATION Nilson Moutinho dos Santos When Kuyper appeared on the scene, the leadership and most of the Dutch population had lost touch with their glorious past. Some liberals had tried to revive it by looking back to the great cultural achievements of the ‘golden age’. Kuyper emphasized the Calvinist character of the nation and appealed to the energy, fearlessness and faith of the Reformation era. When he died, Christian free schools could be found throughout the land; believers were applying Christian principles in their homes, churches and associations; Christian scientists were demonstrating that belief in the Bible was not outdated, but present-day. The face of the country had been renewed.1 In Brazil, few evangelical Christians are familiar with people and events in the Netherlands at the turn of the nineteenth century. It is easier to find people whose knowledge of that country is limited to football rather than to the period of Brazilian history that includes the Dutch invasions. At that time, the Netherlands had developed a naval technology that was far ahead of Portugal and Spain and, after a bitter struggle, gained its independence from Spain in 1579. Few evangelical Christians today are aware of the part that Calvinism played in this event. History records that the Dutch first attempted an invasion of Brazil, then a Portuguese colony, in Salvador, Bahia (1624-25). That was when the Catholic Bishop Don Marco Teixeira made a name for himself, mobilizing the residents in a resistance movement, a ‘religious struggle against the Calvinist heretics’. This first attempt was repelled by the arrival of a Portuguese-Spanish fleet; a second, successful, invasion followed in Pernambuco in 1630. Recife and Olinda were easily subdued in an occupation of the region that lasted until 1654, when the Dutch were expelled. During this period, Count João Maurício de Nassau was the leading figure; he has been considered ‘the best administrator and the most competent politician in the history of Brazil’.2 Nassau ruled from 1637 to 1644, over seven of the existing capitanias (administrative regions) and, during his administration, Recife became the most cosmopolitan and advanced city in America. Trade was vigorous, the sugar






























































1

PETCHER, Donald N., What Does It Mean To Be Kuyperian? http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-kuyperian.html, accessed 21/06/2005. 2 União Ibérica (1580-1640), http://culturabrasil.org/holanda.htm, accessed 13/07/2005. The quotation is from the historian Charles R. Boxer.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


46

mills worked at full capacity, the harbour received citizens from all over the world, gardens were planted where once there were swamps, and the greatest architectural prodigy of America was there: a 318-metre-long bridge. The progress brought about by the Dutch colonization of the region was impressive: Nassau underwrote the reconstruction of property by its previous owners, extended credit and promoted controlled-interest loans. In addition, he established religious tolerance and equal treatment for Portuguese-Brazilians and the Dutch. In New Holland, the administrative scheme followed the model of the metropolis. Magistrates’ Chambers were organized, which replaced the Municipal Councils, but the Portuguese-Brazilians had a wide representation there. They were presided over by the police chiefs, always Dutch, who acted as representatives of the Company’s interests, as well as exercising their police function. In Nassau’s time, Recife was remodelled. He brought with him artists, scientists, writers and even theologians. Among them, we can mention the painters Frans Post and Albert Eckhout, who recorded the local fauna and flora; the astronomer Marcgrave; and the doctor Willem Piso, who studied tropical diseases. Another who deserves mention, although he did not come to Brazil, is Piet Post, who designed the city of Mauritius, ‘whose location corresponds to the heart of the modern city of Recife’, according to historian Charles Boxer.3

We mention these facts here only to illustrate the Dutch mentality in relation to culture. As will be seen later, such a stance was the fruit of the Calvinist worldview that was certainly present in the Dutch who were sent to Brazil. Nassau demonstrated a deep interest and care for all aspects of culture in his construction of a Dutch society in Brazil. In a different time and place, another Dutchman just as outstanding as Nassau was active. Abraham Kuyper dominated the political and religious life of Holland for almost fifty years in the late nineteenth century and went far beyond Nassau, for he started an international school of thought that continues to draw inspiration from his ideas to this day. But, Although Kuyper is well known in Europe, America and South Africa, he may be less familiar to readers elsewhere. […] a century ago, when Kuyper delivered his lectures on Calvinism at Princeton, the intellectual world was ready to embrace the notion of worldview. It was not, however, as ready as it is now to accept the kind of fundamental criticism of modernity that Kuyper had to offer. Although disagreeing with Kuyper in his Christian assertions, today’s post-modern people can find much to agree with in Kuyper’s critique of modernity, especially in its central beliefs in human progress and autonomy.4

Our aim here is to look at some aspects of Kuyper’s life and work, and examine how they can inspire the establishment of a movement of integral transformation of the individual and of society. The question is not what we can learn from the Dutch of the seventeenth or nineteenth centuries, but how can we develop a Christian worldview for 21st-century Brazilian evangelicals






























































3

Op. cit. HESLAM, Peter S., Creating a Christian Worldview; Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, 1, ix. 4

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

47

that incorporates those Christian principles that animated the Dutch in their glorious era.

Kuyper – A Gift of God for Our Time Abraham Kuyper was born in Maassluis, Holland, on 29th October 1837. He was the son of the Rev. Jan Hendrik and Henriette Huber Kuyper. The boy, initially considered a slow learner by his teachers, became a prolific Christian writer about the turn of the twentieth century; his creativity was manifested in countless areas of human knowledge, including the church, the academy, politics and journalism.5 By the time Kuyper arrived on the scene, the seventeenth-century Dutch golden age, which had produced men like Rembrandt, was only a glimmer of history. During Kuyper’s youth, the spiritual state of the church and the nation was decadent, and he himself was not attracted to the ministry of the gospel. ‘Ecclesiastical life was cold and formal. Religion was almost dead. There was no Bible in the schools. There was no life in the nation.’6 Intolerance towards evangelicals and the search for a religion that appealed to all, including the Jews, had become the reaction of those who did not accept the gospel message. In that state of general apostasy, Kuyper, in turn, had no sympathy for a church that had trampled its own honour in the dust.7 In 1855, Kuyper began his theological studies at the University of Leiden, at that time the epicentre of ‘modern’ theology in the Netherlands, after the decline of its first flowering in the University of Groningen. Scholten, Kuenen and Rauwenhoff had laid the foundations of the so-called Leiden School, which advocated a theology with a more liberal and deterministic bias than that which had been taught at Dutch universities up to that time. For Kuyper, this movement was like a great wave that engulfed him, and he even joined the other students in an enthusiastic ovation, after a lecture by Scholten in which Jesus’ bodily resurrection was denied. He later commented on this with regret: ‘I could not tell whether I had fallen into positivism or atheism, but I did not preserve anything from the old treasure-store of faith.’8 Speaking of himself to American readers at the time of the publication of his Encyclopædia of Sacred Theology, said: ‘He broke with faith in every way when he was a Leiden student, and then threw himself into the arms of the most blatant radicalism.’ Four years after launching his Encyclopædia and now Prime Minister, he confessed that, ‘in Leiden he had been captivated by the illusion of modern theology, and had remained under the sway of this enchantment for years’. Another characteristic of Kuyper, indicating how much he had been influenced by Leiden theology, was the violence of his rhetoric against that






























































5

WOLTERSTORFF, Nicholas. The Grace That Shaped My Life, http://www.calvin.edu/125th/wolterst/w_bio.pdf, accessed 20/06/2005. 6 KUYPER, Abraham. Calvinismo. São Paulo: Cultura Cristã, 2002. 11. 7 Ibid, 12. 8 HESLAM, Op. cit., 30.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


48

‘Modernist’ camp in his later Calvinist phase.9 However, three spiritual experiences were about to change the direction of the young scholar’s life. The first was a providential encounter with the works of the Polish reformer, John à Lasco, when Kuyper, under the guidance of his professors at the University of Leiden, enrolled in a contest at the University of Groningen, which offered a reward for the best essay on Lasco. After searching through all the major libraries in the Netherlands and throughout Europe, he was frustrated to discover that the works of Lasco were extremely rare and hard to find. He was then referred to a ‘venerable preacher’ in Haarlem where he encountered ‘a divine miracle to encourage him in his way’: he came ‘face to face with the richest collection of Lasciana that could be found in any library in Europe’.10 He won the contest. The second experience came about through reading a famous novel by the English writer Charlotte Yonge, entitled The Heir of Redcliffe. Kuyper applied to himself the spiritual experiences through which the hero of the novel, Philip de Morville, passed and the experience of reading ‘put him in touch with the deep meaning of the sacraments, with the impressive character of liturgical worship’. He declared that, as a result, he learned to ‘despise what he formerly admired, and to seek what he had previously rejected’.11 But it was the third experience that brought a definitive change to the course of his life. His first parish ministry was to simple rural people in Beesd, and when he arrived there, he heard about some unhappy parishioners who, as a form of protest against Modernism, refused to be present in his services. Strongly attracted to these recalcitrant parishioners, he began to visit them regularly and was surprised to discover that they possessed a more coherent worldview than his own, and a deeper and better knowledge of the Bible than he did. On their worldview, which bore the hallmark of Calvin’s theology, he commented: There was not only knowledge of the Bible but also knowledge of a well-ordered worldview, though in the style of the ancient Reformers. It was as if I were back in the university again, sitting on the bench and listening to my talented mentor Scholten lecturing on the ‘doctrine of the Reformed Church’, but with my sympathies now turned around. And what was, to me at least, more attractive, was that here there spoke a heart that not only possessed, but also had a sympathy for a history and experience of life… Those simple working people, hidden away in that place, told me, in their rustic dialect, the same things that Calvin gave me to read in his beautiful Latin. Calvin could be found, albeit obscurely, among those simple country people who had hardly heard of him. He had taught in such a way that he could be understood, even centuries after his death, in a foreign country, in a forgotten village, in a simple tiled room, by the mind of an ordinary worker.12






























































9

Ibid, 37. KUYPER, Op. cit., 12, 13. 11 Ibid, 13. 12 HESLAM. Op. cit., 33, 34. 10

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

49

In two other places (in Confidentie and in his Encyclopaedie) he referred to the worldview evident among his parishioners at Beesd and which he attributed to the ancient Calvinists: ‘a stability of thought, a unity of comprehensive discernment’. In reality, it was a “principled worldview” that needed only a systematic treatment and interpretation “to stand on equal footing with the dominant views of the time.”13 From this episode it is possible to draw several conclusions about the development of a worldview in a local church: • a local church can develop a worldview among its members; • a worldview is not a purely intellectual construction, but it involves faith and love; • a church living with a well-established worldview has strength to resist anti-Christian harassment; • a worldview can be established, even without formal treatment; • a person may or may not be aware of their worldview; • the deeper a worldview installs itself (mind, emotion and heart), the harder it is to act against it. Kuyper went on to be admired and loved by his parishioners. Proof of this is that they began to sincerely intercede before God for their young pastor, individually and collectively, praying that he would be fully converted to Christ. Later, he wrote about this experience: [The faithful loyalty of my parish] became a blessing to my heart, the rising star of the morning of my life. I had been touched, but I had not yet found the Word of reconciliation. In their simple language, they brought me this, in absolute terms, the only thing my soul could rest in. I discovered that the Holy Scriptures show us not only justification by faith, but also the foundation of all human life, the holy ordinances that should govern all human existence, in society and in the state.14

This is the embryo which will give rise to the whole structure of Kuyperian thought: in the Scriptures, Christianity is not only concerned with the salvation of the soul of the individual, but claims to be a systematic way of looking at life that leaves nothing outside the dominion of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, in all the areas in which Kuyper acted, he always held on to the conviction that became the motto of his life: Christ rules, not simply through the tradition of what he was, spoke, did and endured in time past; but with a living power which, even now, seated as he is at God’s right hand, he exercises over lands and nations, generations, families and individuals.15

Even with all the scholarship displayed by Kuyper, it is possible to perceive in his life and work that his theological knowledge rested on solid pillars: ‘simple faith as of a child, mystical discernment, and sweetness of soul’. Among the more than two thousand devotionals that he wrote, one stands out as his masterpiece, Being Near to God. He himself testified about it:






























































13

Ibid, 90. Ibid, 14. 15 Op. cit. 14

Christian Worldview and Transformation


50

The communion of being close to God must become reality, in the full and vigorous exercise of our life. It must penetrate and give colour to our feelings, our perceptions, our sensations, our thoughts, our imagination, our will, our action, our speech. It should not be a strange factor in our lives, but it must be the passion that inspires all existence.16

A brief outline of his main activities includes the following: obtained his Doctorate in Sacred Theology at the University of Leiden, 1863; began his ministry at Beesd, 1864; became editor of the weekly Christian-oriented newspaper De Heraut, 1871; became editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper and official organ of the Anti-Revolutionary Party De Standaard, 1872; was elected a member of the Lower House of Parliament, 1874; participated in the foundation of the Anti-Revolutionary political party, 1879; founded the Free University of Amsterdam, 1880; assumed the function of Prime Minister of the Netherlands, under the reign of Wilhelmina, 1901. A national celebration was held on the occasion of his seventieth birthday in recognition of his immense influence: The history of Holland in the church, the state, the press, the school and the sciences of the last forty years cannot be written without mention of his name on almost every page for, during this period, the biography of Dr Kuyper is, to a considerable extent, the history of the Netherlands.17

In 1898, Kuyper delivered his famous Stone Lectures at the Theological Seminary of Princeton, USA, where he obtained his Doctorate in Law. (These lectures will be the object of some analysis later.) In short, to analyse his work as a whole is to discover an incredibly multifaceted mosaic whose creator was always at ease in any field of human knowledge: And whether we take him as a student, pastor, or preacher; as linguist, theologian or university professor; as party leader, organizer or statesman; as a philosopher, scientist, publicist, critic, or philanthropist – there is always ‘something incomprehensible in the powerful labours of this tireless fighter; always something as incomprehensible as genius always is’. Even those who disagreed with him, and there were many, honoured him as ‘an opponent with ten heads and a hundred hands’. Those who shared his vision and his ideals appreciated and loved him ‘as a gift of God for our time’.18

Kuyper died on 8th November 1920, at the age of 82, when he was drawing up plans for yet another work on The Messiah.19 His ideas dominated the political and religious life of Holland for about half a century, and continue to inspire a school of international thought.20 A look at some of Kuyper’s personality traits may help us better understand his life and work. Heslam claims that he had a reputation as a challenging and






























































16

Op. cit. Ibid, 10. 18 Ibid, 10, 11. 19 Ibid, 10. 20 HESLAM, Op. cit., 1. 17

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

51

talented speaker in Amsterdam, and spoke to large, enthusiastic audiences.21 He possessed a polemical lecturing style and used bombastic phrases to attack opponents, especially when he spoke against modernism. For example, in 1871 he gave a lecture entitled ‘Modernism: A Fata Morgana22 in the Christian Domain’. His columns always ridiculed his political opponents and he […] took every opportunity to show their weaknesses, both in the position they held, and in their own personalities. He praised other political leaders if they praised him, and fell upon them with all the ferocity of his pen if they dared to criticize him in public. He would always place them in the context of a moral conflict and so try to expose them in an unfavourable light that aroused suspicions. Through his strong and ambitious character, acute intellect and organizational skills, De Standaard and De Heraut became powerful weapons with which he dominated the political and religious debate in Holland for nearly half a century – considered a threat by some, and a hero by others.23

In his phase of journalist-leader of the Anti-Revolutionary Party, he acted like a military commander, encouraging his followers and pointing the way forward; but with his opponents he was pitiless and without mercy.24 For all his impressive capacity for work and his indefatigable interest in all walks of life, like any human being, Kuyper had his physical and psychological limitations. At the beginning of his career,25 in 1875, he visited England during a revivalist campaign led by the American evangelists Moody, Sankey and Robert Pearsall Smith; he was personally invited, along with forty other Dutch church leaders. Kuyper attended the large gathering of Christians in Brighton, where Pearsall and his wife ministered during prayer meetings and revival services. Kuyper was very impressed with what he saw, referring to the experience as an overflowing spiritual blessing, as a true Bethel in his life: Guilt and sin have never been so deeply felt there as in the wonderful presence of the Lord… Hardly a single unpleasant word could be heard during those days among all those thousands of people. Differences melted away. There was love between people. The power of God was revealed, not only around us, but in and through the soul.26

Back in Holland, he wrote a series of articles about his memories of these meetings, in the periodicals he was directing. The last series appeared shortly before February 1876, when he suddenly suffered a nervous collapse. Since his arrival in Amsterdam, his life had become intensely productive and agitated, and this, together with the personal attacks he had to endure from powerful






























































21

Ibid, 37. The Fata Morgana, in Celtic mythology, was a sister of King Arthur who set herself to destroy his kingdom, together with Merlin. She symbolized the world of magic in the contest between Pan and Christianity. She was also seen as the womb of divinity that gave birth to the world. 23 HESLAM, Op. cit., 38. 24 Op. cit. 25 Ibid, 40-42, 84. 26 Ibid, 41. 22

Christian Worldview and Transformation


52

conservative and liberal factions, finally brought him to an experience of profound stress. On medical advice, he took leave of absence for a period of recovery in France. Some idea of the depth of his psychological suffering is evident in a letter he wrote to his wife about the attacks of his parliamentary opponents: ‘Oh Jo, only God knows what I have suffered in Holland. Every time I think about how they literally liquidated me, I dissolve in tears.’27 Because Kuyper had developed a great admiration for the revivalist Pearsall and corresponded personally with him, it is probable that the latter’s fall from grace and departure from the ministry shortly before, contributed to Kuyper’s stress. Later, in 1878, Kuyper distanced himself from the Brighton Movement.

An Introduction to Kuyper’s Thought It is no easy matter to present an introductory approach to Kuyperian thought when one becomes aware of the extent of his heritage. Where to start? Fortunately, it is possible to find a sort of ‘summary’ of his thinking, which he himself wrote when he was at the most mature point of his productive intellectual life – the Stone Lectures. These lectures gave rise to a comparatively short work of only 200 pages, written for an audience of a different language, history and culture, for people who were not accustomed to his thinking. Heslam has this to say about this work: At the height of his career, he made a bold and determined attempt to piece together the main lines of his thinking in a concise, comprehensive and systematic way, and to emphasize in his presentation their potential dynamic. The result [of this effort] is the most complete, convincing and visionary expression of Kuyper’s thought.28

Kuyper sought to outline the Calvinist worldview in six lectures: Calvinism as a System of Life, Calvinism and Religion, Calvinism and Politics, Calvinism and Science, Calvinism and Art, and Calvinism and the Future. The titles themselves demonstrate the thesis that he intended to defend: Calvinism stands as an understanding of life and the world, a system of life. And when Kuyper uses the word ‘Calvinism’ in his lectures, he is not referring to a sect, or to a sincere subscription to the dogma of predestination; nor does he refer to a denomination. He uses the word in a strictly scientific way. It is a line of reasoning that brings to the fore the historical, philosophical and political aspects of the question. The first aspect shows the channel through which the Reformation flowed. The second reveals the system of concepts that Kuyper drew up to categorize the various spheres of life. And the third indicates ‘the political movement that has guaranteed the freedom of nations in constitutional government’.29






























































27

Ibid, 42. Ibid, 11. 29 Ibid, 22. 28

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

53

The Stone Lectures became the main instrument in the establishment of the international school of thought known as Kuyperianism or Neo-Calvinism: in addition to many editions in English, the lectures were published in four European languages during the author’s lifetime, and a Portuguese translation is now available. This school has exercised considerable influence not only in the Netherlands, but also in the United States, Canada, Britain, South Africa, Australia, South Korea – and Brazil. This influence is felt in the legal area, in schools, colleges, research institutions, artistic and intellectual groups, magazines, newspapers, etc. Many thinkers have contributed to the growing vitality of this Kuyperian tradition, among them the following: […] in the areas of law and philosophy, Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) and D.H.T. Vollenhoven (1892-1978). These men held Free University professorships from 1926 to 1965 and from 1926 to 1963 respectively, and influenced the thinking of several generations of students both in the Netherlands and abroad [one of the most influential exponents of Kuyperian presuppositionalism in the United States was Cornelius van Til (1895-1987)]. Many of those they have influenced now occupy academic posts at universities and colleges, and include such scholars and well-known speakers as Nicholas Wolterstorff (Yale), Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame), Richard Mouw (Fuller), Roy Clouser (New Jersey), Sander Griffioen, Johan van der Hoeven and Bob Goudzwaard (Free University in Amsterdam), Elaine and Alan Storkey (London) and Philip Sampson (Portsmouth). Others who have more informal associations with the tradition but have benefited from their insights include the English writers Tom Wright (St Andrew’s), Oliver O’Donovan (Oxford), Alister McGrath (Oxford), Lesslie Newbigin (London), Graham Cray and Jeremy Begbie (Cambridge).30

Kuyper claimed that his ideas were derived from Calvin and, as it were, acclimatised into the western intellectual environment of the late nineteenth century. It is worth examining how he ‘modernized’ Calvinism.31 First, he distinguished between the qualifying terms ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Reformed’. In his view, ‘Reformed’ was a concept more closely connected with ecclesiastical and doctrinal matters, while ‘Calvinist’ applied to the global universe of the spheres of life. When he lectured at Princeton in 1898, his audience was already familiar with this distinction through an article by Prof. Herman Bavinck, published four years earlier in the Reformed Presbyterian Magazine. According to Bavinck, The words ‘Reformed’ and ‘Calvinist’ […] though cognate in meaning, are by no means equivalent, the former being more limited and less comprehensive than the latter. Reformed merely expresses an ecclesiastical religious distinction; it is a purely theological conception… Calvinist is the name of a reformed Christian only as he reveals a specific character and a distinct exterior aspect, not simply in his church and theology, but also in social and political life, in science and the arts.32






























































30

Ibid, 7, 8. Ibid, 18. 32 Ibid, 86, 87. 31

Christian Worldview and Transformation


54

Kuyper did not merely wish to revive the Calvinism of the sixteenth century, but he did consider it of fundamental importance to bring Calvinism up-to-date for the circumstances in which he lived. It was for this reason that, in order to avoid an overly close association between his ideas and those of Calvin, or of traditional Calvinism, he adopted the term ‘Neo-Calvinism’ used by his critics to refer to his school of thought. In fact, ‘he aimed to awaken Reformed theology out of its sleep and to make accessible to it new perspectives not considered hitherto.’33 An example that confirms this orientation of Kuyper can be found in his concern for the need for the establishment of pluriform churches, expressed in the second Stone Lecture: Calvinism and Religion. Even though the original Calvinists had not taught this concept from the beginning, he considered that the principle of pluriformity (or multiformity) of the church was a natural development of the ‘Calvinist principle of freedom, which in the ecclesiastical sphere allowed each local congregation to experience complete autonomy’.34 Thus, based on the principal that […] the sovereignty of Christ remains absolutely monarchical, but the government of the Church on earth becomes democratic to its bones and marrow (Kuyper establishes two logical implications: first:); […] all believers and all congregations being of an equal standing, no Church may exercise any dominion over another, but that all local churches are of equal rank, and as manifestations of one and the same body, can only be united […] by way of confederation; […] (second:) if the Church consists in the congregation of believers, if the churches are formed by the union of confessors, and are united only in the way of confederation, then the differences of climate and of nation, of historical past, and of disposition of mind come in to exercise a widely variegating influence, and multiformity in ecclesiastical matters must be the result.35

Heslam argues that the principle of freedom in establishing Christian churches, advocated by Kuyper, shows that he was fully aware of the comprehensive social and intellectual diversification that took place in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1874 he wrote that ‘specialization, differentiation and individualization’ of thought and life was a characteristic of the time in which he lived. His tendency to update theological thinking was evident in his argument that: […] the organizational unity of the church had been left behind in history, and to try to restore it was to try to swim against the historical current. The only feasible solution was the establishment of free churches, in which people of the same mind-set could voluntarily join together. Kuyper’s particular sensitivity to the social and intellectual diversification of his time was due, in part, to the fact that it was precisely this process that threatened to marginalize the place of religion in society. […] In providing reasons for the pluriformity of the church, Kuyper strove to keep his Calvinist worldview in harmony with the social and intellectual circumstances of the late nineteenth century, which reflected the strong influence






























































33

Op. cit. Ibid, 136. 35 Ibid, 72. 34

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

55

of the rapid democratization and diversification of Dutch society. Although he sought to base his ecclesiology on the base which the Reformers had left, his awareness of contemporary developments, which was partly intuitive and partially informed by readings and involvements, had a decisive influence on his thinking in this area.36

Thirdly, the Calvinistic worldview he had embraced was not limited to restoring traditional Calvinistic doctrines. On the contrary, these were radically reinterpreted and reapplied, so that their relevance was extended to encompass the whole of human existence.37 Apparently, he had in mind the Princeton theologians, who were present at his lectures. He sought to challenge them to consider [the traditional doctrines of Calvinism], not as dogmas to be defended, preserved and contained within the boundaries of the institutional church, but as dynamic principles which, once released into the world, had the power to transform it.38

Fourthly, the reaction of some theologians (whether conservative Protestant or modernist), accusing him of having created a ‘modern orthodoxy’ by giving totally new meanings to traditional Reformed concepts, also indicates his desire to translate Calvinism into the social environment of his era. One theologian went so far as to say that Kuyper’s theology was not reformed, but that he presented it as such so that his followers would not lose faith in him.39 Other theologians considered this criticism too extreme,40 for Kuyper himself never suggested he was departing from Calvin or from traditional Calvinism. He did see the need for modernization, for applying the principles of Calvinism in all scientific disciplines, especially in the development of a modern Calvinist theory of knowledge able to deal with the epistemological questions raised by Protestant philosophers since Kant.41 Fifthly, he brought out many theological concepts implicit in Calvin and emphasized others that were less central in the reformer. This is the case with Kuyper’s emphasis and systematization of the doctrine of common grace, which was implicit in Calvin’s thought; Kuyper made it a doctrine of central importance in his Calvinist worldview. In this concept, the grace through which God saves sinners is particular or special grace. And through common grace, ‘God restrains the corruption of the world caused by sin and allows the development of human life and culture’.42 In Kuyper’s understanding, it was precisely because of this doctrine that Calvinism had proven its ability to liberate religion from the boundaries of ecclesiastical and confessional structures, imparting a powerful impetus to the development of western society.






























































36

Ibid, 138, 139. Ibid, 139. 38 Ibid, 140. 39 Ibid, 241. 40 Ibid, 242. 41 Op. cit. 42 Ibid, 117. 37

Christian Worldview and Transformation


56

Moreover, the doctrine of common grace is related to one of the five points of Calvinism [TULIP] established in the Canons of Dort (1618-19): Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement; Irresistible grace; Perseverance of the saints.

The first point, the total depravity of man, affirms the radical nature of sin; whereas the modernists argued that humanity is basically good, though in need of more knowledge. In his lecture on Calvinism and Science, Kuyper gave much emphasis to unconditional election, as we shall see below. To sum up, for Kuyper, Calvinism does not merely constitute a dogmatic and ecclesiastical movement, as many would understand. The concept has expanded into a system of life, or a view of life and the world that is capable of providing not only guidance for thought but also direction for action in all areas of life. This claim was summarized by Kuyper in the final Stone Lecture, Calvinism and the Future: [Calvinism] raised our Christian religion to its highest spiritual splendour; it created a church order, which became the pre-formation of state confederation; it proved to be the guardian angel of science; it emancipated art; it propagated a political scheme, which gave birth to constitutional government, both in Europe and America; it fostered agriculture and industry, commerce and navigation; it put a thorough Christian stamp upon home life and family ties; it promoted, through its high moral standard, purity in our social circles; and to this manifold effect it placed beneath Church and State, beneath society and home circle, a fundamental philosophic conception strictly derived from its dominating principle, and therefore all its own.43

The scarcity of explicit references to other thinkers and theologians in Kuyper’s works can be explained by his journalistic and popular style of writing. The exception which proves the rule was his three-volume encyclopædic work (Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid). Thus his explicit quotations from Calvin were more tied to the attainment of his own goals than to the intention of being a faithful expositor of Calvinist thought, as Heslam claimed: Kuyper had his particular way of using the term ‘Calvinism’, which was both much more extensive and less exact than the sum total of Calvin’s thoughts, or of the most reliable of his interpreters. Although he often claimed to be nothing more than ‘a copyist of Calvin’, he admitted in the introduction to his Encyclopaedie that the purpose of his work was ‘to bring Calvinism into line with the kind of human consciousness that had developed at the end of the nineteenth century’.44

Since his death in 1920, there have been many publications about the school of thought that is Kuyper’s legacy. Literature in English, coming from the






























































43 44

KUYPER, Op. cit., 179, 180. HESLAM, Op. cit., 17.

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

57

United States and Canada, has given more attention to the theological side of Kuyper than to his politics. Two Kuyperian schools of thought have emerged: the dividing line between them has to do with the question of the doctrine of common grace versus the doctrine of antithesis. Regarding these thinkers, Heslam argues: […] those writers who emphasize Kuyper’s doctrine of common grace are generally enthusiastic in encouraging Christian participation in modern ‘secular’ institutions and doctrines, while those of the ‘antithetical’ school tend to seek the incarnation of their religious principles in independent, distinctively Christian institutions.45

To demonstrate the superiority of the Reformed worldview, Kuyper set it side-by-side with the other great systems of life: paganism, Islam, Romanism and modernism. Here he established that, to be accepted as a general lifesystem, a conceptual structure must be based on some distinct principle, and provide its own specific understanding of the three areas of fundamental relationships in human life, namely: with God, with humanity and with the world. Obviously, he sought to show that, although the other systems could be seen as general life-systems, Calvinism is the only one that correctly establishes these three fundamental relationships of human life, while all the others fail in some way to establish true relationships. He summed up the position of Calvinism with respect to the three relationships as follows: For our relationship with God: an immediate fellowship of man with the Eternal, independent of any priest or church. For the relationship of man to man: the recognition of human value in each person, because they are created in God’s likeness, and therefore of the equality of all individuals before God and his magistrate. And for our relationship to the world: the recognition that in the whole world the curse is limited by grace, that the life of the world must be honoured in its independence, and that we must in every field discover the treasures and develop the potentials hidden by God in nature and in human life.46

In the third lecture, Calvinism and Politics, Kuyper begins by showing that, in the transition from the sacred sphere to one of the secular spheres of human life, there is a dominant principle in Calvinism from which Kuyper’s political convictions spring. This is the primordial sovereignty that branches out into a triple supremacy – namely, the sovereignty of the state; the sovereignty of society; and the sovereignty of the church. Together we form one humanity in time and space; the whole human race is from one blood, Kuyper argues. This is the organic unity of our race. The first Calvinist thesis is that it is sin alone that is responsible for the political order and the institution of governments: For, indeed, without sin there would have been neither magistrate nor state order; but political life, in its entirety, would have evolved itself, after a patriarchal fashion, from the life of the family. Neither bar of justice nor police, nor army, nor navy, is conceivable in a world without sin; and thus every rule and ordinance






























































45 46

Ibid, 18, 19. Ibid, 40.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


58

and law would drop away, even as all control and assertion of the power of the magistrate would disappear.47

On obedience, Kuyper states that ‘the glory of God requires’ that order be established in the chaos generated by sin, and thus it is necessary that […] a compulsory force, from without, assert itself to make human society a possibility. This right is possessed by God, and by him alone. No man has the right to rule over another man. […] Nor can a group of men, by contract, from their own right, compel you to obey a fellow man. […] In the sphere of the state, I do not yield or bow down to anyone, who is man, as I am.48

Hence the second momentous Calvinist thesis: […] all authority of governments on earth originates from the Sovereignty of God alone. When God says to me, ‘obey’, then I humbly bow my head, without compromising in the least my personal dignity, as a human.49

Kuyper, then, sums up the Calvinist theses on government as a political faith: 1. Only God – and never any creature – has sovereign rights over the destiny of the nations, because God alone created them, sustains them by his great power and governs them by his ordinances; 2. Sin has, in the field of politics, demolished the direct government of God, and therefore the exercise of authority for the purpose of government has subsequently been conferred upon men as a mechanical remedy; 3. And in whatever form this authority may be revealed, man never has power over his fellow man in any other way, but by an authority which descends upon him from the majesty of God.50

Kuyper’s teaching on the independent social spheres under the rule of God is also very illuminating: In a Calvinistic sense, we understand that the family, the business, science, art and so forth, are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the state, and which do not derive the law of their life from the superiority of the state, but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the state does.51

According to Kuyper, it is of the highest importance to know how to differentiate the organic authority of society from the mechanical authority of government. In all spheres of society, by virtue of the ordinances of creation, dominion is exercised from those powers that are innate to its own nature. Accordingly, all Science is only the application to the cosmos of the powers of investigation and thought, created within us ; and Art is nothing but the natural productivity of the potencies of our imagination… [However, without sin,] no states would have existed, but only one organic world-empire, with God as its






























































47

KUYPER, Op. cit., 90. Ibid, 89. 49 Op. cit. 50 Ibid, 92. 51 Ibid, 98. 48

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

59

King… But it is exactly this, which sin has now eliminated from our human life. This unity does no longer exist. This government of God can no longer assert itself. This patriarchal hierarchy has been destroyed. A world-empire neither cannot be established nor ought it to be. For in this very desire consisted the contumacy of the building of Babel’s tower. Thus peoples and nations originated. These peoples formed states. And over these states God appointed governments. And thus, if I may be allowed the expression, it is not a natural head, which organically grew from the body of the people, but a mechanical head, which from without has been placed on the trunk of the nation.52

The only three rights and duties of the state to interfere in the autonomous spheres of life that Kuyper recognized are: 1. Whenever different spheres clash, to compel mutual regard for the boundary lines of each; 2. To defend individuals and the weak ones, in those spheres, against the abuse of power of the rest; and 3. To coerce all together to bear personal and financial burdens for the maintenance of the natural unity of the state. The decision cannot, however, in these cases, unilaterally rest with the magistrate. The Law here has to indicate the rights of each, and the rights of the citizens over their own purses must remain the invincible bulwark against the abuse of power on the part of the government.53

On the duty of the government in relation to the sovereignty of the individual person, Kuyper borrows from Held the following expression: ‘In some respects, every man is a sovereign, for everybody must have and has a sphere of life of his own, in which he has no-one above him, but God alone.’ It is the duty of the state, therefore, to guarantee freedom of conscience, to guarantee it even over against the church and against despotism.54 From the outset of his lectures, Kuyper sought to dispel any doubt as to the identity of the true enemy of Christianity in his day. In his first lecture, Calvinism as a System of Life, he made it very explicit that, like other Calvinists, both in Europe and in America, he had been engaged for forty years in a fight to the death against one of the most recent worldviews: modernism. He said: Two systems of life are in deadly combat. Modernism is committed to building a world of its own from the elements of the natural man, and to building man himself from elements of nature; while on the other hand, all those who reverently humble themselves before Christ and worship him as the Son of the living God and God himself are resolved to save the ‘Christian heritage’. This is the struggle in Europe, this is the struggle in America, and this is the struggle for principles in which my own country is engaged, and in which I myself have spent all my energies for almost forty years.55

But it is in the field of science that the combat is at its fiercest. Kuyper defines ‘science’ in his Encyclopaedie as






























































52

Ibid, 99, 100. Ibid, 103, 104. 54 Ibid, 113-15. 55 Ibid, 19. 53

Christian Worldview and Transformation


60

[…] an impulse in the human spirit, which believes that the cosmos with which it is organically related can be plastically reflected in us according to its elements (causes, giving rise to things), and can be understood logically in its relations.56

In his lecture Calvinism and Science, he denies that simple empiricism can be called science; for him, perfect science is related to the discovery of the universal law behind phenomena, and of ‘thought that governs the whole constellation of phenomena’. He argues that the love of science in this higher sense and the conviction that it is possible to do science are consistently anchored in the Calvinist concepts of predestination and the general decrees of God. He argues: But if you now proceed to the decree of God, what else does God’s foreordination mean than the certainty that the existence and course of all things, i.e. of the entire cosmos, instead of being a plaything of caprice and chance, obeys law and order, and that there exists a firm will which carries out its designs both in nature and in history? Now, do you not agree with me that this forces upon our mind the indissoluble conception of one all-comprehensive unity, and the acceptance of one principle by which everything is governed? It forces upon us the recognition of something that is general, hidden and yet expressed in that which is special. Yea, it forces upon us the confession that there must be stability and regularity ruling over everything.57

He also defends the argument that Calvinism liberated science from its imprisonment by religion during the Middle Ages, and restored its dominion. He argued that the general principle of Calvinism, which ‘constantly impels us to return from the cross to creation’, and ‘its doctrine of common grace’, is able to prevent a dualistic view of life. Those who refuse to see time in the light of eternity, and who do not make the organic and moral connection between life on earth and the life to come, eventually develop a dualistic conception of regeneration, creating a dichotomy between the life of nature and the life of grace. Christ cannot be regarded only soteriologically; he must also be seen cosmologically. Considering all this, … the final outcome of the future, foreshadowed in the Holy Scriptures, is not the merely spiritual existence of saved souls, but the restoration of the entire cosmos, when God will be all in all under the renewed heaven on the renewed earth. Now this wide, comprehensible, cosmical meaning of the gospel has been apprehended again by Calvin, apprehended not as a result of a dialectic process, but of the deep impression of God’s majesty, which had moulded his personal life… Thereby, of course, Calvinism puts an end once and for all to contempt for the world, neglect of temporal and under-valuation of cosmical things. Cosmical life has regained its worth, not at the expense of things eternal, but by virtue of its capacity as God’s handiwork and as a revelation of God’s attributes.58

Next, Kuyper seeks to resolve the conflict between what can be drawn from the Scriptures about the unregenerate person and what can be observed from






























































56

Ibid, 120. Ibid, 121. 58 Ibid, 126. 57

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

61

practical experience in the world. On the one hand, it is possible to conclude from the Scriptures that the unregenerate person is ‘wholly incapable of doing good and inclined to all evil’. On the other hand, experience shows that, in the world, the unbeliever, far from being evil and repulsive, often appears, in many respects, in a better light than the believer. Pagan civilizations produce magnificent cultural treasures. And corrupted nature does not prevent the emergence of virtues in the unregenerate person. The Calvinist explanation for this apparent contradiction is the notion of common grace: […] that which is good, in fallen man, [is explained] by the dogma of common grace. Sin, according to Calvinism, […] unbridled and unfettered, left to itself, would forthwith have led to a total degeneracy of human life, as may be inferred from what was seen in the days before the Flood. But God arrested sin in its course in order to prevent the complete annihilation of his divine handiwork, which naturally would have followed.59

Through common grace, God has interfered in the life of the individual, in the life of humanity as a whole, and in the life of nature itself. This grace, however, does not annihilate the essence of sin, nor does it grant salvation to eternal life; it does hinder the full execution of sin, just as human intelligence can overrule the fury of wild beasts. The dualistic mentality is one of the main obstacles to the involvement of Christians in the scientific enterprise. The importance of the doctrine of common grace as far as science is concerned is that it can prevent dualism, as Heslam explains: Human beings, in the same way, are able to see the components of creation, but are incapable of discerning the identity of the architect. They, therefore, cannot understand the universe in its unity, origin and destiny. Because of the intervention of common grace, however, they are able, through observation, experimentation, imagination and thought, to receive an understanding of the outer nature of the created order. That is how Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Darwin were able to shine as ‘stars of the first magnitude’.60

However, Heslam argues that Calvin speaks of common grace in a nonsystematic way, only in order to maintain his doctrine of humanity’s total depravity while at the same time remaining able to recognize that what is virtuous in unregenerate humanity is the gift of God. However, he did not systematically use the concept of common grace to reconcile these two realities; sometimes he appealed to God’s providence, kindness and mercy. In the final point of his lecture on Calvinism and Science, Kuyper discusses what he calls the main internal conflict of science. In reality, it is the conflict between two different scientific mentalities, two antagonistic worldviews that divide scientists into two groups: on the one hand, a large group – composed of deists, pantheists and naturalists – subscribe to the normal version of science; on the other side are found only the theists, with their abnormal version of science. For Kuyper, there is no conflict between faith and science because:






























































59 60

Ibid, 130. HESLAM, Op. cit., 177.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


62

Every science presupposes faith in self, in our self-consciousness; presupposes faith in the accurate working of our senses; presupposes faith in the correctness of the laws of thought; presupposes faith in something universal hidden behind the special phenomena; presupposes faith in life; and especially presupposes faith in the principles, from which we proceed; which signifies that all these indispensable axioms, needed in a productive scientific investigation, do not come to us by proof, but are established in our judgement by our inner conception and given with our self-consciousness.61

What, then, is the main antithesis that separates the two groups mentioned above? It is that they examine the reality in which we exist from different starting points: [If the cosmos, as it exists today,] is in a normal condition, […] then it moves by means of an eternal evolution from its potencies to its ideal. But if the cosmos in its present condition is abnormal, then a disturbance has taken place in the past, and only a regenerating power can warrant it the final attainment of its goal. […] Two scientific elaborations are opposed to each other, each having its own faith. […] They are both in earnest, disputing with one another the whole domain of life, and they cannot desist from the constant endeavour to pull down to the ground the entire edifice of their respective controverted assertions, all the supports included, upon which their assertions rest.62

How does a scientist come to belong to one group or the other? According to Kuyper, the consciousness of the true Calvinist, an ‘anormalist’, is different from the consciousness of the ‘normalist’, and any effort to make them agree with each other is doomed to failure. So, logically, there will never be a time when we will have a single scientific structure. The elements of Calvinistic consciousness are: … consciousness of sin, certainty of faith and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, [.…] They form its immediate contents. Without these three, self-consciousness does not exist with him. This the Normalist disapproves. [… Calvin’s system teaches that] human consciousness in a man who believes and in a man who disbelieves cannot agree, but that, on the contrary, disagreement is inevitable. […] But with regard to the present condition of things we, of course, have to acknowledge two kinds of human consciousness: that of the regenerate and the unregenerate; and these two cannot be identical. In the one is found what is lacking in the other. The one is unconscious of a break and clings accordingly to the normal; the other has an experience both of a break and of a change, and thus possesses in his consciousness the knowledge of the abnormal.63

In his lecture Calvinism and Art, Kuyper seeks to demonstrate that Calvinism did not create its own style of art precisely because it represented a higher stage of religious development. He begins by reminding his hearers that the artistic instinct is a universal phenomenon, which depends on a set of environmental factors and natural resources for its full development. He also asserts that Calvinism was unjustly accused of being devoid of an appreciation






























































61

KUYPER, Op. cit., 137-38. Ibid, 138-40. 63 Ibid, 143-44. 62

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

63

of art – in one case it ‘preferred the worship of God in spirit and truth, to sacerdotal wealth’; in another case, ‘it disapproved of a woman debasing herself as an artist’s model or casting away her honour in the ballet’; and in still another, ‘for the very reason of its higher principle, Calvinism was not allowed to develop […] an architectural style of its own’. Kuyper goes on to demonstrate his thesis that the ‘alliance between religion and art represents a lower stage of religious […] development’: … the aesthetic development of divine worship… is only possible at that lower stage, in which the same form of religion is imposed upon a whole nation, both by prince and priest. In that case, every difference of spiritual expression fuses into one mode of symbolical worship… In the case, however, of a progressive development of the nations… religion… graduates from the symbolical into the clearly conscious life, and thereby necessitates both the division of worship into many forms, and the emancipation of matured religion from all sacerdotal and political guardianship… In every country where Calvinism has made its appearance, it has led to a multiformity of life-tendencies, it has broken the power of the state within the domain of religion, and to a great extent has made an end of sacerdotalism. As a result of this, it abandoned the symbolical form of worship, and refused, at the demand of art, to embody its religious spirit in monuments of splendour.64

Kuyper reinforces his argument by appealing to the manner in which the alliance between religion and art was expressed in the Old Testament, and the New Testament teaching that the shadow of the Old Testament symbolism had been replaced by the New Testament reality. In search of further backing, he accepts the reasoning of the German philosophers Eduard von Hartmann and Hegel, and cites von Hartmann’s emphatic declaration: Originally Divine worship appeared inseparably united to art, because, at the lower stage, Religion is still inclined to lose itself in the aesthetic form. At that period, all the arts, he says, engage in the service of the cult, not merely music, painting, sculpture and architecture, but also the dance, mimicry and the drama.65

Basically agreeing with Hegel and von Hartmann, Kuyper concludes that religion and art have their own spheres of life, and cannot be separated at the outset, but acquire their own identities when they reach maturity. This process of maturity and separation, he argues, is the ‘process from Aaron to Christ, from Bezalel and Aholiab to the apostles’.66 While referring to the process of liturgical separation between Romanism and Calvinism, he advocates a form of religion in which the emotions are based, not on the aesthetic but on the spiritual, not on the purely sensory but on the ‘purely spiritual’, since […] Calvinism was neither able, nor even permitted, to develop an art-style of its own from its religious principle. To have done this would have been to slide back to a lower level of religious life. On the contrary, its nobler effort must be to






























































64

Ibid, 154. Ibid, 155. 66 Op. cit. 65

Christian Worldview and Transformation


64

release religion and divine worship more and more from its sensual form and to encourage its vigorous spirituality.67

For Kuyper, to desire the reintroduction of the symbolic in worship, or of forms of sensory worship, would be a step backwards. In fact, this same desire, he says, is indicative of an immature spirituality, which is cured, not by a return to childhood but by pressing on towards a more powerful movement of the Holy Spirit. His argument here fits perfectly the situation of contemporary churches, a real ecclesiastical déjà vu: The fact that in these days our Calvinistic churches are deemed cold and unheimish,68 and a reintroduction of the symbolical in our places of worship is longed for, we owe to the sad reality that the pulse-beat of the religious life in our times is so much fainter than it was in the days of our martyrs. But so far from borrowing from this the right of re-descending to a lower level of religion, this faintness of the religious life ought to inspire the prayer for a mightier in-working of the Holy Spirit. Second childhood, in your old age, is a painful, retrograde movement. The man who fears God, and whose faculties remain clear and unimpaired, does not on the brink of age return to the playthings of his infancy.69

As he examines the question as to whether a purely secular and dominant art style could be conceived, and whether or not such a style could be required of Calvinism, Kuyper reveals a little more of his vision of the way ‘sphere sovereignty’ operates in life: Our intellectual, ethical, religious and aesthetic life each commands a sphere of its own. These spheres run parallel and do not allow the derivation of one from the other. It is the central emotion, the central impulse, and the central animation, in the mystical root of our being, which seeks to reveal itself to the outer world in this fourfold ramification… And since [the peculiar impulse from the Infinite which operates in our inmost being] is the very privilege of Religion, over intellect, morality and art, that she alone effects the communion with the Infinite, in our self-consciousness, the call for a secular, all-embracing art style, independent of any religious principle, is simply absurd.70

An Agenda for the Future In his final Stone Lecture, Calvinism and the Future, Kuyper expressed his concern that the signs of the times were undeniably menacing, even if one could glimpse unprecedented worldwide development in regard to the control of nature and its forces, the means of transportation and communication, advances in medicine, increased life expectancy and consequent improvement in the outward quality of life. He also emphasized that ‘the hypertrophy of our






























































67

Ibid, 156. Unheimisch [‘unhomely’] means inhospitable, disorientated, depressing, sad, disconsolate, etc. 69 KUYPER, Op. cit., 156. 70 Op. cit. 68

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

65

external life results in a serious atrophy of the spiritual’.71 And Kuyper had not yet experienced the First World War, which, together with the Second, would plunge twentieth-century humanity into a deep crisis, undoing all the optimism inherited from the previous century. For him, the most alarming feature of the time in which he lived was the lack of receptivity to the truth. That is, he decried a decline in the receptivity to the only possible effective antidote against the anaemia and ‘spiritual blood poisoning’ that humanity was experiencing: the Gospel of Christ. As it entered the post-Christian era, modern philosophy regarded Christianity as superseded and superfluous, but attempts to modernize religion – such as the emergence of ethical dualism, the abandonment of cardinal doctrines, and the emergence of a new ‘Christian religion’ based on a theology without the authority of the Scriptures – were denounced by Kuyper as mere attempts to preserve an enthusiasm for life. In the search for something that could stand up to this sad state of affairs, Catholicism, modernism and Protestantism are weighed in the balance and found wanting. The only solution, according to Kuyper, was a return to biblical Christianity, which found its clearest expression in Calvinism: As truly as every plant has a root, so truly does a principle hide under every manifestation of life. These principles are interconnected, and have their common root in a fundamental principle; and from the latter is developed, logically and systematically, the whole complex of ruling ideas and conceptions that go to make up our life and worldview. With such a coherent world- and life-view, firmly resting on its principle and self-consistent in its splendid structure, Modernism now confronts Christianity; and against this deadly danger, ye, Christians, cannot successfully defend your sanctuary, but by placing, in opposition to all this, a world- and life-view of your own, founded as firmly on the base of your own principle, wrought out with the same clearness and glittering in an equally logical consistency.72

But what kind of return to Calvinism is Kuyper advocating? As already noted, he was averse to reprimitivization. To make clear what he was talking about, he left an agenda that consists of four points: (1) Calvinism shall no longer be ignored where it still exists, but be strengthened where its influence continues; (2) Calvinism shall again be made a subject of study in order that the outside world may come to know it; (3) the principles of Calvinism shall again be developed in accordance with the needs of our time, and consistently applied to the various domains of life; and (4) Churches which still lay claim to confessing Calvinism shall cease being ashamed of their own confession.73

Concerning the first point, he protests to the point of ‘demanding’ redress for a great injustice suffered by Calvinism in the United States; the virtues of social and political life that were present in the United States at the time he gave the lectures (for example, the tradition of observing Thanksgiving Day,






























































71

Op. cit. Op. cit. 73 Ibid, 201. 72

Christian Worldview and Transformation


66

opening the sessions of Congress with prayer, starting every school day with prayer; the autonomous and decentralized character of local government, respect for women without falling into the Parisian deification of sex, unlimited consideration for freedom of conscience, etc.) were being considered as blessings of humanism. Therefore, he made an appeal: What I demand then, and demand with an historic right, is that this ungrateful ignoring of Calvinism shall come to an end; that the influence it has exerted shall again receive attention where it still remains stamped upon the actual life of today; and that, where men of a wholly different spirit would unobservedly divert the current of life into French revolutionary or German-pantheistic channels, you on this side of the water, and we on our side, should oppose with might and main such falsification of the historic principles of our life.74

It seems that Kuyper’s wish has not been fulfilled. In 1963, the United States Supreme Court declared that reading the Bible and reciting prayers in public (that is, government-funded) schools was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Because of this, prayers and all religious acts have been banned from such schools. What would Kuyper say? On the second point, he draws attention to the fact that there is ‘no love without knowledge’, and that ‘Calvinism has lost its place in people’s hearts’. Considering that this branch of the Reformation, at its origin, was not developed as a systematic whole and, in Kuyper’s time, was only studied as a theological point of view, he called for an investigation and a complete study of ‘both the biography and biology of Calvinism’. Kuyper hoped that academic research on Calvinism would strengthen and consolidate it by facilitating its social programme and showing the non-Calvinist world its right to greater selfexpression in society. In other words: Publicizing Calvinism was certainly something that Kuyper vigorously pursued, not only in his writings on church history and theology, but in his politics, his aesthetics, his ideas on science, and his journalism. Although he was advocating, in the first instance, serious scholarly research, it is obvious that he was hoping that the result of this kind of study would increase the knowledge and credibility of Calvinism outside its own immediate circle.75

On the third point, Kuyper begins by complaining that even theology was being influenced by totally foreign systems in various countries. This point reflects Kuyper’s concern for the application of Calvin’s theology to questions that had not yet been raised in the days of the Master of Geneva. In other words, he implies that there is a need to modernize Calvinism by adapting the Reformer’s ideas to the contemporary situation. As to the fourth point, Kuyper affirms that those who profess Calvinism must also dare to practise it fearlessly, no matter how small their church.






























































74 75

Ibid, 156. Op. cit.

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

67

Kuyper’s Relevance for Integral Transformation Before proceeding to evaluate the contribution of Kuyper’s life and work to the focus of this biographical approach, it is necessary to outline what is meant by the expression ‘integral transformation’. It may be understood as the development of an individual and a community, based on a fundamental principle of faith, that allows the change from a fragmented life to a way of existing in the world that is cohesive, consistent and totally comprehensive in relation to spheres of human existence. In this context, ‘faith’ is the Christian faith, which is summed up in the conviction of the existence of the God of the Scriptures, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who works sovereignly over all spheres of life through his Holy Spirit. Moreover, the intended integration implies a social dimension that translates into a ‘conscious and communitarian effort of Christians to observe and reform existence where there are points of incoherence or forces of disintegration operating against Christianity’.76 Kuyper’s personal achievements brought about significant advances in modern Dutch history, as exemplified in the positive results obtained through his organizing and unifying efforts in the establishment of the AntiRevolutionary Party (ARP).77 This enterprise represented the end of liberal domination in Dutch politics and the emergence of a more democratic and representative democracy based on a modern party organization. Along with the ARP, the founding of the Free University of Amsterdam soon after contributed to the formation of countless social, educational and political institutions based on the constitutional expression of Reformed principles.78 This led to the emergence of a form of social organization known as ‘pillarization’, which climaxed between 1920 and 1960. Although this sociopolitical phenomenon provokes numerous controversies today (some students have even seen some form of connection between pillarization and apartheid), this model characterized the social structure of Holland for much of the twentieth century, making Kuyper the most important basic influence on modern Dutch society.79 Pillarization was […] a mode of social organization in which the main differences in society were more vertical (ideological) than horizontal (socio-economic). Each ideological group of Dutch society, such as Catholic, Protestant, Liberal and Socialist, organized and developed its own social and political institutions with minimal governmental interference and according to their own ideological persuasions.






























































76

Núcleo de Estudos Cristãos, Proposta de Orientação Filosófico-Teológica, http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/nucleodeestudoscristaos/Proposta.html, accessed 01/07/2005. 77 HESLAM, Op. cit., 2. 78 Op. cit. 79 Ibid, 3. Heslam argues that it is an open question ‘whether this form of social organization was a consequence of Kuyper’s actions. It is possible that he did not advocate social pillarization as a matter of principle, but encouraged it in practice, either intentionally or as an inevitable consequence of his efforts, furthering the development of an independent orthodox Protestant “sphere” in the social life of Holland’. Ibid, 264.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


68

Society was then divided into vertical zuillen (pillars), based more on common ideologies than on class loyalties, with only the elites in each pillar consulting with each other, and the ordinary members of each institution having little or no mutual contact.80

Kuyper sought a revival of the traditional religion of Calvinism without a return to pre-Enlightenment conditions – a unique blend of orthodoxy and cultural progress. In this way, he kept his distance from conservative and Catholic contemporaries, whom he considered counter-revolutionaries. His party, on the other hand, was anti-revolutionary in the sense that […] he intended to offer an alternative programme for cultural and political renewal, different from that offered by the Enlightenment ideals of the French Revolution, which was believed to be wreaking havoc on Dutch society at all levels. With his persistent agitation for greater educational, social and political freedoms for minority groups in society, Kuyper intended to be a progressive and innovative leader. He was not content to confine himself to peripheral issues of public morality, but sought to model the future of the socio-political order as a whole.81

Kuyper’s political activities also reveal that it is not wise to disparage small beginnings. After all, he began as a leader of a marginalized and minority group in 1870. After ten years of hard work, the same group was in possession of ‘powerful journalistic enterprises, a socio-political programme, a political party, and a university’.82 In addition, he came to participate in the first confessional Cabinet formed between Catholics and anti-revolutionaries in Holland (1888-91).

The Dangers and Opportunities of Kuyperianism Heslam argues that, in asserting that Calvinism represents the highest point of an evolutionary movement in the history of civilization, Kuyper is taking advantage of the Myth of Heliotropic Development, an idea that caused some discomfort to his followers.83 This leads to the suspicion that, in his Stone Lectures, Kuyper reflected intellectual tendencies widely diffused in his time, such as those associated with nationalism, the myths of heliotropic development, and Christian America.84 Thus, in his first lecture, Calvinism as a System of Life, he sought to demonstrate that Calvinism had achieved a unique position which gives it ‘the right to claim for itself the energy and devotion of our hearts’ for having ‘taken mankind as such to a higher stage in its development’. He wrote: There is but one world-stream, broad and fresh, which from the beginning bore the promise of the future. This stream had its rise in Middle Asia and the Levant,






























































80

Ibid, 156. Ibid, 4. 82 Ibid, 5. 83 Ibid, 4 84 Ibid, 84. 81

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

69

and has steadily continued its course from East to West. From Western Europe it has passed on to your Eastern States, and from thence to California. The sources of this stream of development are found in Babylon and in the valley of the Nile. From thence it flowed on to Greece. From Greece it passed on to the Roman Empire. From the Romanic nations it continued its way to the north-western parts of Europe, and from Holland and England it reached at length your continent. At present that stream is at a standstill. Its western course through China and Japan is impeded; meanwhile no-one can tell what forces for the future may yet lie slumbering in the Slavic races which have thus far lacked progress. But while this secret of the future is still veiled in mystery, the course of this world-stream from East to West can be denied by none.85

Continuing his line of thought, he declared that paganism, Islam and Romanism were phases of this development in time and space; that the baton had been passed on to Calvinism; and that modernism was opposing it.86 He held that such development of life is organic and therefore each new phase is rooted in the past. The principles that animate Calvinism were already present in Augustine, who received them from the apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, whose teachings came from the patriarchs, through Israel and the prophets. And Kuyper traced a similar organic relationship with respect to the phases of Romanism, Islam and paganism. And he followed the line from Babylon, through Egypt, Greece and Rome, continuing until he arrived at the Calvinist nations of the Netherlands and England of the sixteenth century. Summarizing this theory and giving special prominence to the confrontation between the child of faith, Calvinism, and the child of unbelief, modernism, he said: […] the broad stream of the development of our race runs from Babylon to San Francisco, through the five stadia of Babylonian-Egyptian, Greek-Roman, Islamitic, Romanistic and Calvinistic civilization, and the present conflict in Europe as well as in America finds its main cause in the fundamental antithesis between the energy of Calvinism which proceeded from the throne of God, found the source of its power in the Word of God, and in every sphere of human life exalted the glory of God – and its caricature in the French Revolution, which proclaimed its unbelief in the cry of, ‘No God, no master’; and which presently in the form of German Pantheism is reducing itself more and more to a modern Paganism.87

Before establishing his final pro-Calvinism conclusion, he added yet another argument, namely that racial mixing was ‘the physical basis of all higher human development’. Starting with the sons of Noah, he defended a new thesis: ‘It is noteworthy that the process of human development steadily proceeds with those groups whose historic characteristic is not isolation but the co-mingling of blood.’88 He went on to discuss the constant mixing of blood throughout the history of civilization and came finally to America where ‘the blood flows






























































85

Ibid, 4. Op. cit. 87 Op. cit. 88 Op. cit. 86

Christian Worldview and Transformation


70

together from all the tribes of the ancient world’.89 He added another fact: ‘History shows that the nations among whom Calvinism flourished most widely exhibit in every way this same mingling of races.’ From here to the final conclusion, it was just one more step: Calvinism […] meets every required condition for the advancement of human development to a higher stage. And yet this would remain a bare possibility without any corresponding reality, if history did not testify that Calvinism has actually caused the stream of human life to flow in another channel, and has ennobled the social life of the nations. And therefore, in closing, I assert that Calvinism not only held out these possibilities but has also understood how to realize them.90

Anderson comments on the way Kuyper’s theology is said to depend on the social and political ideas of his time: Abraham Kuyper remains a controversial figure in contemporary theological discussions, especially for the way his theology is mixed with some of the unfavourable social and political ideas of his era. […] There is no doubt that Kuyper’s theology cannot be uncritically re-appropriated today. Kuyper himself would have objected to a contemporary repristination of his theology. As he put it […], ‘repristination is an undertaking that is self-condemned’. True preservation follows a different method. ‘First seek to have for yourself the life your parents had, and then hold firmly to what you have. So you articulate that life in your own language, as they did in theirs. Fight to pump that life into the arteries of our church and society.’ Contemporary Christians have much to learn from a renewed knowledge of this Dutch theologian of the nineteenth century.91

Another source of concern is the realization that the tendency to arrange theology into a unified and coherent ‘system’ does not seem to have been an objective until quite late in the Reformed theological tradition. Thus Kuyper’s desire to formulate Calvinism in terms of a coherent system of life derived from a simple unifying principle reflects how he was influenced by the monism of the century: As McGrath has shown, the very idea of a ‘central dogma’ in Calvin’s religious thought has its origin more in the monistic thinking of the Enlightenment than in the theology of the sixteenth century. The influence of such monism in Kuyper appears most clearly in the work of J.H. Scholten, whose predilection for system, coherence and principle in his approach to Reformed theology never ceased to impress Kuyper, despite his opposition to the content of Scholten’s theology.92






























































89

Ibid, 46. Ibid, 4. 91 Op. cit. (ANDERSON, of Princeton Theological Seminary, wrote this in a review of the book Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. BRATT, James D.) The review may be found in https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004057369905500421. Theology Today, Jan. 1999, by Clifford B. Anderson. 92 Ibid, 4. 90

Abraham Kuyper: A Model of Integral Transformation

71

Conclusion It is undeniable that the biblical worldview, which animated men like Kuyper and nations like the Netherlands, was instrumental in producing some of the most developed nations on our planet. God has always used the example of the lives of his servants of the past to instruct the generations of the present. Their lives and works can be examined, studied and discussed amongst those who are seeking personal and cultural enrichment so that God can use them for his honour and glory. Of course, it is not a question of transplanting the past into the present, but rather of relying on the past to seek effective action in the present. In other words, it is necessary to separate what was specifically valid in the environment and generation in which Kuyper lived from what can be applied to the current generation and its social environment. It is important, however, to have an inner disposition to discern in the light of the Scriptures what Kuyper got right and where he was wrong. His life is an example of tenacity and the desire to be relevant in his generation – something that today’s Christians should seek to imitate. In addition, his struggle to implant what he believed to be God’s truth for the Netherlands should bring us inspiration and courage, so that we can persevere, even in the face of small beginnings, remembering the history of the rise of the ARP in Holland. A sincere person must also have the courage to admit his mistakes and change, even when those who point out the faults are, culturally, much simpler people: that was the rather remarkable lesson of Kuyper’s spiritual life in his parish at Beesd. The value of intercessory prayer should never be underestimated. Moreover, the history of that rural church, tucked away in the Netherlands, illustrates very well how a consistent worldview can give even the simplest of Christians a firmness of character and doctrine to deal with theological deviations. Mere erudition is not the way of the true Christian. The realization that Kuyper’s erudition was based on a robust and simple faith that supported him should serve us as a model for pursuing a true spirituality – the foundation for true usefulness in the hands of God. The greater the work in which a Christian is involved, the greater the need for a true spirituality that will free us from the traps that the enemy, the world and the flesh, put in our way. In his experience at Beesd, Kuyper realized that the simple people of his parish had a much greater knowledge of the Bible than he, the scholar. There is a nefarious tendency we have to avoid – namely, allowing the reading of other books to take the place of the direct study of the Word. In fact, one criterion that should be used in choosing our books would be to choose those that increase our interest and love for the study of the Scriptures. It is necessary to read good books, but they can never replace direct study of the Word. Kuyper’s theological ideas should not simply be copied into the present day. He himself would oppose that. What must be done is to study the principles behind his teachings in order to apply them to our present reality, in accordance with the teachings of the Word. Calvinism must continue to be updated so that it continues to be relevant to contemporary culture. A good practice would be

72

Christian Worldview and Transformation


to read Kuyper’s critics with great care, in order that the appropriation of his ideas is not performed uncritically. Another good practice would be to promote in-depth studies of the life and work of Calvin in order to assess how Kuyper appropriates Calvinist principles in his worldview. Kuyper’s general culture was impressive, going far beyond simply knowing his own culture. His knowledge of modernist ideas allowed him to devise strategies for facing the opposition that awaited him. Today, too, it is necessary to be aware of contemporary cultural trends, especially Post-Modernism, with its pluralistic practices, so that it is possible to establish effective strategies for action. If we adopt the Calvinist worldview, we must also devise strategies for it to influence all walks of life: politics, science, the arts, industry, etc. For example, it would be interesting to create study groups for the development of an ‘anormalist’ science; or to create art development groups whose fundamental principle was the manifestation of God’s sovereignty in artistic expression. A principle of Kuyper was that religion and art are individual spheres of life that in their ‘infancy’ are blended together, but are separated in their ‘adulthood’, each following their own path. Along this line, it would be important to reevaluate current church liturgies of the churches, with a view to seeking expressions of worship, communion and proclamation that are increasingly spiritually mature. By ‘increasingly spiritually mature’ expressions, we mean a spirituality that is not a captive of the aesthetic tendency of our time. Although it is true that in the Brazilian evangelical world of today there is some liturgical variety, there is also a kind of ‘dictatorship of fashion’ that larger religious movements impose on smaller ones, and that operates thanks to the ease, availability and effectiveness of modern means of communication. If it is correct that the spheres of religion and art are ‘independent’ in their manifestations, it would be very interesting to initiate study groups on this aspect of the integral vision of Neo-Calvinism. Clearly, we must also identify and study those aspects of Kuyperian thought that are not specifically Christian, in order to avoid the danger of being sidetracked into a maze of irrelevancies. However, if Kuyper is right in saying that an up-to-date Calvinism is a legitimate world-and-life-view that is able to represent Christianity in a consistent manner, then it can be applied to all areas of life in a way that profoundly revitalizes people’s relationship with God, with themselves, with their neighbour and even with the world in which they live. And if we were to seek to do this, the result just might be the integral transformation of individuals and the community to which they belong.




5. THE NATURE/GRACE DUALISM AND THE INFLUENCE OF SECULAR HUMANISM ON CHRISTIAN SOCIAL THOUGHT Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho The first Biblical Worldview and Integral Transformation Conference saw the welcome coming together of two great streams of Christian thought whose common interest is to contribute to a deeper impact of the gospel of Christ on culture and society. The idea, developed in Dutch neo-Calvinism, that the Christian worldview must have a decisive impact in all areas of life, including intellectual life, has its parallel in Christian movements such as European Christian Socialism, liberation theology, and the theology of integral mission as reflected in the Lausanne Covenant. In fact, this confluence has been going on for some time, although the current emphasis tends towards a greater interest in joining together effective projects of social transformation with the education and transformation of the worldview of the people who are involved in their own social environment. This type of action is undoubtedly fundamental. But we want to draw attention here to another aspect of the problem, which is often overlooked: what is the real impact of the biblical worldview on the very concept of transformative action? An integral transformation project based on the biblical worldview cannot simply communicate this worldview; it must presuppose this worldview in its own constitution – that is, in its anthropology, in its vision of the ideal society, in its methods, and so on. I once raised this question in a meeting of leaders of a major transformation project in Brazil, to be told that such theoretical problems would in no way contribute to the development of effective action. The argument was that, since academic research has never helped to improve the social conditions of the country, only solutions that ‘worked’ were of any interest to projects. This type of pragmatic approach is related to a mistaken, dualistic understanding of the relationship between the gospel and culture, and represents a danger for Christians: the introduction of anti-Christian ideas and values into social thought and action leads to the secularization of the church. In this study, we will present an analysis and a critique of this dualism and its influence on the social praxis of the church, based on the thinking of Herman Dooyeweerd and Francis Schaeffer.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


74

The Religious Ground-Motives of Western Culture According to Herman Dooyeweerd Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) was a Dutch Reformed jurist and philosopher who developed, along with his brother-in-law Dirk T.H. Vollenhoven, a system of philosophy based on the Christian worldview. Building on Abraham Kuyper’s spiritual and intellectual heritage, Dooyeweerd applied his ideas to areas as diverse as science, art, and (his own speciality) law and politics. His ideas influenced important evangelical thinkers such as Carl Henry, Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Hans Rookmaaker and Egbert Schuurmann,1 to name but a few. Among Dooyeweerd’s main theses was the claim, based on the biblical view of humanity as an essentially religious being, coram Deo, that the motivating and controlling principle of a culture is not primarily politics, economics or ideas, but religion. Each spiritual community is united by a common spirit, a dvnamiç [dunamis], that actively controls the life of that community. Dooyeweerd called this power the religious ground-motive of the culture. Ground-motives are the motivating forces that have dominated the development of western culture, science and philosophy. Each of these groundmotives established a spiritual community among those who initiated it, and remained hidden as the underlying spiritual principle of all the products of that culture. In this sense, western thinkers have often been dominated by a particular ground-motive without even being aware of it; in fact, the religious sense of ground-motives is beyond the reach of these thinkers precisely because every historical explanation, in itself, presupposes a central starting point, above and before any theories, which is given by a religious groundmotive.

The Two Cities Following a similar line to Augustine in The City of God, Dooyeweerd states that there are two fundamental religious orientations corresponding to two central spiritual powers that are operating in the heart of humanity. The first is the dynamic of the Holy Spirit, who directs humans and, with them, the whole creation to reconciliation with God. Through this dynamic the heart of a person is brought to the Transcendent Origin of all meaning. The second is the spirit of apostasy, which distances humanity from God and directs their heart to the temporal horizon of experience, so that he adores an idol. These two powers characterize the ‘two cities’ that co-exist in struggle until the end of time: the city of God, which is the spiritual community of the regenerate under the power of the Holy Spirit, and the city of man (sic), or the apostate spiritual community, under the power of the spirit of apostasy. The






























































1

Dr Schuurman was present at the International Congress on Ethics and Citizenship, held in August 2005 at the Mackenzie Presbyterian University in São Paulo, where he spoke on religion, technology and problems related to genetic engineering.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

75

two powers are revealed in fundamental religious motifs, which are the groundmotives of western culture. Probably based on Vollenhoven’s work, Dooyeweerd described the historical development of western culture as being governed by four major ground-motives, which acquired socio-cultural power and thus dominated the evolution of western culture.2 These ground-motives should not be confused with philosophical ‘themes’ (motifs), as if they were of a theoretical character – mere concepts or inspirational ideas. For Dooyeweerd, they would really be motives, in the sense of dynamic principles – powers capable of controlling culture through the religious centre of humanity.3

The Four Ground-Motives of Western Culture The Matter/Form Ground-Motive Greek philosophy was dominated by the ground-motive of the dialectic matter vs form. This polar opposition, present from the beginning of Greek philosophy about the tenth century BC, was the result of the encounter of the pre-Homeric religion of life/death with the young cultural religion of the Olympic gods. PreHomeric religion was a primitive form of the worship of nature, or ‘mother earth’. This religion worshipped the organic flow of life and death, deifying the biological/sexual dimension of experience. The central motive of this religion was ‘… the unformed source of life, flowing eternally through the process of birth and decline of all that exists in a corporeal form’.4 The motive of form (‘morphé’) is the centre of the Olympic religion. According to Hesiod, in his Theogony, the basic motive of form was born of the earlier dialectic of chaos and cosmos. The Olympic religion was centred on harmony, beauty and eternal permanence. This is the situation of the gods, who have an idealized eternal form. Such a view of the gods would have originated in the deification of the cultural aspect of Greek life – hence the fact that the Olympic religion was the official religion of the state as a way of sustaining political life. The ground-motive of ‘form’ tried to absorb the old motive of ‘matter’, but this assimilation was not successful. On the basis of the Olympic religion, it was not possible to adequately treat various life-problems that transcended reason and cultural power (such as death, life and morality). Thus an insoluble






























































2

DOOYEWEERD, 1960, 35. (BRÜMMER, 1961, 92.) ‘So too, the biblical ground-motive is not a theoretical motif, arrived at by dogmatic theology and biblical exegesis. On the contrary, Dooyeweerd calls it the “key to understanding Holy Scripture”, the a priori condition for all correct exegesis of the Bible.’ Ibid. 4 DOOYEWEERD, 1960, 39. 3

76

Christian Worldview and Transformation


dialectical tension arose within Greek culture.5 Greek thinkers alternated, giving precedence sometimes to the motive of ‘form’, or sometimes to ‘matter’. This conflict was evident in the dispute between the Ionian philosophers, who sought to find in unformed matter the arché of all things, and the Eleatic school, which favoured ‘form’. Only in Plato and Aristotle did the polarity between the motives of ‘matter’ and ‘form’ become stable, with the assimilation of the motive of ‘matter’ into ‘form’. Thus, in Plato, for example, we have the world of forms, the ideal realities which are perceived by the mind and which, in a variant form, are present in matter, which is considered to be ontologically inferior. Thus humanity is composed of rational soul and matter, with one’s basic essence being of an ideal nature.

The Biblical Ground-Motive of Creation-Fall-Redemption The biblical ground-motive was born of the redemptive revelation of God to humanity, consummated in the person of Jesus Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit. This revelation gives us the fundamental structures of a Christian worldview. First, it recognizes the whole cosmos as God’s creation. God is the only absolute origin, possessing an infinite qualitative difference in relation to his creation. This creation is ordered by the Creator’s will and reflects his glory, so that in its structure there is an order of laws or a cosmonomy, an order of temporal development, or cosmochronology, a coherence-in-diversity of its elements. This creation is complete and intrinsically good. Huanity, as part of creation, is subject to cosmonomy, but at our centre we go beyond it towards God. We were put on earth with the function of glorifying God, revealing, through his work, the potential that God has placed in the created world. The fall of humanity alienated all of God’s creation. It did not destroy the very structure of creation, nor did it make any of its aspects essentially evil, but it put creation in a direction of apostasy. Human sin involved rejecting the worship of God and choosing creatures as gods. Since the fall was complete, humanity deforms all our actions and thoughts, with a tendency to idolatry: we have become a fabrica idolorum (idol factory). The redemption, consummated by Jesus Christ, involves the re-creation of humanity, as ‘new man’ in himself, and thus the redirection of all of creation to God. Redemption does not mean the addition of a special grace but simply, in its essence, the reconstitution of God’s original purpose. All that has been created is the object of the redeeming love of God, which has an integral scope. The mission of the church, together with Christ, is to fulfil God’s original plan in a new creation, and this purpose must be manifested in the present time through the co-operation of the church with Christ to discover the riches he has






























































5

‘This is why the young Olympic religion was accepted only as the public religion of the Greek polis, the city-state. But in their private life the Greeks continued to maintain the old earthly gods of life and death.’ (DOOYEWEERD, 1960, 40).

The Nature/Grace Dualism

77

placed in creation, through cultural activity at all levels of life, based on faith in the gospel.

The Scholastic Ground-Motive of Nature/Grace In the later part of the medieval era, some Christian theologians, of whom the most prominent was Thomas Aquinas, attempted a synthesis between Christian theology and the Aristotelian concept of nature. In this way, the scholastic ground-motive of nature/grace arose, with the result that the centre of Christian thought became focused on the duality of matter/form. We shall examine this ground-motive more closely a little later.

The Humanist Ground-Motive of Nature/Freedom As the Middle Ages came to an end, European thinkers began to seek alternatives to Greek philosophy. In the Reformation, the Protestants resolutely rejected the Greek form/matter dualism, as well as the scholastic nature/grace synthesis. The Renaissance period saw the development of western humanism whose hallmark is the notion that humanity will find its full realization through a full liberation from all oppression. The humanists emerged from a period of intense political and religious oppression (the Middle Ages), hence their abhorrence of any restriction of freedom, whether in the area of thought and action, or of political freedom, or even, in many cases, of moral and sexual freedom as well. Dooyeweerd called this libertarian impulse with its vision of the person as demiurge and controller of their destiny, the ‘ideal of personality’. Alongside an increasing appreciation of humanity and human freedom, humanists defended the rational control of reality. Through rational judgement, scientific research and technology, humanity could not only defeat the forces that oppressed him, but also gain control of creation in order to satisfy all needs. This favoured the predominance of a mechanistic view of the world, as if it were a machine we can understand and master through mathematics and industry. Dooyeweerd called this second impulse, dialectically related to the first, the ‘ideal of science’. Thus there emerged in the western world another dualism that became the dynamic principle behind our culture: the nature/freedom dualism. According to this modern dualism, humanity is essentially a rational spirit, longing for freedom to realize its potential. But the main obstacle to this realization is nature, which imposes limitations on freedom. Consequently, humanity must struggle with nature and seek to control it through technology. Modern dualism is deeply contradictory – as clearly exemplified by the fact that it has set humanity on a collision course with nature. What we see is that, after the advance of science in the initial stage of modernity, the industrial revolution occurred. The subsequent pursuit of technological control of all nature for economic purposes has produced a huge destruction of the

78

Christian Worldview and Transformation


environment. Thus, we reach the beginning of the 21st century in a serious ecological crisis. To control nature, humanity has constructed a mechanistic, materialistic and atheistic image of the world. Darwinian evolutionism, for example, is an attempt to explain the origin of life in a naturalistic way, without relying on faith in God. In this way, philosophical naturalism was born, and seeks to explain nature on the basis of nature, as if it were a combined mechanism of deterministic laws and blind chance. Therein lies the main problem of modern dualism. To affirm absolute freedom, modern humanity has excluded God. To control nature for our own benefit, we explain nature as an impersonal mechanism. However, we ourselves are part of nature! Thus, humanity is also explained on the basis of the natural laws, as a product of the evolutionary mechanism. By this, humans deny themselves their own freedom and dignity. And the ideal of science, born of the ideal of personality, becomes the main threat to humanity. Putting it another way, in the unbridled search for freedom, modern people have a naturalistic science that systematically denies the human personality. Thus, in evolutionism, humans are merely the product of biological evolution; in Marxist socialism, humanity is merely the product of the economic system; in various sociological theories, humanity is the product of society; for many psychologists, humanity is the product of subconscious irrational impulses, linked to their sexuality and natural aggression, and personality is but an ‘illusion’. The effects of this perspective are amongst us on all sides. We live in a society that believes it is possible to build freedom, and thus human happiness, by means of science. There are several examples of this. In affective relationships, for example: modern people view marriage and the traditional family as obstacles to freedom. The traditional family is bombarded from all sides: changes in legislation, ridicule in the cultural media, academic studies that consider it an obstacle to human development. In place of the traditional family, it is proposed that individuals be totally free to build their relationships. New family models, such as matriarchal or open families, or composite families (the result of various marriages), homosexual families, etc. – are all defended as valid forms. Thus we have a ‘re-engineering of the family’, in which psychologists, sociologists, sexologists and legislators, through rational scientific control seek to artificially construct more humane human systems, paradoxically based on theories that depersonalize people, but always in the name of their ‘autonomy’. The effect of this, however, is impossible to hide: marriages are lasting less and less, and the children of these relationships develop psychological and moral disturbances. The financial and psychological cost of these divorces is enormous. Increasingly, people live alone and thus become more and more consumerist, which favours the capitalist system of exploitation. The number of single mothers increases alarmingly; sexual freedom hampers disease control and, at the same time, feeds networks of prostitution and pornography that are often associated with drug use.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

79

People, immersed in this modern system of life and thought, live intensely contradictory existences. They persist in an intense libertarian frenzy of seeking to get rid of everything that oppresses them: moral laws, family, religious traditions, government, laws of nature, ageing, pain, etc. But in the process they deny their own freedom; they themselves become cogs in the great machine.

The Dialectical Character of Ground-Motives The fundamental difference between the biblical ground-motive and apostate ground-motives is that the former has an integral character from the ontological point of view,6 while the latter are irrevocably dualistic.7 The reason for this is that they are the result of combining two contradictory ground-motives, which are in a permanent and insoluble process of tension. There are basically two types of dialectic:8 one is the product of the absolutization of a relative dimension of experience, and the other is the product of the attempt to create a synthesis of the biblical motive with an apostate motive. In the first case, what occurs is that, since the central meaning of each aspect of experience can only be revealed in an unbreakable correlation with all other aspects (we cannot, for example, define the meaning of a word without using other words), the attempt to absolutize one aspect of reality will find firm resistance from the others.9 Thus, ‘every idol that was created by the absolutization of a modal aspect evokes its counter-idol’10 – that is, a permanent and insoluble polar opposition. The second type of dialectic is not exactly the result of the absolutization of an aspect of experience, but of the attempt to merge this sort of concept with the integral biblical ground-motive. In this case, the tension is also insoluble, because the biblical motive, being integral, resists being interpreted on the basis of an idolatrous and reductionist ground-motive. It is important to emphasize that the religious dialectic that characterizes the ground-motives is different from a theoretical dialectic. In the theoretical dialectic there may be an intermodal antithesis that is the fruit of abstraction, but this antithesis is overcome when the transcendental ego uses the religious starting point as a reference for an intermodal synthesis. But contrary religious






























































6

‘Ontology’ comes from the Greek ontos, ‘being’. Ontology is the philosophical study of the essence or basic structure of reality, that is, of its ‘being’. A dualist ontology is one that divides reality into two contradictory parts; an integral ontology conceives of reality as a coherent totality. 7 DOOYEWEERD, 1960, 35. 8 For the purposes of this study, we define ‘dialectic’ as any form of polar tension in which the two parts are related but resist each other. 9 That is why, for example, the attempt to affirm humanity’s absolute liberty, in the ideal of personality, contradicts the attempt to affirm that we are completely determined by nature, in the ideal of science. 10 DOOYEWEERD, 1969, 36.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


80

starting points, dividing the central ego itself, cannot be synthesized. Consequently, the dualism they produce within theoretical thinking cannot be overcome theoretically, because there is no unique point of concentration of cosmic meaning left for the ego to realize the theoretical synthesis! The alternating primacy of opposing ground-motives creates a permanent competition between successive schools of thought without any solution, since the religious antithesis is insoluble.

The Reformed Critique of Nature / Grace The analysis of western culture developed by Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven was used by Francis Schaeffer who maintained a long and fruitful contact with Dooyeweerd’s disciple, the art philosopher Hans Rookmaaker. Schaeffer popularized Dooyeweerd’s thesis and also introduced elements of his own, such as his analysis of Renaissance art and his theory of an irrational ‘leap’ in humanistic theology. We now focus on the analysis of the nature/grace dualism and discuss its importance for evangelical theology. The Emergence of the Nature/Grace Dualism In the first phase of Christian thought, when Augustine’s influence was still dominant, the biblical ground-motive was properly understood, but it was restricted to dogmatic theology. Augustine rejected the religious autonomy of theoretical thought, but mistakenly identified theology with Christian philosophy. Thus theology functioned as the regina scientiarum or ‘the queen of the sciences’. According to Dooyeweerd, the idea of placing theology as the queen of the sciences would have originated from Aristotelian metaphysics.11 In a second phase, which began with Scholasticism, and principally with the theology of Thomas Aquinas, philosophy and dogmatics were distinguished. However, scholastic theology had an inadequate understanding of the Fall; it taught that, in the state of original perfection, humans possessed a good nature and, in addition, a supernatural gift. In the Fall, humans would have lost the supernatural gift of grace, but their nature would have remained capable of acquiring grace. Thus, redemption was not seen, essentially, as a recovery of humanity’s nature, but as a renewal of the original grace – a kind of donum superadditum (added or superimposed gift). In this way, we must understand the famous scholastic saying: Gratiam naturam non tollit, sed perficit (Grace does not cancel nature, but perfects it). On the basis of this worldview, the scholastics believed that natural reason, in spite of its fall, continued with its original capacities, being incapable only of reflecting on divine realities, which should be received, through faith, as they are revealed. Thus, in the scholastic perspective, faith should guide reason to






























































11

Ibid, 43.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

81

understand the truths of the gospel, but such guidance was not considered necessary for reason to understand nature! Grace Nature

Supernatural sphere Revelation, faith, theology ---------Natural sphere Natural facts, reason, philosophy

The Thomist interpretation12 of the relationship between reason and faith was thus closely linked to a view of the Fall and redemption that did not do justice to the biblical ground-motive. For Thomists, there is no real point of contact between the ‘natural’ sphere and the ‘supernatural’ sphere, which latter is the sphere of grace. The sphere of nature is seen as an autonomous reality. It is true that, in the Thomist synthesis, natural reason should not explicitly contradict the supernatural truths of church doctrine based on revelation.13 However, this was a mere outward accommodation, since fundamental religious presuppositions had already been compromised. As a result of this understanding of the relationship between nature and grace, Thomas Aquinas sought, as an interpretation of created reality, an idea of nature derived from natural reason, the latter being competent to formulate such an idea. This idea was found in Aristotle’s metaphysics. So Aquinas adapted the Greek idea of physis to the biblical idea of redemption, introducing a new polar dualism: the nature/grace dualism. This dualism is characterized by the attempt to create a synthesis between the Greek matter/form dualism and the biblical worldview. Such a synthesis created two fundamental problems: (1) the tensions of Greek dualism were introduced into Christian theology, bringing a series of distortions; (2) the absence of a point of contact between nature and grace, and the inadequate view of the Fall, gave ‘nature’ an
































































12 The scholastic interpretation, on the basis of the classic formulation of Thomas Aquinas, the principle theologian of the Catholic Church. 13 ‘Surely, the Roman Catholic Church did not incorporate the Greek ground-motive into its own view of nature without revision. Since the church could not accept a dual origin of the cosmos, it tried to harmonize the Greek motive with the scriptural motive of creation. One of the first consequences of this accommodation was that the formmatter motive lost its original religious meaning. But because of its pretended reconciliation with the Greek nature motive, Roman Catholicism robbed the biblical creation motive of its scope. To the Greek mind, neither the matter of the world nor the invisible pure form could have been created. At best, one could admit that the union of form and matter was made possible by divine reason, the divine architect who formed the available material. According to Thomas Aquinas, the medieval doctor of the church, the concrete matter of perishable beings was created simultaneously with their concrete form. However, neither the matter principle (the principle of endless becoming and decay) nor the pure principle of form (the principle of perfection) was created. They are the two metaphysical principles of all perishable existence, but with respect to their origin Thomas was silent.’ (DOOYEWEERD 1979: 118).

82

Christian Worldview and Transformation


autonomy in relation to grace.14 Thus the motive of ‘creation’ was launched on a process of secularization, in which the creative structures – of nature – were progressively disassociated from their biblical meaning, generating secularized conceptions of art, philosophy, politics, and so on. Francis Schaeffer describes this process with a suggestive metaphor: when it becomes autonomous, ‘nature eats up grace’. One example of the impact of Greek dualism within scholastic thinking is the doctrine that humanity is composed of ‘rational soul’ and ‘material body’, the essential characteristic of the soul being rationality. This promoted a contempt for the ‘bodily’ dimensions of human life, and for this reason we find within Christianity in the Middle Ages a negative attitude towards pleasure, care of the body, crafts and technical activities, accompanied by an overvaluation of contemplative activities. The stereotype of spirituality was the monk, an individual isolated from ‘material’ life and dedicated to contemplation. The nature/grace ground-motive contained within itself an insoluble dialectic. This dialectic could lead to the negation of one of the terms: nature could ‘eat up’ grace with a total negation of the gospel, or the emphasis on grace could lead to a contempt for nature and a fixation on the mystical pursuit of supernatural fellowship with God; or else there could be an unstable equilibrium in which all points of contact between nature and grace were broken, so that the two spheres became entirely independent of one another. According to Dooyeweerd, the only force capable of maintaining this apparent synthesis was the doctrinal authority of the church, and in fact the synthesis was constantly denied by ‘heresies’.15 The medieval ‘Great Synthesis’ began to disintegrate in the sixteenth century, at the end of the Middle Ages, with the start of a movement led by the English Franciscan William of Occam (or Ockham) (1280-1349). This movement is generally called ‘Nominalism’, and marked the beginning of the modern period of western culture. Occam denied the existence of any point of contact between nature and grace. He was aware that the Greek view of nature was in contradiction with the Bible. Whereas Aquinas believed that God had ordained the world from eternal forms that were in his mind, Occam emphasized that everything was created by the sovereignty of God, which he understood as a despotic arbitrariness – a potestas absoluta (absolute power). For example, while Aquinas saw the Ten Commandments as an ideal truth which we can discover by the natural light of reason, and which was in God’s eternal mind, Occam believed that the Ten Commandments had no rational basis, having been established simply by the will of God. What we see is that Occam denied the existence of any point of contact between nature and grace. For him, it was not possible to start from the natural
































































14 After all, if nature works perfectly well and adequately, without grace, why not simply do without grace? Such was the logic that led to the process of radical secularisation in the modern era. 15 DOOYEWEERD, 1979, 137.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

83

light of reason and explain grace. Thus he totally rejected the project of a ‘natural theology’,16 so dear to Aquinas. He also rejected the idea that human society should be organized in accordance with the supernatural teaching of the Catholic Church. Occam’s position was greatly opposed by Pope John XXII, although the latter was already greatly weakened by his exile in Avignon and by his dependence on the king of France. Many believed that the Roman Catholic synthesis had been destroyed for ever. This created a new moment for western culture: The future presented only two options: one could either return to the scriptural ground-motive of the Christian religion or, in line with the new motive of nature severed from the faith of the church, establish a modern view of life concentrated on the religion of human personality. The first path led to the Reformation; the second path led to modern humanism. In both movements, the after-effects of the Roman Catholic motive of nature and grace continued to be felt for a long time.17

The Nature/Grace Dualism in the Protestant Reformation Francis Schaeffer observes that […] the king who took Leonardo (da Vinci) to France at the end of his life was Francis I, the same king to whom Calvin addressed his Institutes. This is how we come to a crossover between the Renaissance and the Reformation.18 The Reformation is born within the Renaissance, but it has a very different ethos. In the first place, the Reformers repudiated the Catholic and humanist notion of an incomplete Fall. For the reformers, the Fall was total, so there was no possibility of autonomy for human beings. There was no autonomy in the question of ultimate authority for faith for they denied that the Word of God should be subject to reason or to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Salvation also depended entirely on God, so that he would receive all the glory. But this in no way denied the dignity of creation and of humanity itself. For the Reformers, ‘all that God created is good’, so Christianity cannot be isolated from ordinary life. Both Luther and Calvin affirmed that the Christian life should no longer be lived within monasteries. Monastic Christianity is not superior to the cobbler’s Christianity, because there is no ideal sphere ‘superior’ to the ‘natural’ sphere. Christianity is not a supernatural gift, but a renewal of nature itself. We can thus say that the Reformation signifies both a break with the scholastic nature/grace dualism, in favour of an integral view of creation and salvation, and also a biblical view of humanity as a being endowed with dignity, created in the image of God, but also fallen, unable to exist in autonomy. Humanism went much further, affirming human uniqueness, but
































































16 The attempt to prove the existence of God and explain his nature by philosophical arguments on the basis of natural reason. 17 DOOYEWEERD, 1979, 139. 18 SCHAEFFER, 2002, 31.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


84

secularizing this notion and separating it from the ideas of imago Dei and the Fall. The radically biblical nature of Reformed thought is revealed in the attitude of the Reformers towards Greek philosophy. It is known that they all expressed a certain reserve about philosophy, especially because they recognized that the scholastic fusion of theology with philosophy was harmful to the church. An example of this attitude comes from Luther himself: It is a mistake to say that a man cannot become a theologian without Aristotle. The truth is that he cannot become a theologian without getting rid of Aristotle. In short, compared with the study of theology, the whole of Aristotle is like darkness compared with light.19

Calvin also rejected scholastic metaphysical speculation, and especially its application to theology. This attitude, however, should not be understood as a kind of cultural isolationism. The Reformers were very concerned about how Christians lived in the world, and gave guidance for political, professional, financial and other areas of life. Of course, Reformed thinking on these subjects was not uniform; there were clear differences between the Anabaptist, Lutheran and Calvinist positions. Examination of these positions shows that they are linked to the influence of different ground-motives. At the beginning of his theological journey, Luther, under the influence of Occam’s thinking, tended to distinguish natural life and spiritual life as opposite poles.20 While he admitted the reality and depth of the Fall, it was difficult to fit this doctrine into the Occamist theological scheme, which radicalized the polarity between the spheres of nature and grace, treating the sphere of ‘grace’ as totally separate from the sphere of nature. This was reflected in various ways in Luther’s thought – for example, in his conception of the law. Luther tended to treat the law as a sort of ‘necessary evil’, or as a reality that could not be reconciled with grace. Hence the dualism between law and grace within Lutheran theology.21 Likewise, Luther did not develop any vision of an integral reformation of society on the basis of the gospel. In his






























































19

‘Luther called reason by names so severe – the devil’s whore, the Beast, God’s enemy, Frau Hulda – that his critics often called him an irrationalist.’ (GEORGE, 1994, 59.) However, this is not quite correct. What Luther denied was the use of reason to solve theological problems. 20 ‘Luther took his first steps in theology with the writings of the nominalist theologian Gabriel Biel, under whose disciples he had studied in Erfurt. Biel belonged to a wellestablished tradition, which included William of Occam (or Ockham) and Duns Scotus.’ Ibid, 67. 21 In Lutheran theology, life under grace is considered as independent of the law, in that the law is no longer the main guidance for life. If Christians still keep the law, it is in order to show love to their neighbour, but not because the law is fundamental to their existence under grace: ‘Under Ockham’s influence, Luther robbed the law as the creational ordinance of its value […]’ (DOOYEWEERD, 1979, 140). For a comparison of the concepts of law in Luther and Calvin, focusing on its political significance, cf. CARVALHO, Guilherme, ‘A Cosmovisão Calvinista e a Resistência ao Estado.’ Fides Reformata, vol. X, no. 2, 2005, 21-44 (especially 38-42).

The Nature/Grace Dualism

85

conception of political power, for example, Luther with his doctrine of ‘two kingdoms’ defines the boundaries between church and state, in a manner opposed to Catholic and Anabaptist conceptions:22 For God has established two types of government among men. One is spiritual; it has no sword, but it has the word, whereby men must become good and righteous, that by this righteousness they may obtain eternal life. He administers this righteousness through the word, which he has entrusted to preachers. The other type is the worldly government, which works by the sword, so that those who do not wish to become good and righteous to eternal life are forced to become good and righteous in the eyes of the world. He administers this righteousness by the sword.23

Although there is a clear and proper distinction between the power of the church and the power of the state, there is no acknowledgment in Luther of a significant influence of grace on the political sphere, in such a way that political activity is internally transformed by the gospel. Rather, the state is a parallel reality, the ‘left hand of God’, with which he deals with the world. Thus, ‘if the whole world were composed of Christians, there would be no need for princes, kings, swords, or laws’.24 Christians should accept civic responsibilities for the good of their fellow men, but these activities would not be directly regulated by the gospel, they are a ‘parallel’ responsibility. Undoubtedly for Luther, the Christian who becomes a magistrate is serving God in this vocation. But the principles governing his task have no connection with grace and redemption; they are simply derived from natural reason. It may be observed that in the later Lutheran tradition the influence of the Christian faith on political activity declined steadily, to the point of muting its prophetic voice.25 This aversion to political activity is also seen in Lutheran ecclesiology. For Luther, things like ‘ecclesiastical law’ and ‘ecclesiastical discipline’ seemed worldly matters. After all, the subject of the gospel is grace, faith and love – realities difficult to reconcile with ‘law’. Thus Luther defined the true church by the presence of God’s Word and the sacraments, leaving the structural organization of the church and its disciplinary issues for the state.26






























































22

‘If the Catholics mingled the two kingdoms to support a papal theocracy, the Anabaptists separated the two kingdoms very precisely in the name of religious separatism. Taking Christ’s command of non-resistance (Matt. 5:39) literally, Anabaptists refused to play any part in the State’s coercive power. In opposition to the pacifist Reformers, Luther insisted on the divine origin of the State, the limits of its power, and on the basis for Christian participation in its coercive activity.’ (GEORGE, 1994, 100). 23 ‘Luther’s Works’ 46, 99. In GEORGE, 1994, 99. 24 GEORGE, 1994, 100. 25 Ibid, 101. 26 For a more detailed comparative study of the Lutheran and Calvinist political concepts, looking at their roots and later historical impact, cf. my article ‘A Cosmovisão Calvinista e a Resistência ao Estado.’ Fides Reformata, vol. X, no. 2, 21-44.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


86

The Calvinist perspective on the subject was markedly different. Timothy George points out: … the relatively more progressive element in the Reformed concept of the state could be traced back to Calvin’s view of God as legislator and King; he said, too, that the law of God was not confined to the congregation alone, but extended also etiam extra ecclesiam: even beyond the church.27

In fact, this is a fundamental element of Calvinist thought: the notion of the reformation of the state on the basis of the Scriptures – an element practised by the Dutch Calvinists and, especially, by the English Puritans. Thus, unlike Luther, Calvin regarded law as a fundamental aspect of life under grace, and he clashed with the government of Geneva on several occasions, claiming autonomy for the church in the application of ecclesiastical discipline.28 What exactly was the difference between these two reformers? It is true that both rejected scholastic philosophy and sought to construct Christian doctrine from the Bible alone. Luther, however, was not wholly consistent with the biblical ground-motive, as he let his theology be conditioned by the nature/grace dualism, in its ‘nominalist’ form: he let the ‘worldly’ aspects of life be guided by the ‘natural light of reason’. Calvin, on the other hand, free from Occamist influence, consistently applied the biblical ground-motive, requiring the Scriptures to guide every dimension of life, including political life. Thus, in Calvin, ‘grace’ does not separate from ‘nature’, and so there is no basis for human autonomy. The shortcomings of Lutheran thought concerning the relationship between nature and grace is evident in the events that followed the Reformation. Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), a disciple of Luther’s, was one of the main systematizers of Lutheran theology. Melanchthon was a humanist thinker, a lover of classical culture, and especially of Aristotle. Dissatisfied with the Occamist dualism between nature and grace, upheld by Luther, he proposed a new synthesis, using the Aristotelian categories to recast Lutheran theology. His work began a new phase of the Reformation, often called ‘Protestant scholasticism’, parallel to medieval scholasticism. Perpetuating within Protestantism the Catholic nature/grace ground-motive, this scholasticism would soon be in crisis, with the emergence of several different theories about
































































27 GEORGE, 1994, 242. George builds on the detailed study by Heiko Oberman about what Heiko refers to as the ‘extra’ dimension in Calvin’s thought, starting from the Calvinist belief that Jesus’ divine person was in heaven even while he was incarnate (the extra calvinisticum). Oberman compares Lutheran and Calvinist positions on the church, the sacraments, the incarnation, and the law, and concludes that ‘the extra calvinisticum is not an isolated phenomenon but rather, like the tip of an iceberg, it is only the most controversial aspect of a whole “extra” dimension in Calvin’s theology: extra ecclesiam, extra coenam, extra carnem, extra legem, extra predicationem’ (OBERMAN, 1992, 255). 28 For a historical and theologically informed discussion of Calvin’s fight to set limits and define the competencies of church and state, especially as regards ecclesiastical discipline, cf. McGRATH, Alister. ‘A vida de João Calvino’, 119-23 and 127-52.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

87

the character of nature. The progressive abandonment of Aristotelianism in European philosophy and the universalization of the new nature/freedom ground-motive finally led to a new synthesis in Christian thought, when, similar to Thomas Aquinas, Protestant theologians sought to combine the humanist ground-motive with evangelical theology. This synthesis would bring about the emergence of European liberal theology, from the end of the eighteenth century onwards. We may say that the acceptance within Protestantism of scholastic dualism was one of the main causes of the secularization of European culture. In Calvinism, the biblical ground-motive has long existed in a mortal tension with Catholic scholastic dualism and humanistic dualism, playing an essential part in the constitution of modern western culture. Although Calvinism remained intact for much longer than Lutheran theology, the synthesis with Aristotle, exemplified in Francis Turretin, began in the seventeenth century, and the humanistic mentality started to affect the political and economic dimensions of Calvinistic societies. It was only in the mid-nineteenth century, in Holland, that the integral spirit of Calvinism began to be recovered, with Groen van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper.

Nature/Grace Dualism and the Influence of Secular Humanism in Evangelical Thought The Reformed perspective, according to which theology should not assimilate pagan philosophical doctrine, is in direct contrast to the Catholic way of conceiving theological thinking. Both Luther and Calvin broke with the scholastic tradition, seeking to strip away the rags of Aristotelian philosophy in order to arrive at a genuinely biblical theology. Calvin, in particular, rejected natural theology as a method for proving the existence of God and describing his nature, and so conferred on faith its rightful autonomy in relation to philosophy, and initiated the liberation of the Word of God from Greek metaphysics.29 As the biblical ground-motive became deeply rooted within the Calvinist tradition, major changes resulted in European culture – in art, science and politics. Obviously (as many would rightly respond), a certain conception of rationality always accompanies theoretical thought, including theology, and even the Reformers were influenced by philosophical doctrines. This latter statement is true, but only partially; the influence of philosophy remained, but it ceased to be a conscious methodological step. It penetrated surreptitiously, precisely through the concept of rationality. But in spite of this, in announcing a theology in an antithetical relationship with scholastic philosophy, which practised the synthesis of theology with Greek philosophy, the Reformers introduced the need for a reform of philosophy itself, or of rationality. This
































































29 Karl Barth, with his ‘theology of the Word of God’ at the beginning of the twentieth century, also thought along these lines (Cf. GIBELLINI, 1988, 23, 24).

88

Christian Worldview and Transformation


reform finally came to be realized in Reformed thought, which develops the Calvinist tradition. In this conception, as we have seen, religion is understood to be the fundamental orientation of humanity in the very centre of its being, and directed towards an origin or arché. This orientation determines the functioning of human beings in all spheres of their concrete life – including, among other things, faith and philosophical thought. Due to the Fall, humankind became corrupted at its centre and every function became distorted. Thus the philosophical thought of the unbeliever is opposed to God, and this causes a distorted interpretation of reality and of self. In this way, it is not possible to think out one’s faith on the basis of an apostate system, synthesizing Christian doctrines with anti-Christian perspectives; theological thought true to the Christian faith demands an internal reform of philosophical thought, and the development of a philosophical mentality that is radically and structurally biblical. When evangelical theology ceases to assert its radical character, when it abandons the biblical view of the Fall, and accepts as a normative interpretation of reality a worldview based on pagan philosophy instead of the biblical idea of creation, then – and only then – does it lose its original impact. The path of evangelical influence will never be the path of a forced adaptation of the biblical worldview to sub-Christian ideas and practices. It is not that the cultural and intellectual products of unbelievers are never useful, but rather that nothing can be taken over without reform. Reform means submitting these products to the gospel, so that their truth and falsehood alike are made manifest. Unfortunately, however, Brazilian evangelicals have vacillated between two extremes: on the one hand, a cultural isolationism, with the absolutization of traditional forms of thought and culture, and highly sensitive to the danger the world represents; and on the other hand, worldliness, with an uncritical adaptation to the forms of secular culture. In opposition to these isolationist and syncretistic forms of evangelicalism, we must seek a dialogical-antithetical form of evangelicalism in permanent and critical contact with culture, recognizing its created and intrinsically good character, but also conscious of the pervasive and universal effects of the Fall. The clearest sign of the operation of the nature/grace dualism in Christian social thought occurs when a vision of social totality drawn from a nonChristian religious or philosophical system is adapted to form a basis. A vision of social totality is a fundamental concept that synthesizes a perspective about the nature of the social whole and its parts and dimensions. In the following pages, we will discuss two approaches that, because of their nature/grace scheme, fail to maintain a consistently antithetical dialogue with the secular culture, uncritically absorbing humanistic ideas into the constitution of their vision of social totality.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

89

Nature/Grace Dualism in Christian Social Thought I: The Case of Liberation Theology The Theology of Liberation and the Problem of Praxis The theology of liberation, despite its recent decline, is still one of the main contemporary movements in the search for connection between belief and practice, faith and life, theory and praxis. This movement, although more influential in ecumenical and Catholic circles, also has a certain influence on evangelical thinking, especially among theologians of integral mission. Because of its historical importance, we will deal with this movement separately. Although there is some diversity amongst the proponents of liberation theology (from now on: LT), the central lines of the movement are clear. LT has as its starting point the presence of God in the suffering of the poor, and his commitment to free them from all oppression. This commitment is widely attested in the Old and New Testaments, the Exodus being its definitive paradigm. ‘This mysterious predilection of God for the poor nourishes the spiritual strength of LT.’30 In pursuit of a method that unites theological reflection and liberating practice, the approach has focused on three moments: ‘seeing’, ‘judging’ and ‘acting’. In the first moment, the goal is to understand the situation of the poor in their struggle. That understanding is something ‘pre-theological’, the starting point for theological reflection. However, the social situation of the poor is part of a system of oppression that includes oppressive ideologies. In order to properly ‘see’ the situation of the poor, it is necessary to use ‘socio-analytical mediations’ (SAMs) which provide a scientific understanding of reality. In selecting which SAM is best suited to the cause of the poor, the theologian will use theological criteria to identify which one favours the poor better and reject those aspects of the SAM that are destructive to the faith. But the autonomy of both the faith and the SAM is always preserved: ‘[…] faith influences the choice of instrumentality, but not its constitution.’31 The principal instrument chosen by LT is Marxism, but its atheism and its ‘Promethean-voluntarist view of history’ are rejected.32 Once the historical situation of the poor is understood, it is time to begin ‘judging’ – the specifically theological moment in the process. The situation of suffering is confronted with divine revelation, resulting in ‘a faith-enlightened understanding of the pressing Latin American problem, and a new interpretation of the Word of God, which is also influenced by this problem’.33 Thus we have the divine answer to the situation of the poor in Latin America.






























































30

LIBÂNIO, 1996, 173. Ibid, 177. 32 However, it must be said that many thinkers consider these as structural elements, so that it is not possible to adopt a Marxist reading of society without them. 33 LIBÂNIO, 1996, 182. 31

Christian Worldview and Transformation


90

Finally, it is necessary to ‘act’. Libânio distinguishes between three levels of praxis; in intra-theological praxis, there is a critique of theological concepts in an attempt to examine the ideological baggage they carry, followed by a reconstruction in the light of liberation. The second level is intra-ecclesial praxis, when the ecclesiological form is transformed. And the third level is that of socio-political praxis, when theology reflects on the concrete problems of social practice and illuminates it. The adoption of praxis as the ultimate epistemological criterion is one of the fundamental assumptions of the general method of LT.34 José Miguez Bonino, whom we take as a representative of the movement, describes the classical conception of the relationship between truth and action as being one which accepts the existence of […] an absolute Christian truth, or eternally valid Christian principles, laid up as treasure in the Scriptures and/or in the pronouncements of the Church. And then, in addition, there are approximate, more or less imperfect applications of this truth.35

According to this traditional view, it would be possible to elaborate a true theory and then seek its practical application; and the truth would exist in this way, independent of historical practice. Bonino criticizes this conception of truth, which he sees as having a pagan origin. In the Scriptures the truth is not knowledge, but a way: ‘The Word of God does not consist in conceptual communication, but in a creative event, in a statement that enters history and creates history.’36 Thus, in the Gospel according to John, for example, to know the truth is to do the truth. Moreover, the sociology of knowledge has shown that all theoretical thinking arises from a specific context, with a specific praxis.37 On the basis of this epistemological concept, Bonino argues that all religious praxis carries with it an implicit ideology, and that theological reflection will always be a reflection born of that praxis, committed to that ideology. This is not necessarily bad; ideology is the instrument by which Christian action gains coherence.38 The problem, for Bonino, is that ideology can be a distorted interpretation of reality that masks systems of oppression. Thus, it is necessary to critique the ideology itself, using some methodology of scientific social analysis that serves the cause of liberation. More than this, it is necessary to commit to a liberating historical praxis, because it is impossible not to be committed to any praxis. Bonino believes that Marxism is the ideal scientific method for analyzing the dynamics of






























































34

‘Epistemology’ is the study of the nature, formation and justification of knowledge. An ‘epistemological criterion’ would be a criterion to determine what is, in fact, ‘knowledge’, and what is only opinion. 35 BONINO, 1987, 76. 36 Ibid, 77. 37 Ibid, 78. 38 ‘Any course of action that maintains a certain coherence brings with it a unified view of reality, an implicit project’ (BONINO, 1987, 81).

The Nature/Grace Dualism

91

oppression, and its socio-political view could ideologically shape Christian religious praxis. When it is pointed out that it is difficult to harmonize Marxism with the Christian faith, Bonino replies that this is only ‘a particular form of the old problem of the relationship between Christian faith and the form of rationality in and through which the Christian shapes their obedience and reflection’.39 From the fact that no-one can escape an ideology and a commitment to a specific praxis, Bonino concludes: ‘We Latin Americans cannot take very seriously the frequent warnings and advice of European and (in lesser measure) American theologians about our “ideological prejudices”, as if they spoke from some ideologically aseptic zone.’40 The LT approach is aptly described by Libânio as a ‘theology of praxis, for praxis, in praxis, and by praxis’ – and this way of relating praxis to theology is present in other Latin American theologians. The following are some results from John Markey’s study. For Gustavo Gutierrez, for example, theology ‘is the critical reflection on Christian praxis in the light of the Word of God’.41 This praxis is not merely the application of theory but a complex system of causes, structures and processes, including religious and socio-political factors; both belief and action form part of this system. Christian praxis would be the total life of faith of the community, including the contemplation of the Word of God and the struggle for justice and liberation.42 Thus theology would be only one moment of praxis, not initiating nor being the norm of praxis. For Juan Luis Segundo, every theological project is born of a particular social situation in response to certain questions of its context. Thus it is always involved in a praxis, and since there can be no praxis without ideology, one must think about the relationship between faith and ideology. Ideology emerges from an intuitive and non-empirical choice of an ideal, which is faith; thus, there is an indirect relationship between faith and praxis: faith would be the inspiration and foundation of ideology, and ideology would be the guiding principle of praxis.43 For Clodovis Boff, praxis is a complex of practices oriented towards the transformation of society, and is a broad concept, involving all human life. Boff distinguishes between theology, as a type of theory, and praxis, treating the two realities as somehow autonomous, although interdependent. Praxis shapes theology by raising questions for theology, and theology evaluates and criticizes the faith that motivates action. But theory itself does not engender praxis, nor can it control it; it is only a moment of contemplation that is born of life and goes back to life.






























































39

BONINO, 1987, 82. Ibid, 83. 41 MARKEY, John J. Praxis in Liberation Theology: Some Clarifications. Missiology: An International Review, vol. XXIII, no. 2, April 1995. 184. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid, 187-88. 40

92

Christian Worldview and Transformation


In a very important article on the thought of Juan Luis Segundo,44 Dr James Olthuis, a Reformed philosopher of the Institute for Christian Studies, shows how in Segundo the epistemological primacy of praxis becomes even more radical than in Bonino, or in Clodovis Boff. For Segundo, faith, which is ‘absolute’, finds historical manifestation through an ideology, which is always ‘relative’. However, faith has no theoretical content; it is the ideologies that give faith its content of beliefs and values. Thus for him there is no ‘truth’ in the faith; it consists of an educational process, an attitude of learning, looking towards what is absolute. The positive content of faith (religious beliefs, values, etc.) is historically conditioned, relative to the situation of the believer; it is neither ‘true’ nor ‘false’. What matters is that faith should inspire a liberating praxis for the person today. Olthuis shows that, on the basis of this scheme, Segundo feels free to completely reformulate his notions of creation, fall and redemption, by the use of an evolutionist conception of reality, derived from the anthropologist and Catholic theologian Teilhard de Chardin.45 Segundo constructs a form of ‘evolutionary dialectic’, in which ‘sin’ is identified with the principle of ‘entropy’ (the continuous diffusion and degradation of cosmic energy), while ‘love’ is the principle of ‘negentropy’ (the continuous concentration of energy in increasingly powerful syntheses). Segundo’s ‘negentropic’ principle is a fusion (or confusion) of the biblical doctrines of creation and redemption, while sin (the entropic principle) comes to be seen as a positive element, ‘the basis of our freedom’. The two principles, in dialectical opposition, cause history and humanity to evolve, in an ascending process of liberation. At every stage of this evolutionary process, human ‘truths’ will be transformed, as Segundo states explicitly: ‘There are no universal truths in the process of liberation; the only truth is liberation itself.’46 In his view, in other words, liberating praxis is the only truth. Theological reflection on praxis has had a great influence on contemporary Latin American theology, and in other parts of the world. It affects all branches of theological reflection, especially Practical Theology. Following Johann Baptist Metz, Graham Duncan declares that ‘the fundamental hermeneutical problem of theology is the relationship between theology and praxis’.47 Under






























































44

OLTHUIS, James H. Evolutionary Dialectics and Segundo´s Literation of Theology. Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, April 1986, 79-93. 45 Ibid, 84. Teilhard de Chardin developed a synthesis of Christianity with the Darwinian theory of evolution. 46 Ibid, 86. In fact, as John Cooper demonstrates, the thought of Teilhard de Chardin had a much greater influence in forming the basic structure of the liberation theologians’ worldview than Marxism itself. The major contributions of the latter are its conflictual interpretation of society, its concept of praxis, and its adoption of an optimistic vision of the future displacement of capitalism by the formation of a ‘new man’ in a communist society. These ideas were easily adapted to the thought of Chardin. Cf. COOPER, John W. Teilhard, Marx, and the Worldview of Prominent Liberation Theologians. Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, Nov. 1989, 241-62. 47 DUNCAN, 2001, 49.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

93

the influence of Gustavo Gutierrez, this South African theologian understands theology as a contextualized task that has as its ultimate goal the total liberation of all people in oppressive societies; he affirms the primacy of ‘orthopraxy’ over ‘orthodoxy’, and the need to use the tools of analysis produced by other fields of knowledge to better understand the situations in which people find themselves.48

The Nature/Grace Dualism in Liberation Theology From the examples presented, we turn to an assessment of the LT approach to praxis. Initially, it is important to highlight some valuable insights from this approach. First of all, before any theoretical elaboration, LT works from the fundamental intuition that the poor constitute a special object of God’s interest. This perception is not tied to any specific sociological theory, and is in accordance with biblical testimony regarding the effects of the Fall on the world, through injustice and social oppression. There is no reason to deny that oppression is one of the facets of sin in the world, and liberation from oppression is one of the manifestations of grace. However, in constructing its concrete proposal of liberation, LT uses the Thomist scheme of the relationship between faith and rationality. José Míguez Bonino says explicitly that, within LT, the problem of the relationship between socio-analytic mediation – in this case, Marxism – and Christian faith is ‘one particular form of the old problem of the relationship between Christian faith and the form of rationality in and through which the Christian shapes their obedience and reflection’. That is, it is assumed that faith must, after all, be based on a prior conception of rationality and be theoretical if it is to constitute itself as a scientific discourse. Adopting this position, Bonino and other thinkers of this school place themselves within a long and important theological tradition: Theology has always used and privileged in its reflection a philosophical instrumental – that is, a philosophical mediation (a set of conceptual tools drawn from philosophy): one need think only of Platonism in the patristic era, or Aristotelianism in the scholastic era or, again, the theme of the transcendental in Rahner’s theology; the theology of liberation, which starts from praxis and aims at praxis, uses instead the social sciences, privileging socio-analytic mediation.49

What we have here is precisely the nature/grace dualism in operation. Without a proper notion of the Fall (in this case, of the noetic effects of sin), Bonino assumes the competence of autonomous reason to interpret reality, but instead of using the philosophy of Aristotle, as did Thomas Aquinas, Bonino






























































48

‘Reflection on our acts and experiences becomes a vital part of the theological reflection which provides the data for a renewed action. This is a significant distancing from the traditional theological method which conceives of truth as belonging to the intellectual setting of ideas’ (DUNCAN, 2001, 49). The similarity to Bonino is easily seen. 49 GIBELLINI, 1998, 355.

94

Christian Worldview and Transformation


uses a form of Marxist analysis. In effect, faith and Christian theology (‘grace’) are accommodated to a socialist interpretation of ‘nature’, so that even the concept of ‘salvation’ is adapted to an anthropological concept with a Marxist base. Therefore, the vision of social totality used by LT is effectively socialism, a specific form of secular humanism. James Olthuis draws attention to the same fact in his study of Juan Luis Segundo. Under the influence of Teilhard de Chardin’s religious evolutionism, Segundo destroys the goodness of creation, insofar as he makes sin a reality that is absolutely necessary for the natural order. In addition, he fuses creation and redemption in a single evolutionary process, directed towards the evergreater liberation of humanity. The existence of any truth is denied, and salvation is identified with the historical-evolutionary process that goes forward in the direction of human liberation. In the end, it is evident that Segundo seeks to synthesize Christianity (grace) with the humanist nature/freedom ground-motive, assimilating to Christianity elements of Darwinian naturalism, historicism, humanistic libertarianism, etc.

The Dualism Theory vs Praxis A synthesis such as Segundo’s raises a series of problems about the whole LT approach. First, we need to question the dualism theory vs praxis. The widely diffused idea within LT is that there is a problem in not being able to properly connect theory and praxis. At first it was thought that praxis should be based on theory, but the truth, recently discovered (allegedly), is that theory proceeds from praxis. José Miguez Bonino, for example, contrasts the biblical and pagan concepts of ‘truth’, stating categorically that the Word of God is not conceptual, but is a historical reality. Juan Luis Segundo categorically denies the existence of any ‘theoretical truth’. One practical implication of this dualism is that an advocate of LT who is consistent cannot believe that the situation of a group of people can be changed by a transformation of worldview. Therefore, it is not fundamental that people alter their habits of life, their sexual ethics, their vision of work, etc. On the contrary, if the root of their misery is a system of oppression, the only way of liberation is to shatter the system, by revolution (which can be violent or nonviolent). Any transformation of their mentality would be only be necessary insofar as it aids the revolution, an attempt to educate people so that they understand how they must fight against the system by teaching a relativistic attitude. Individual initiative, a change of values, etc. are seen as superficial or at least secondary. The truth, however, is that the attempt to treat theoretical thought as something ontologically different from historical action is linked to a nonbiblical conception of humanity and human actions. If we consider ‘praxis’ to be the set of human actions within the laws that God has established for each area of life, it is evident that thought is merely one type of action among others, alongside economic, political, ethical actions, etc. The difference is that acts of

The Nature/Grace Dualism

95

thought are qualified analytically. The attempt to define whether ‘praxis’ comes before ‘theory’ is still linked to the Greek dualism of form/matter or idea/matter, in which thinking refers to ‘ideal’ objects that would be the true reality, as opposed to ‘material’ objects. Bonino merely reverses this relationship, locating ‘reality’ in ‘non-analytic’ (historical) actions and defining thinking as a product of this ‘reality’. Thus he does not escape, epistemologically, from Greek dualism; he presupposes a metaphysical dualism. In a Reformational perspective, theoretical thinking is, alongside political actions, for example, one type of human action, and the set of actions oriented towards an ideal can be considered ‘praxis’. Thinking contributes to the composition of any praxis, and the ideology of praxis guides the direction of thought. But there is no ontological priority of historical praxis before theoretical praxis; both are in constant co-operation, and that’s all. When Bonino locates historical praxis as the matrix of theoretical thought, so that thought cannot be more than a by-product of a certain historical situation, he evidently absolutizes the historical sphere of reality and submerges the other spheres in the historical process. In the biblical view, the knowledge of truth does not exist only in historical praxis, but in all human functions, and in different forms. Edward Echeverria correctly calls Bonino’s position a variety of historicism, which confines the human subject and all their functions to historical conditioning.50 The implicit historicism in LT tends to relativize theology, judging it on the basis of an ideological criterion and relativizing the authority of the Bible.51 The same historicism, associated with Darwinian naturalism in Teilhard de Chardin, becomes the central principle of Juan Luis Segundo’s worldview, leading to his belief that the only possible truth is the liberation of humanity, and to the relativization of all articles of faith, which are being transformed in a continuous process of ‘evolution’. The result of this kind of mentality is evident among liberation theologians and among many evangelical advocates of Integral Mission. There is a naïve trust in the progress of knowledge, and a longing to ‘go beyond’ the traditional content of faith, to accompany humanity’s ‘evolution’ on the road to deliverance. Moreover, rather than critically examining the mentality and customs proper to Latin American culture, which could lie behind the problems of under-development, these theologians have long adopted the ‘dependency theory’, explaining the problems of poverty and economic under-development as being primarily the product of US and European exploitation. Proposals for a radical reform of worldview and values in Latin American societies are simply not presented, or at least do not receive attention. And the solution of social problems is seen in a statist perspective, as if a socialist government were the way of liberation.






























































50

ECHEVERRIA, 1985, 221. On one occasion, a famous LT theologian, Professor of Biblical Studies in the Methodist University of São Paulo, was heard to say that ‘anybody who believes that God ordered Joshua to destroy the Canaanites should go to hell’! 51

96

Christian Worldview and Transformation


Statism and the Suppression of Economic Initiative In Brazilian political practice, the proponents of LT invariably adopt a socialist ideological position. This goes along with a commitment to the socialist conception of state and society, as well as a highly critical attitude towards the market economy. The socialist perspective, by its radical collectivism, undermines individual rights and blocks individual initiative. As John Paul II pointed out, ‘The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological.’ 52 Human beings disappear as an individual and an agent of the social order, and are reduced to their social relationships. At the same time, the totality of these social relationships is identified with the state, which concentrates the power to reorder the structure of society, aiming at the collective good. The visible historical result, in ‘real socialism’, was the bodily and spiritual slavery of millions of people in one of the worst tragedies of the twentieth century – the socialist experiments in the former USSR, China, Vietnam, and Africa which turned out to be egregious machines of oppression in favour of a political elite who supposedly interpreted the will of the people. In addition, they were clearly complete failures from the point of view of the economy and the supply of basic needs. While it is true that people are not only individuals but also form a collectivity, they cannot be reduced to social relationships. Although the state is an important institution, it does not represent the whole of society. Although the earth, in principle, is for all, human labour transforms the means of production into the worker’s relative possession. There is no biblical justification for the abolition of ‘private property’. and from the economic point of view its effect is harmful.53 In the case of Latin America, the emphasis on liberation, based on Marxist ideology, further fomented hatred between classes. Doubtless, there have been some benefits, such as a greater awareness of the structures of oppression, and the struggle for workers’ rights. But it must be said that real achievements in this field are not logically dependent on socialist ideology. The evidence for this is that they have been incorporated into non-socialist economic systems.54 It is quite evident that in those circles that work with elements of LT, there is strong criticism of the Protestant work ethic, which is seen as one of the main causes of the modern capitalist system of exploitation. As a consequence, the ideological education of the population served by these circles does not






























































52

PAULO II, João. Encyclical Centesimus Annus, 2004. 29 (hereafter denominated CA). 53 Dr Paul Freston puts it well when he says that, on this matter the truth is not in socialism nor in political liberalism: ‘The right to property, in the Bible, does not belong to the private individual or to the state, but to God.’ Nobody owns anything, and nobody has priority in the control of property; we are all God’s stewards. (FRESTON, 1992, 50). 54 ‘Practically all the socio-economic attainments of the Marxist-Leninist autocracies have also been realized in the experience of pluralist democracies’ (CAVALCANTI, 2002, 254). The fact is that social responsibility is not a socialist monopoly.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

97

recommend, as a priority solution, any changes in the concept and experience of salaried work; it is treated (albeit usually in a non-explicit way) as a sort of ‘necessary evil’ pending the ‘revolution’. Little is said about home economics, investment, savings and profit, for such language is seen as a reflection of the capitalist mind-set. This negative attitude towards individual initiative and money is further enhanced by remnants of medieval Catholic negativism in relation to profit.

Socio-Analytic Mediation and the ‘Real Situation’ of the Poor A second problem of LT is the first moment of the ‘seeing, judging, and acting’ scheme. This first moment of ‘seeing’ refers to the ‘pre-theological’ analysis of the situation of the oppressed, in which ‘socio-analytical mediations’ (SAMs) are used. From an understanding of this ‘real’ situation of the oppressed, using the SAMs, the next step is theological reflection and the introduction of the point of view of faith. The problem, here, is what this whole approach presupposes about the ‘real situation’ of the oppressed. Obviously, this reality can and should be the object of a socio-analytical approach. However, the ‘real’ situation of the oppressed is not only sociological; it is also ethical, psychic, biotic-ecological, ‘pistic’, etc.55 Socio-analytic mediation is not capable of examining these other ‘real situations’, although it may co-operate with other sciences in this analysis.56 In the LT approach, apparently, faith is assumed to be a gift of grace superimposed on nature, so that the viewpoint of faith is not part of reality, and should be posterior to the sociological viewpoint, appearing only at the moment of ‘judging’. Putting sociology in ‘seeing’ and theology in ‘judging’, LT assumes a ‘fact-value’ distinction, in which faith is on the side of ‘values’ and not of the ‘facts’ of created reality. In admitting the need for a pretheological perspective of a sociological character, LT uncritically assumes a reductionist perspective of reality and builds on a kind of epistemological ‘sociologism’.57 This kind of humanistic narrowing of reality strips faith of its intrinsic dignity and, according to some, is related to the loss of faithful members that the Catholic Church experienced during the ‘golden years’ of LT; these believers felt a spiritual impoverishment as a result of this narrowing. In the Reformation perspective, faith is an anthropological dimension as sovereign as the political, social or economic dimensions. Thus, there is not, nor can there be, any socio-analytic ‘mediation’ for theology, but rather a scientific co-operation between the social sciences and the sciences of faith in






























































55

‘Pistis’ is the Greek word for faith. In the absence of an adequate adjective in English, we refer to the sphere of faith as ‘pistic’. 56 Unless, perhaps, we might have ‘hybrid’ models of social analysis which combine sociological theory with elements from the other sciences, without reducing them to sociology. 57 The belief that all human realities are by-products of the sociological dynamic.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


98

the search for an understanding of the real and complex situation of the oppressed.58 For this reason, in a Reformational perspective, to bring about integral transformation, it is not enough to transform people’s social conditions directly; nor is it sufficient to identify how systems of economic oppression limit their quality of life before proceeding to help them to fight against these systems. Rather, we must start with an integral interpretation of the situation of these people, which should include their economic condition, but also their spiritual situation, their family life and their mind-set. Moreover, the central purpose of this work cannot be limited to the reintegration of these people into the labour market and into the economic system. To do this runs the risk of our evaluation and proposals for other areas of life becoming subject to economic criteria. The central goal should be the realization of biblical shalom. When José Míguez Bonino and other liberation theologians adopt an unbiblical rationality, whether drawn from a Marxist philosophical system, or Teilhard de Chardin’s religious evolutionism, or any other amalgam of nonbiblical philosophical theories, they are merely repeating the error of medieval Catholic scholasticism. At this point, Bonino, though a Protestant, goes in the opposite direction to the spirit of the Reformation. Fundamentally, all theologies that follow this sort of synthetic approach are uncritical about the idolatrous orientation of every unbelieving thought, admitting without question the dogma of the religious autonomy of theoretical thought.

Nature/Grace Dualism in Christian Social Thought II: The Case of Centesimus Annus Pope John Paul II was one of the most important men of the twentieth century, and his political and ecclesiastical work changed the face of the world. Evangelicals cannot reflect on current conditions without considering his ideas and positions – especially, in our case, his social thinking, which has been receiving support from many Catholics and Protestants all over the world. John Paul II’s social thought was presented in several encyclicals and, in our analysis, we focus on Centesimus Annus (CA), presented at the centenary of Rerum Novarum (Leo XIII, 1891). It expounded the Pope’s interpretation of the Church’s social teaching, especially regarding economics and its relationship with the state and society.






























































58

Clodovis Boff seems to have perceived this problem: ‘It is pistic practice, not just any practice, that sheds a certain light on theology’ (BOFF, Clodovis, Teoria do Método Teológico, 1999, 183). In general, Boff’s understanding of the theory/praxis relationship is a lot more plausible than that of LT in its first stages, and is quite close to a neoCalvinist understanding of praxis.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

99

Centesimus Annus: An Overview The encyclical has six chapters. In the first, the Pope summarizes the central ideas of Rerum Novarum. As he sees it, Leo XIII realized that a new situation, the conflict between capital and salaried labour, required the Church to take a clear position. Based on the certainty that ‘there is no true solution to the “social question” outside the gospel’,59 to which John Paul II readily subscribes, Leo XIII attacks the socialist solution of class struggle, defending private property and affirming, against socialist collectivism, that all have a natural right, independent of the state, to organize themselves professionally and economically. But he also attacks the liberal view that the state should not intervene in economic relations, making it clear that there can be no social peace between classes without justice in socio-economic relations,60 and that the right to private property must be held in balance with the complementary principle of ‘the universal destination of the world’s goods’.61 Thus ‘Rerum Novarum criticizes the two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism’.62 The state is given the role of mediating between capital and labour, always protecting the worker. Although John Paul II asserts that these ideas do not depend on a concept of the state or a political theory,63 they do seem quite specific about the role of the state in the social order: If Leo XIII appeals to the state to give the right remedy to the condition of the poor, it is because he recognizes in a timely manner that the state has a duty to promote the common good, and to ensure that the various spheres of social life, without excluding the economic, contribute to the realization of that good, while respecting the legitimate autonomy of each sphere. This, however, should not lead one to think that, for Pope Leo XIII, the whole solution of the social question should be left to the state. On the contrary, he insists several times on the necessary limits to the intervention of the state and its instrumental character, since the individual, the family and society precede it, and it exists to protect the rights of each, and not to stifle them.64

From Chapter II onwards, John Paul II turns to current problems (The ‘New Things’ of Today), directly attacking socialism and its negative consequences on politics, society and the economy, consequences already foreseen by Leo XIII. The Pope attacked Collectivism, associated with statism, as the ‘fundamental anthropological error’ of socialism. He affirms the right of humanity to a private sphere under his sovereign control, beyond the collective, and that the social life of humanity is realized in other social institutions besides the state (in the family, the economy, culture, etc.). The origin of the collectivist error lies in atheism, which separates people from their foundation






























































59

CA, 16. Ibid, 15. 61 Ibid, 17. 62 Ibid, 22. 63 Ibid, 23. 64 Ibid, 24. 60

100

Christian Worldview and Transformation


and allows disregard for the dignity of the individual.65 As for class struggle, the Pope does not intend to decry all social conflict, but only that which ignores ethics and justice.66 The solution is not the abolition of property and the economic system. Thus the collectivization of the means of production by the state would be an invasion of natural rights, because ‘there is certainly a legitimate sphere of autonomy in economic activity where the state should not enter’.67 But the state must supervise the economic sphere, preventing one party from being enslaved by the other. Here the Pope explicitly evokes the ‘principle of subsidiarity’, the basic principle of Catholic social philosophy – that social institutions are part of the ‘social whole’, represented by the state, and must contribute with it to the full realization of the ‘common good’.68 In Chapter III, the Pope points to the facts of 1989 (the fall of Soviet socialism) as a warning to those who, in the name of political realism, ‘banish right and morals from the political arena’ – thus rejecting any dichotomy between power and justice. One of the origins of socialist failure lies in the denial of original sin, a point of great practical importance: ‘This doctrine is not only an integral part of Christian revelation, but also of great hermeneutical value, in helping to understand human reality.’69 It is in Chapter IV (‘Private Property and the Universal Destination of Goods’) that the Pope begins to be more specific about his economic vision. Private property should be firmly rooted in the ‘natural right of men’, being acquired by labour. But, in Genesis, the gift of the earth to all guarantees that no-one has been excluded or privileged: ‘Here is the root of the universal destination of the goods of the earth.’70 The modern economic system of enterprise has many positive aspects, and its root is in the freedom of the individual, expressed in the economic and other fields. The exclusion of so many today from this system is due, not so much to exploitation, as to marginalization, which alienates these people from the network of knowledge and communications which could allow the expression of their individual creativity and potentiality. The path to development would thus be integration, both for individuals and for nations. The Pope criticizes the thesis that poor countries could develop by isolating themselves from the world market; the solution should be ‘equitable’ access to the international market, which would value people more. The economy should, in any case, operate freely, for this is the way to development: Within each nation as well as in international relations, free markets seem to be the most effective instrument for boosting resources and meeting needs effectively.71






























































65

Ibid, 30. Ibid, 31. 67 Ibid, 32. 68 We shall look at this theory later. 69 CA, 48. 70 Ibid, 59. 71 Ibid, 65. 66

The Nature/Grace Dualism

101

Of course, the abuse of capital over labour must be confronted with ‘struggle and striving in the name of justice’. In this sense, it would be correct to speak of ‘struggle against the economic system’ when we are talking about ‘absolute predominance of capital’. In this struggle against such a system, we cannot look for an alternative model in the socialist system which, in fact, is no more than a state capitalism; rather, a society of free labour, enterprise and participation, is seen as an alternative model. This would not contradict the free market, but it does require that social and state forces control it appropriately in order to guarantee the satisfaction of the fundamental demands of society as a whole.72 Thus the Pope makes clear his preference for a capitalist system, provided that, in such a system, consideration for the common good moves the state to control the economic system in order to prevent abuses. Such control, by the state and by society as a whole, would be necessary because the economic sphere, in itself, does not have the internal regulators to prevent a harmful development for society. An example of such abuse would be consumerism, which mere economics cannot identify: The economic system itself has no criteria for correctly distinguishing new and higher forms of satisfying human needs, from artificially created needs that obstruct the formation of a mature personality.73

Abuses related to drug use, disrespect for the environment and social ecology, especially for the family and marriage, would not be, according to the Pope, the fruit of the ‘economic system’ in itself, but of the ethical-cultural system that ‘manages’ this system. It is the absolutization of economic activity that corrupts the rest of life.74 We must overcome ‘market idolatry’, not ‘the market’ itself. Therefore, on the question of whether the Third World should follow the capitalist system, the Pope responds unequivocally: If ‘capitalism’ means an economic system that recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property, and the consequent responsibility for the means of production, free human creativity in the economy, the answer is certainly positive, although it might be more appropriate to speak of ‘business economy’, or ‘market economy’, or simply ‘free economy’. But if ‘capitalism’ is understood as a system where freedom in the economic sector is not set within a solid legal framework that places it at the service of integral human freedom and considers it as a particular dimension of this freedom, whose centre is ethical and religious, then the answer is undoubtedly negative.75

When it comes to the place of the economy in society, one theme that cannot be forgotten is the role of the state. The Pope defends the ‘Rule of Law’ against Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism, but indicts any political ideology that denies the existence of a transcendent truth, since such denial is the origin of all






























































72

Ibid, 66. Ibid, 69. 74 Ibid, 74. 75 Ibid, 79. 73

102

Christian Worldview and Transformation


totalitarianism.76 The totalitarian state tends to absorb into itself society, the family, religion and individuals, denying them their ‘specific sphere of autonomy and sovereignty’.77 Any democracy runs this risk unless it keeps right values at its heart. The Pope reaffirms that the state must take on the tasks of vigilance and guidance concerning human rights in the economic sector, and step in temporarily in certain situations. But he criticizes the model of the ‘welfare state’, which at certain moments has intervened excessively. Against this, John Paul II refers again to the principle of subsidiarity: Here, too, the principle of subsidiarity must be respected; a society of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of one of lower order, depriving it of its powers, but rather should support it in case of necessity and help it to co-ordinate its action with that of the other social components, with a view to the common good.78

In his final chapter, the Pope emphasizes that the church lives to serve humanity, but that it learns the ‘meaning’ of humanity from the divine revelation. Without faith, human sciences and philosophy cannot fully reveal to humanity their true identity. For this reason, therefore, the church in its ministry will always act from a theological perspective, but without neglecting the contributions of the human sciences. Its focus must be on love for humanity, for the poor, and on the struggle to promote justice.

The Social Theory Underlying Centesimus Annus When we read John Paul II’s encyclical, there are some fundamental concepts that must be understood. The basic elements of the Roman Catholic understanding of society are the theories of ‘natural law’, ‘subsidiarity’ and the ‘common good’, all theories directly linked to Aristotle’s social thought. ‘Natural law’ ‘Natural law’ is one of the four types of law discussed by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. These are: an ‘eternal law’, the divine reason that governs the cosmos; the ‘divine law’, the word revealed in the Scriptures; ‘human law’, the ordinances established by human rulers on the basis of reason; and ‘natural law’, the knowledge and participation of the creature in the eternal law, through reason. Aquinas believed that ‘natural law’ was the natural inclination of things and people to act according to their purpose or end. The light of natural reason would be sufficient to guide humanity to an understanding of natural law and, consequently, to truth about social






























































76

Ibid, 84. Ibid, 85. 78 Ibid, 91. 77

The Nature/Grace Dualism

103

relationships. It is the natural law that inclines humans to their social relationships through various kinds of associations. The Aristotelian-Thomist theory of the ‘natural law’ does not regard the individual being as self-sufficient. Both argued that the state existed before the individual, rejecting in principle any individualistic conception of the state – that is, any attempt to found the state based on the will and right of ‘individuals’.79 Later, under the impulse of the humanist ground-motive, the theory of natural law was interpreted in an individualistic way, based on the assertion of the sovereignty of the human personality, which it was the state’s duty to protect (Locke).80

The Theory of ‘Subsidiarity’ Influenced by the Aristotelian understanding of society,81 Aquinas saw the state as the social totality, and social institutions as ‘parts’ of that totality, having relative independence from the state, but existing for the state. The state (the ‘polis’ of Aristotle) would be the most perfect institution, concentrating in itself the totality of human needs. Thus, from Aquinas’s perspective, social differentiation and plurality exist within a hierarchy that could be described rationally through Aristotelian philosophy: Since man must live in a group, because he is not sufficient for himself to seek the satisfaction of the necessities of life if he remain solitary, it follows that the more a society is self-sufficient in the satisfaction of the needs of life, the more perfect it will be. There is, to some extent, sufficiency for life in a family or in a home… Self-sufficiency exists on a street with respect to those things that pertain to the affairs of a guild. In a city, which is the perfect community, self-sufficiency exists with respect to all the necessities of life. Even more self-sufficiency is found in a






























































79

DOOYEWEERD, 1967, 24. ‘Introducing the concept of the sovereignty of persons, Locke and others fundamentally rejected the idea that the State might have rights. They revived the contractual theory of the State, which goes back to the Epicureans and Stoics. We may wonder, however: does legitimate reaction against absolutism (through a ‘package’ of constitutionally established rights for individuals, etc.) require the denial of all rights of the State and of a lot of non-political institutions in society?’ (SKILLEN, 1991, 386-87.) 81 Dooyeweerd describes the Aristotelian view: ‘The State is the highest form of community. All other social relationships, such as marriage, family, blood relations, vocational or industrial groupings, are all merely inferior components that serve the highest. According to Aristotle, the State is founded on the “rational-moral” nature of man. Man cannot obtain his natural perfection in isolation, but only in community. Marriage and family nurture are the first, the “lowest” necessities of life, and the next “higher” need is met by the local community. But these lower social relationships are not autonomous; only the State, as the perfect autonomous community, can provide man with everything that serves the perfection of his “rational-moral” nature. Thus, the relationship between the State and other social relationships is constructed according to the scheme of the whole and its parts, and of purpose and ends, from the “inferior” to the “superior”.’(DOOYEWEERD, 1967, 8). 80

104

Christian Worldview and Transformation


province because of the need to fight together and with mutual aid against enemies.82

The social hierarchy that makes the types of human association increasingly ‘perfect’ and complete, culminating with the state, is constructed from the Aristotelian concept of the ‘chain of Being’, according to which each being has its degree of ‘perfection’ determined by the degree of participation in the ‘absolute being’, the ‘unmoved Mover’. Aquinas believed that this order reflects the ‘natural law’, and that it can be identified by means of natural reason. That is why he saw no problem in using this socio-political theory to interpret society. As a result, Catholicism has absorbed the belief that the body politic represents the totality of the natural order; it includes in itself the multitude of other human associations, which then become ‘parts’ of the political whole. This is the origin of the principle of ‘subsidiarity’: the belief that the various human associations or social institutions are ‘auxiliaries’, ‘subsidiaries’, contributing together to the realization of the ‘common good’, which it is the function of the state to fulfil. The theory of subsidiarity combines pluralism with social hierarchism, affirming an ontological priority of the state over other institutions, and it bases its idea of social totality on natural reason.

The Concept of the ‘Common Good’ This brings us to the doctrine of the ‘common good’, seen as the fundamental law of society. It is the concrete realization of the moral order in society, combining stability, peace, justice, and so on; the task of state is to promote the common good of society. We cannot forget the role of the church here. Following the nature/grace scheme, Aquinas saw the social hierarchy, which begins in the family and ends in the state, as the ‘natural’ dimension of society. But he also spoke of the ‘supernatural’ dimension – the church: Although political society represents the most complete human community (societas perfecta) in temporal reality, it is supplanted by, and subject to, supratemporal society, a divine community representing the supernatural destiny of human beings. Thus Aquinas believed that the full and supreme end of human creatures was not natural but supernatural.83

We could then imagine the following general scheme for describing classical Catholic social philosophy (see opposite). The state, understood as in Aristotelian social philosophy, is seen as the societas perfecta, the other institutions being subsidiary to it.84 The church (identified, in the Roman Catholic scheme, with the visible papal hierarchical system) is seen as the ‘supernatural’ society, whose necessity and essential






























































82

AQUINAS, in SKILLEN, 1991, 139. SKILLEN, 1991, 140. 84 ‘The State is seen, in a pagan perspective, as the totality of all the social relationships in the natural (rational-moral) area’ (DOOYEWEERD, 1967, 12). 83

The Nature/Grace Dualism

105

nature are beyond natural reason. But it has the function of guiding the state as to what really is the ‘common good’, and doing that on the basis of revelation. In this way, the state can direct the other institutions to contribute adequately to that end. The point here is that the state cannot directly participate in ‘grace’, since it is strictly natural; it can only do so by subjecting itself to the service of the church. This hierarchical scheme, of course, confers great power on the church and the state.

level of grace (discerned by revelation)

CHURCH

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------level of nature (discerned by reason and by ‘natural law’)

STATE Family Trade union

Individual

Economy

It is possible, however, to notice some important differences in the encyclical of John Paul II, when compared with the traditional doctrine. The Aristotelian-Thomist view of natural law does not have an individualistic character. Pope John Paul II clearly maintains the theory of natural law to justify individual liberty, the right to property and private initiative, in a perspective very similar to that of the neo-Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain. He also supports the theory of subsidiarity, admitting the relative autonomy of each social sphere. But, apparently, he gives much more freedom than previous Catholic social thinkers would allow, admitting openly that the economic sphere must operate freely. He also continues to hold that the common good must be implemented by the state, under the light provided by the church.

A Critique of the Social Theory of Centesimus Annus For all Christians, there is much to be commended in John Paul II’s encyclical. He states without hesitation that there is no solution to social problems outside

106

Christian Worldview and Transformation


the gospel. He rejects, in principle, both socialist collectivism and the radical individualism of economic liberalism. He affirms the importance of the doctrines of creation, fall and redemption to properly interpret the structures of society, its problems, and the path to transformation. He also recognizes the sovereignty of the spheres of family, science, economics, etc. However, due to the nature/grace dualism, Catholic social thought tends to permit the accommodation of a ‘natural view’ of society to the teaching of the gospel: and many Catholic theologians have in fact accommodated socialist social theory to the gospel. This same dualism keeps traditional Catholic theologians tied to the Aristotelian-Thomist view of society, which is then bound up with Christian theology. This accommodation has allowed unbiblical concepts to enter Catholic social theory.

‘Natural Law’ The first difficulty we address is the Catholic concept of ‘natural law’. As we have seen, according to this theory, the natural inclination of the human being is an effect of the ‘eternal law’, the rational wisdom of God. This intellectualized interpretation of God’s will eventually leads to the belief that the social order has a necessary structure that may be deduced rationally. This concept of cosmic order, which is of Greek origin, does not harmonize with the biblical view of God as the Creator of all things. The ‘laws of creation’ are not ‘necessary’ and ‘rational’ laws; they are ‘contingent’, having been established by the will of God. The Greek view of natural law submits social theory to the autonomy of reason, accepted as the only source of truth regarding social structure. Thus, this theory produces the rationalist secularization of the theory of rights. If natural reason has the autonomy to arrive at an adequate understanding of natural law, we cannot appeal to revelation or empirical reality to reformulate our view of society and rights. The theory of rights is at the mercy of the autonomy of reason, and therefore of secularization. Such secularization is evident in the neo-Thomist attempt to ground rights in the individual, denying that organizations in themselves have ‘rights’. Thus Jacques Maritain adopts an individualistic and liberal interpretation of social institutions and the state. In his view, only persons have ‘substance’; institutions are merely constructs of the free will of individuals. It follows that only people can be ontologically analyzed, and only people can have rights. Institutions, from the family to the state, have no rights, only duties towards individuals.85 Skillen also notices, in the document ‘Economic Justice for All’






























































85

‘For all that he is quite concerned about the “essential rights and liberties” of a multiplicity of private societies which make up the body politic, he does not believe that institutions have their own ontic structure. Although “private societies” should be “as autonomous as possible”, they do not have an essence separate from that of individuals. Institutions, according to Maritain, “proceed from the free initiative of the citizens”, and consequently do not possess their own essential constitution’. (SKILLEN, 1991, 385).

The Nature/Grace Dualism

107

(1986) of the Council of Catholic Bishops of North America, the affirmation of the traditional idea of ’common good’ alongside a liberal-individualist theory of rights.86 In practice, in support of the democratic ideal, this is another accommodation of Catholic social theory, this time to a ‘liberal theory’ of individual and state rights. Such an interpretation is insufficient for a Christian view of rights, as it provides no legal basis or adequate protection for social institutions, such as the family and the church, which in a radically biblical perspective have their internal sovereignty established by God.

‘Subsidiarity’ in the ‘Liberal’ Interpretation of the Pope In admitting the Aristotelian-Thomist theory of ‘natural law’, the Pope admits a synthesis between Greek thought and biblical doctrine, which introduces into Christian theology the hierarchical Aristotelian philosophy of society. This is the origin of the principle of subsidiarity, which elects the state as the ultimate society in nature, and the church as the supernatural institution that instructs the state about the common good. The problem with this theory is that it places the state and the church between God and the various social institutions as the ‘mediators’ for understanding and realizing the common good. Thus, in principle, other forms of human association begin to serve the state. Since it is the state that guides society as to the ‘common good’, this theory has a very strong collectivist potential, if the state is seen in a collectivist perspective; or it has an individualistic potential, if the state is interpreted as being primarily the protector of individual rights. But, clearly, the theory does not indicate exactly how the other institutions relate to God’s creative will, leaving their status undefined. For this reason, … the principle of autonomy in a structure of subsidiarity does not adequately define or protect the identities, tasks and rights of multiple social institutions… The many non-state institutions of society […] are not political sub-units of the whole. A truly pluralist social order seems to require the recognition of fundamental, rather than merely relative, independence of the different spheres and institutions of a differentiated society. To achieve this recognition, the ontological status of institutions must be understood.87

The individualistic interpretation of the social order has some basis in Aquinas, for whom a society is merely a ‘union of persons’,88 but it represents a departure from his general approach, which is more collectivist. Apparently, Pope John Paul II was greatly influenced by the individualistic current of natural law, as found in Maritain’s neo-Thomism and in the economic thinking of American Catholic bishops. This recent adaptation, seen by Hoksbergen as a sign of ‘neo-conservatism’ on the part of John Paul II, reveals something that Dooyeweerd and Skillen had






























































86

SKILLEN, 1991, 387. Ibid, 384-85. 88 Ibid, 387-88. 87

108

Christian Worldview and Transformation


already indicated: that the theory of subsidiarity is not enough to give positive and secure guidance about the role of social institutions, as it fails to provide clearly biblical perspectives about social structure: In the absence of an ontology of principles that defines the identities and responsibilities of the various social institutions, including the state, the use of the principle of subsidiarity tends towards pure pragmatism.89

The Idea of the ‘Common Good’ In general, we can say that the idea of the ‘common good’ as a criterion for guiding the state’s action on society is a totalitarian idea. This is because the ‘common good’ involves an enormous amount of ‘goods’ that qualify in different ways: there is moral good, legal good, social good, economic good, scientific good and aesthetic good; then there is the ‘religious’ good, etc. The problem with the concept of the ‘common good’ is that it puts an accent precisely on what is ‘common’ to all spheres of society, leaving out what is unique to each. In this way, the state receives the power, at least in principle, to have absolute jurisdiction and competence over all spheres of society, when the ‘common good’, as defined by the ruling elite, is at stake: It is not clear, however, on what basis the distinction must be made between what is ‘one’s own’ and what is ‘common to all’. With respect to the current diversity of social institutions, it is precisely an understanding of what is ‘one’s own’ that must be developed, in order to avoid what is ‘common to all’ being defined by individualists or collectivists.90

It must be admitted that John Paul II moves away from the collectivist danger by defending a more liberal view of the state. But he ends up leaning towards individualism, while leaving the unique task of the state still in the shadows. According to Dooyeweerd, that ‘good’ whose realization belongs primarily to the state is ‘public justice’; in this sphere, the state has full jurisdiction. The other ‘goods’ are tasks of other social institutions. And the ‘supreme good’ of society can only be realized by the whole of society, without the absolute control of a specific institution.

The ‘Secularization’ of the Economic Sphere The main problem of the encyclical of John Paul II is its defence of the free market that the Pope presents. Following the traditional interpretation of subsidiarity, the Pope readily asserts that the economic sphere is ‘blind’ as to the understanding of the common good. Thus the control of the economic sphere must come from ‘outside’ – that is, from the ethical-cultural system that the state implements, with the aid of all the subsidiary associations.






























































89 90

Ibid, 388. Ibid, 391.

The Nature/Grace Dualism

109

As can be seen, in this position the direct connection between God’s sovereignty and the economic sphere is lost. The economic area is seen as an intrinsically ‘irrational’ force that must be controlled externally. Against this, Reformed thinkers have stressed that there are creation laws for the economic sphere that are internal to it. The difficulties of the capitalist economic system are not simply the result of ‘market logic’ (as if it were intrinsically problematic), but primarily of disrespect for the laws of the economic sphere: In emphasizing stewardship, I am not offering a ‘moral’ critique of the economy. Nor am I saying that ‘ethical’ issues should be considered alongside ‘economic’ issues, or that ‘social’ issues should be considered alongside ‘economic’ issues. I am saying that these costs and benefits are in themselves truly, really, concretely, and intrinsically economic issues. I am saying that anything less than ‘stewardship’ is non-economic, useless and inefficient. We should not try to add ‘Christian ethics’ to the economy. Instead we must fight for an economy inspired by Christianity; one that is rooted in the biblical view of stewardship.91

With the decision to totally ‘excuse’ the economic sphere by locating the cause of problems in the moral-cultural sphere, the Pope in practice admits a ‘secularized’ and liberal view of economics, in which a Christian perspective on money and economic relations is no longer sought. This sphere is seen as being ethically and religiously ‘neutral’. As we have noted, on several occasions the Pope affirms that the economic sphere cannot absorb the other spheres of life, and that the state should guard against this happening. However, he also affirms that, under the principle of subsidiarity, the state should not interfere in the lower order sphere – the economic sector – in order to restrict it.92 At the same time, he claims that this sector lacks the criteria for understanding the ‘common good’. Curiously, then, this principle receives a much more liberal and less statist interpretation in the hands of John Paul II – he is indeed reluctant to admit state intervention in the economy. Hoksbergen believes that this may be related to the Pope’s personal experience of the totalitarianism of socialist regimes, which diminished his optimism about the state’s ability to lead society to the ‘common good’. In theoretical terms, however, the Pope would have been influenced by the theories of the economist Michael Novak, who advocates a form of ethically controlled economic liberalism. Thus recent Catholic social thought succumbs to a form of secular humanism opposed to socialism: political and economic liberalism. The principle of subsidiarity, interpreted from an individualistic perspective, is incapable of clearly indicating the role of the economic sphere in a Christian society because it disconnects that sphere from God’s sovereignty and from the creation order, keeping it under the control of an idea of the ‘common good’ of the state, where this common good is interpreted either individually or collectively. The impetus for the struggle for justice, for a Christian economy,






























































91 92

MARSHALL, 1984, 102. CA, 91.

110

Christian Worldview and Transformation


and for political intervention in the economy, is weakened. Nature is left ‘autonomous’, with great future risk for ‘grace’. In opposition to this reluctance, a biblical view of society must affirm both the responsibility of the state to intervene in the economy when it comes to public justice, and the responsibility of the economic sector to develop a theory and an economic practice that takes into account the economic common good, without leaving this kind of consideration to the ‘higher’ spheres of society. Economic justice is not merely a state or church problem; it is, in the first place, the responsibility of private enterprise.

The Need for a Christian Social Theory for Integral Transformation There is a basic difficulty, discernible both in liberation theology, with its socialist-collectivist inclination, and in the encyclical Centesimus Annus, with its liberal-individualistic inclination: it is that both adopt the nature/grace scheme to interpret the social structure, and therefore promote an accommodation of Christianity to social theories which have pagan elements at their root. In this process of accommodation, Christian theology plays a limited role, mainly providing general ethical guidelines. Ultimately, however, the idea of social totality is constructed from a non-biblical ground-motive, which may be (in the case of the Aristotelian-Thomist theory) the matter/form dualism, or (in the case of John Paul II) a synthesis of Aristotelian thought with liberal social philosophy. In both cases, the nature/grace dualism prevents the full development of a radically Christian theory of society, in which the biblical worldview has a preponderant role in shaping our concepts of social totality, the nature of power, rights, the relationship between collectivity and individuality, the role of the state, the economic sphere, etc. As a consequence, Christian action is compromised by the errors inherent in every secular social theory, and it also suffers the secularizing effects of these pagan theories – the effect that Schaeffer described as ‘nature eating up grace’. In the case of liberation theology, we have a tendency towards statism and the annulment of individual rights in benefit of the collectivity, associated with a suppression of the economic sphere of society, contradicting the biblical conception of labour and money. Even evangelical Christians, under the influence of this sort of mentality, often assume that poverty is simply the result of exploitation, reinforcing the denial of national and personal responsibility, and avoiding any serious consideration of the impact of beliefs, cultural values and habits that perpetuate under-development. John Paul II’s reaction to socialism was to offer a markedly liberal social theory which strengthened individual rights but ignored the rights of institutions, as well as a tacit secularization of the economic sphere, which is free both from external restraint (the state) and from any internal restraint (a restructuring of economic relations).

The Nature/Grace Dualism

111

In fact, because it lacks an adequate conception of the Fall and the order of creation, the nature/grace dualism opens Christianity to the influence of secular humanism, as it introduces the humanist conflict between the ideal of science and the ideal of free personality. The first is reflected in socialist reductionism, which attributes to the state the totality of power and submerges the individual in the collective. The second is reflected in individualistic theories of law and the state. Of course, other examples of social proposals could be examined on the basis of the same critique of the dualistic nature/grace ground-motive set forth by Dooyeweerd and Schaeffer. These two proposals were presented simply as paradigmatic examples. Other theories that deserve a more detailed examination at another time include, for example, the use of dependency theory within the evangelical movement of integral mission, and the culturalist thesis (developed at Harvard by Lawrence Harrison, Samuel Huttington and David Landes), which has been used in Latin America by groups such as CEIDAL (The Centre of Studies and Research for the Development of Latin America) and the ‘Transformation Brazil’ project. Our hope in God is that the search for a Christian movement of integral transformation will submit its theories and methodologies to the Christian worldview, and thus manifest the biblical ground-motif of creation-fallredemption in all its transforming potential.




6. ON THE POSSIBILITY OF A CHRISTIAN ETHIC, AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY OTHER ETHIC Marcel Lins Camargo Perhaps you will say – and rightly so – that the possibility of a Christian ethic is too dangerous or too threadbare a theme for these dark days. I decided to speak in terms of a ‘possibility’, because I believe that, as a Brazilian church, we are still in the process of constructing markers for aiding reflection on this theme and pointing the way to some answers. So our work is just beginning. As we journey, several theoretical and practical paths may appear, or may be abandoned because they no longer serve our purposes. Following the wind of the Spirit – and not the winds of doctrines – we will journey in obedience to the possibilities indicated by the Father. This ‘possibility’ can only be realized in obedience to God and his Word. If you are from an earlier generation than mine, you will remember important names that have been thinking about all this, well before me. Here I simply record the small contribution that is my part of the work in the Father’s harvest. Over the last few years, I have been reflecting on our practice as the church of Jesus Christ, very aware that every message – or ‘ministry’ – that claims to be prophetic, is plunging into dangerous waters and taking high risks, and can never be the last word on any topic. So the reader who hopes to find, in these pages, a definitive conclusion regarding the role of the church in today’s complex global scenario will surely be disappointed. God has much more to teach than our ability to grasp and reproduce in ministerial experiences and theoretical reflections (no matter how wide-ranging) for our lives and for the life of his Bride. The texts presented in this book are the outcome of the discussions we have had throughout our ministry and, in general, they deal with universal issues such as poverty, inequality, justice, etc. – as well as their opposites. If we understand that these are the topics that many want to discuss today, we understand that they have to be on the church’s agenda, for the church has a duty to be thinking about our social reality. The very publication of this book is an attempt to think about the world and its dilemmas from a biblical-Christian point of view. I invite you to venture on this exploration with me, regardless of whether you agree with the content, and it is my prayer that, at the end of this short and dangerous journey, you will feel encouraged to persevere in the race that God has set before you. Before continuing, note the definition of the word ‘ethics’ in the Houaiss Dictionary:

114

Christian Worldview and Transformation


That area of philosophy responsible for the investigation of principles that motivate, distort, discipline or guide human behaviour, reflecting… on the essence of the norms, values, instructions, and exhortations present in any social reality.1

On the basis of this definition, we might ask: What has Christianity to say about the motives that discipline or guide people’s behaviour? And not only people in general, but doctors, politicians, artists, women, etc.? Does the church of Jesus Christ have the right to speak on these questions, thus making Christian ethics possible, as the title of this chapter suggests? Is it only Christian ethics that can bring motivating principles of action to people’s lives? What should we say about Buddhist ethics, or spiritist ethics, etc.? Could they not also be legitimate options for today, alongside the ideas of Christianity? The goal of this text is to delve a little deeper into the foundation of Christian ethics as a worldview that provides normative principles for people’s thinking and action, and exposes the fallacy of human autonomy. We hope to demonstrate that only Christian ethics can produce the lasting, true and trustworthy solutions that our generation needs. In a world inundated with voices dictating what we should or should not do and know, the church should take its stand as a sentinel of true Christianity, demonstrating ‘the reasons for our faith’, in the words of the apostle Peter. This philosophical exercise is vital and of primary relevance to the church if it wishes to affirm its legitimacy as it engages with the challenges of our ‘hyper-modern’ times.

The Collapse Of Ethics In The ‘Suicide’ Of Homo Autonomus When the authors of this collection speak of the theist-biblical conception of the world, and about the problem of poverty, their basic assumption is that humanity is estranged from their Creator because of sin. The real, primeval problem is sin, which separates human beings from God, and creates a complete break in the relationship between them and their origin, that is, God. In the modern world, this dichotomy is causing an increasingly deeper divide in day-to-day life; for Vaclav Havel, the Czech philosopher, it is a ‘loss of co-ordinates’: I believe that with the loss of God, man lost a kind of absolute and universal system of co-ordinates, to which he could always relate anything, chiefly himself. His world and his personality gradually began to break up into separate, incoherent fragments, corresponding to different, relative co-ordinates.2

Francis Schaeffer developed an explanatory scheme according to which modern thought and culture have plunged below what he calls the ‘line of despair.’ At this point, ‘[people] have given up all hope of achieving a rational






























































1

http://houaiss.uol.com.br/busca.jhtm Cited in RAMACHANDRA, Vinoth, Gods that Fail: Modern Idolatry and Christian Mission. Paternoster Press, 1996, 8. 2

On the Possibility of a Christian Ethic

115

unified answer to knowledge and life’.3 To pass through the door of ‘despair’ means distancing oneself from unity in God, dimming the concept of truth. All attempts to find a unified and coherent field of rational knowledge while at the same time abandoning ‘absolute co-ordinates’ – as Havel would say – have ended in failure. In their aimless wanderings, human beings insist on building for themselves a system that gives them some meaning, but they reject the guidelines established by God. This autonomous, sinful and rebellious effort, taken to its final consequences, leads them to conclude that the colossal dichotomy is insurmountable and – worst of all – intrinsic to the nature of the universe. Thus, there is no room for human beings themselves in the universe as long as it is conceived and/or explained in terms of autonomous rebellion. In rejecting God, modern humanity shuts itself off, in the impossibility of communication with reality and in alienation from themselves,4 and thus practices a kind of ‘suicide’. Modernity has constructed a concept of the world that has alienated human beings from their own existence. As Schaeffer puts it, ‘The ideas of modern man are destroying what man is in himself’.5 In today’s hypermodernity, this prognosis has proved devastatingly accurate. Sin disrupts the original system of reference that emanates from God. Hence the relevance of Christ’s appeal to the church at Ephesus: ‘Repent and do the things you did at first’ (Rev. 2:5, NIV). The appeal is for a return to the origin, the reference point, to ‘absolute co-ordinates’. To respond to this call, we must first understand our prophetic role as the Bride-Church of Christ. The prophetic action of the church, in terms of biblical theism, is an action against the dichotomy imposed as a consequence of sin. It is action that prophesies, that proclaims, the reign of God in and over all areas of existence.6 This is the foundation of all Christian ethics. Therefore, if the kingdom of God is the absolute reality, the source of all the co-ordinates or conciliatory references between God and human beings, it makes no sense to speak of an ethical project based on autonomous reason. Christian ethics affirms the need for dependence on God, and exposes any and all rebellion disguised as autonomy. The meaning we have been seeking may lie deeper, hidden in the depths of our roots as Christians.

The Radicalism of Biblical Theism and Its Meaning for Ethics An etymological study of the word ‘radical’ traces it back to the Latin word radix, which means ‘root’. As we see in the Bible, humanity has its root, its origin, in God. However, sin separated humanity from that root and, finally, led to death, which is the sine qua non state of being uprooted from God. In John






























































3

SCHAEFFER, Francis, The God Who is There. Hodder & Stoughton, 1968, 28. Ibid, 13ff. 5 Ibid, 74. 6 I will say more about this in the second part of this chapter. 4

116

Christian Worldview and Transformation


15:1-8, Jesus compares himself with the true, original vine, the source of eternal life; whoever is separated from that vine is in death. Assuming that the notion of good and evil is the aim of all ethical reflection, we must keep in mind that, in the biblical narrative, this knowledge is only evoked in the context of sin – for it is with the entrance of sin on the scene that the opposing notions of good and evil are introduced. Nevertheless, ‘the first task of Christian ethics consists in suspending this knowledge’,7 knowledge which is the fruit of humanist autonomy. In other words, we attack the foundations of all the other ethics – that is, all notions of good and evil that have been understood in an autonomous way. The premise of the autonomy of reason as a sufficient guide for the conduct of human beings had its origins long before the Enlightenment. It was already portrayed in the rebellion of Adam and Eve in the Garden. We are not throwing out the notions of good and evil, right and wrong, true and false; that would result in some form of moral nihilism. But we are seeking to warn of the bankruptcy of human effort when it claims to have this knowledge, in spite of being in a state of sinful rebellion, rejecting God’s will. Everything derived from the rebellious act in the Garden leads to death. The Genesis account tells us that the autonomous attempt to establish the knowledge of good and evil leads to death and separation from God – the fatal dichotomy. In these terms, we should ask ourselves whether it makes sense to speak of ‘Christian ethics’. Dietrich Bonhoeffer gives us an emphatic answer: If we do so [that is, if we still wish to speak in terms of a ‘Christian ethic’], this can only mean that Christian ethics claims to be the thematic source of all ethical concern, and claims, as a critique of all ethics, to be the only valid ethical conception.8

Thus, we begin to consider the theistic-biblical-Christian ethic as the origin of all the others, and also that which verifies, ratifies or vetoes all others. In a lecture given by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, on 9th September 2000, at the University of Zurich, he recalls that only in biblical theism is it possible to construct an ethics capable of validating and measuring all other pretended ethical discourses. Talking of Kierkegaard, he explains that this Danish philosopher ‘is convinced that a form of ethical existence, produced on the basis of self-effort, can only be stabilized in the relation of the faithful soul to God’.9 That is, the relationship, or rather the reconciliation of human beings with God, their origin, provides a base for an ethic capable of evaluating any other presuppositions that arise under the appearance of the good. And again we find ourselves back with the struggle against the dichotomy set up by the serpent: the knowledge of good and evil acquired in rebellious autonomy.






























































7

BONHOEFFER, Dietrich, Ética. Trans. Helberto Michel. 5th ed. São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 2001. 15. 8 Ibid. 9 HABERMAS, Jurgen, O futuro da natureza humana. Trans. Karina Jannini. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2004, 11.

On the Possibility of a Christian Ethic

117

Opting for the dichotomy, in a consciously rebellious act, humans no longer understand themselves according to their origin or root – that is, God; they are their own reference point. In such a situation, humanity must be understood as being its own origin: the origin of good and evil. Once again, we fall into the serpent’s trap. Men and women became like God, but against God: Human beings know what is good and what is bad; but they are not the origin; as they acquire this knowledge only in the separation from the origin, the good and evil that they know is not the good and evil of God, but against God. It is the good and evil of their own choice, against the eternal divine election. The human being became equal to God as anti-god.10

When he becomes equal to God – becomes their own reference-point of value and existence – the human being becomes his own judge and creator. This manifests itself in the fact that the lost human being has their existence fragmented, relativized, detached from life – from eternal life with God and from history. Between them and life, the flaming sword of God’s judgement blocks the path to the original source of eternal life. The narrative of Genesis 3 explains the reasons for modern (or post-modern) anguish; it is when individuals see themselves in the unbridgeable gulf between self and history.11 The effects of the rupture narrated in Genesis can be seen in all areas of life. For example, in his analysis of contemporary art, Schaeffer warns us: But the difficulty is that when you get to that point [the ‘line of despair’, explained above], the viewer has no clue what he is looking at. You have succeeded in making your own world on your canvas, and in this sense you have become god. But at the same time you have lost contact with the person who views your painting. We have come to the position where we cannot communicate.12

Because of the dichotomy, modern aesthetics expresses meaningless forms, which establish no satisfactory communication with surrounding human beings. In Schaeffer’s reasoning, we are proceeding, aesthetically speaking, at full speed towards the silence of incommunicability between human beings; and we are falling into the unbridgeable chasm between them and God. This is the high price of humanistic autonomy – the existential gulf, on the way to eternal death. To examine another approach, a political-philosophical one, the rationalism that follows on from the autonomous movement begun with the Fall ends up in political-economic and existential failure, as noted by some members of the Frankfurt School. This occurs when reason becomes its own instrument,






























































10

BONHOEFFER, Op. cit. 16. ‘Between life and his self, a gulf has opened up, which makes the former no longer his life, but a territory where he cannot enter and be at home, a foreign place which does not belong to him and to which he does not feel he belongs, a continual vanishing of something he never possessed and which therefore is not his, but which he misses as if he had lost it.’ MAGRIS, Cláudio. ‘As moedas da vida’. In JACOBSEN, Jens Peter. Niels Lyhne. São Paulo: Cosac & Naify, 2002, 8. 12 SCHAEFFER, Op. cit. 32. 11

118

Christian Worldview and Transformation


creating its highest product, the totalitarian state, understood by the Frankfurt School as exemplified in the specific situation of Nazi Germany. This rationalism dissociates itself from any moral end and from the interests of human beings, and becomes totally committed to industry and technology. The fragmentation of life is the inevitable outcome of the dichotomy. More contemporary language would call this unbridgeable hiatus ‘uncertainty’. As the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard wrote, ‘The uncertainty of the world is that it has no equivalent anywhere, and that it cannot be exchanged with anything.’13 There is nothing outside the world with which to establish a reference-point. In April 2002, I attended the São Paulo Biennial Book Fair and heard this Frenchman talk about his most recent work at that time. Like any thinker sensitive to his time, he would conclude, a few days later: […] we do not need to make sense of things. I do not believe the world has a meaning. Today there is a situation of general uncertainty about the ultimate truth of the world. And there is nothing outside it for which we might exchange it.14

For Baudrillard, human beings are inventing fictitious signs that cannot give meaning to reality or to their own history: ‘Uncertainty has infiltrated all domains of life.’15 In his nihilistic diagnosis, if there is any history and meaning to the world, this is pure illusion; we are all futile, and our end is despair.16 In my view, there is in his account a perception that something has brought about this abyss of uncertainty. He states: […] it is necessary to find the final equivalence of all things, to find for them a meaning and a purpose. When we find this purpose, this destination, then we will be quits with the world, everything will be ‘rescued’, the debt will be paid and uncertainty will come to an end.17

If we need to find something that overcomes the abyss of uncertainty or dichotomy in the world, it is because at some point this ‘something’ has been lost. Radical uncertainty will only come to an end when we overcome the dichotomy, reconciling ourselves with the absolute origin of meaning. This liquid nature of contemporary thought drags everything down into disunion and disintegration. It is not a deficiency of knowledge – since we taste the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil – but a corruption of desire and will: ‘The people who are best placed to know this do not want to understand’ (my emphasis).18 That is why we must speak about sin. Therefore, […] we depend on absolution and […] we must place our hope in some absolute power, which can intervene retroactively throughout history and restore the






























































13

BAUDRILLARD, Jean. A troca impossível. Trans. Cristina Lacerda e Teresa Dias C. da Cunha. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 2002. 9. 14 Cited in the Folha de São Paulo, E-1, 29 April 2004. 15 BAUDRILLARD, Op. cit., 25. 16 Cf. BAUDRILLARD, Op. cit., 12-15. 17 Ibid, 20. 18 HABERMAS, Op. cit., 12.

On the Possibility of a Christian Ethic

119

broken order, as well as the integrity of the victims [it would be better to say sinners].19

On this level, the obvious conclusion is that, apart from God, we cannot establish a unified way of thinking, valid for everything and everyone – and this applies to epistemology, science and, of course, ethics. In this the radicalism of biblical theism is revealed: ‘For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.’ (Rom. 11:36). We have already stated that prophetic actions rise up against every dichotomy, manifesting the kingdom of God in all the spheres of life that are fragmented by sin and estranged from their origin in God. In this way, the church is called to exercise its ministry of reconciliation in Jesus Christ. We now examine how this can be expressed practically, using an ancient work of art and the writing of a well-known New Testament prophet.

The Recovery of Ethics, Parting from the Prophetic Actions of the Church: The Centaurs of Aslan Literature has an interesting metaphor that helps us understand the reconciliation movement that God is sponsoring. The Danish writer Jens Peter Jacobsen (1847-85), commenting on people who ‘are not afraid to utter words full of consequence’, defined them thus: ‘These people gave him the impression of centaurs: thought and action united, like man and horse in one body.’20 Years later, another writer made use of this mythical character in his best-known work. C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), in The Chronicles of Narnia, created these characters, close companions of the lion Aslan, the creator and lord of Narnia. In The Last Battle, they appear as major front-line combatants in wars waged by Aslan. Representing Aslan himself (figuratively, Christ), they are as it were the extension of the lion of Narnia in any place and situation; wherever they are, by their singular characteristics they show the presence of Aslan. In this sense, they are reminders of the theological notions of the sacrament (a sign that carries within itself the reality of what it represents) and of the eschatological sign (the anticipated manifestation in history of the redemption that is reserved for the end-times). In Lewis, the centaurs remind us of God’s intentions and intervention in history, and also exemplify the unity between rational thought and pragmatic desire operating simultaneously in the same being. Mind, rationality and thought are bound up together with desire and action. The combination of the centaur images in Jacobsen and Lewis affords a powerful illustration of what we call the prophetic act – the kind of action that can manifest God’s kingdom in history. Prophetic acts are actions in which the Word of God manifests itself creatively – that is, in which God himself appears as an agent of judgement and salvation in a transparent and comprehensible






























































19 20

Ibid. JACOBSEN, Op. cit., 121.

120

Christian Worldview and Transformation


way. Our actions as the body of Christ, if they are to be characterized as ‘prophetic’, must identify with the centaur metaphor – combining thought and action – not only as a simulation of an absent reality but as positive signs of God’s presence and redemptive action; as sacramental realities and as eschatological signs, in which the presence of the kingdom of God in the world becomes visible and intelligible. Prophetic acts thus make us forerunners of the overcoming of the dichotomy by God himself, just like the centaurs of Aslan. In addition, prophetic actions qualitatively change reality. In the Bible, every prophetic action inexorably produces improvement in the quality of life of human beings. Perhaps the most striking prophetic ministry is that of the one who was the greatest among humanity before the coming of Christ: John the Baptist. The stature of this extraordinary man appears in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 3. It is a strange choice of setting: ‘The word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness’ (verse 2, NIV). The desert speaks of ordeal, of crisis. In the Old Testament, the identity of God’s people was both questioned and forged during their long journey through the desert. The same scenario was the background for the prophecy of the one who would preach the coming of the Lamb. In John’s ministry, the active manifestation of God in situations of crisis is evident – and indeed, in every crisis God sent his prophets. In the prophetic ministries exposed in the Bible, thought and action appear simultaneously functioning in a dialectical dynamic where one bears on the other.21 It seems that a section of the church has forgotten this. David Bosch, in his monumental study of the history and theory of mission,22 concludes that a crisis situation is the normal state of the church. The church is the prophetic voice in the current crisis. Studying John’s prophetic narrative,23 we may highlight the following points: 1) Verses 7-9: ‘John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance… The axe has been laid to the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.’ John prophesies about God’s judgement and repentance;
































































21 Wilhelm Dilthey begins his study, Ethics, stating that every philosophy should produce an ethic, a reflection about correct behaviour; this is the much-vaunted combination of theory/thought with practice/reality. Prophetic action has to do with material things, not just an inward spiritual daydream. Rather, it should clarify/guide our conduct as Christ’s body here on this planet. I cite this author as another of those ‘pagans’ who have something to teach the saints. 22 See BOSCH, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, 1991. 23 Texts are from the NIV (New International Version).

On the Possibility of a Christian Ethic

121

2) Verse 11: ‘John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none; and anyone who has food should do the same.”‘ The prophet is speaking about the distribution of income; 3) Verses 12 and 13: ‘Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?” “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.’ Again, it almost seems that John has read modern treatises on economics and sociology, for in his prophecy he brings together a denunciation of corruption and the evils of poverty that are the result of the concentration of income; 4) Verse 14: ‘Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied: “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely [or, in other versions: “Do not mistreat anyone”] – be content with your pay.”‘ John’s prophetic voice seems to speak in favour of amnesty and raise a protest against torture and the abuse of authority. 5) Verses 15 and 16: ‘The people were waiting expectantly, and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”‘ Finally, John prophesies the coming of Christ as the giver of the Holy Spirit. These five themes comprised the content of John’s prophetic ministry. On a closer reading of the text, the reader may discover other aspects but, for our purposes, we will reflect only on these. To what extent do so-called ‘prophetic’ ministries in Brazil reproduce and profess these themes in the practice of their churches and organizations? John, and all the other prophets who pointed to the coming of Christ, had a ministerial practice that was exceptionally sensitive to the day-to-day demands of their times. Biblical prophetic ministries are the most ‘down-to-earth’ of all the activities that the church could be engaged in. In verse 10 the multitudes asked John, ‘What should we do?’ The themes we have just mentioned were John’s prophetic response to the multitudes, and this same pattern is repeated in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. Stephen had something to say to the crowds. The prophetic vocation of the church, which is expressed in actions, has answers to the questions of governments, of rich, poor, women, blacks, children and the elderly. Every action that responds to the demands of the ‘crowds’ and brings reconciliation in Christ as being the answer is indeed prophetic. We must recover these prophetic themes as described in the Bible, in our ministries or ‘movements’, and have them at the heart of our actions as a church. Christian ethics operate according to this guideline, a guideline which goes all the way back to the early prophets of the Bible. Encouraged by the Lion’s roar, centaurs will continue fighting and prophesying, until ‘that Day’.




7. SOCIETY, JUSTICE AND POLITICS IN CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIAL THOUGHT OF HERMAN DOOYEWEERD1 Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho One of the major questions of political philosophy is the relationship between political power and justice. To what extent should the state intervene to implement justice? What is justice? What should be the role of civil society? This was also one of the central themes of evangelical social and political reflection in Latin America during the second half of the twentieth century, both in Liberation Theology and in the Integral Mission movement. In fact, it is impossible to speak of social justice without talking about politics and law. Precisely for this reason, a movement that seeks integral transformation on the basis of the Christian worldview cannot ignore the philosophical and practical challenge of the relationship between politics and social justice. We do not need to face this challenge merely to come up with a ‘good theory’, but also to define a ‘good practice’ that is modern, contextual, Christian and efficacious. In the early twentieth century, Herman Dooyeweerd, a Dutch evangelical thinker, produced a complex system of Christian philosophy, whose influence has grown consistently in the evangelical world, especially since the turn of the century. Among his most relevant ideas is a social and political theory that is modern, comprehensive and committed to the Christian worldview. Given that Dooyeweerd is considered to be Kuyper’s chief intellectual heir and one of the fathers of the contemporary ‘Christian worldview philosophy’, it is vital that Christians committed to transformation on the basis of the biblical worldview take the time to understand his social and political thinking.

Herman Dooyeweerd’s Reformational Philosophy: General Aspects Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) was a jurist and philosopher of Dutch law who exerted important influence in his own country and in Dutch circles in other countries. Heir to the thinking of the Dutch reformer Abraham Kuyper,
































































1 This chapter is an adapted and expanded version of a paper presented at the first International Conference of Ethics and Citizenship in August 2005 at the Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo. The paper was published in the Electronic Magazine of Ethics and Citizenship, vol.1, no. 1, under the title Poder político e justiça social na filosofia reformacional de Herman Dooyeweerd. Available at:

124

Christian Worldview and Transformation


he was Professor of Law at the Free University of Amsterdam, a member of the Dutch Academy of Sciences and, for many years, President of the Dutch Society of Philosophy of Law. His magnum opus was published in the Netherlands in 1935 under the title De wijsbegeerte der wetsidee, and in English between 1953 and 1958, as A New Critique of Theoretical Thought. As a Kuyperian, Dooyeweerd was from the beginning committed to the cultural renewal of his country on a Christian basis, and to resisting the process of secularization. And, like his mentor, he expressed full confidence in the transformative power of Christianity in its Reformed expression. As a scholar, Dooyeweerd was disturbed by the scientific reductionism that dominates the history of modern western thought. Noting that it was one of the main causes of the exclusion of religious belief from the field of science, he decided to confront it directly. A key problem for him was the fact that the various forms of reductionism, such as physicalism, vitalism, psychologism, logicism, historicism, sociologism, among others, all aimed to present global and sufficient interpretations of reality and, in doing so, continually excommunicated one another. How could all these schools of thought appeal to the same ‘rationality’ to justify their positions? The challenges of overcoming the problem of reductionism, and of showing the relevance of the Christian faith to the academy, led him to a re-reading of the history of western thought and to a fundamental discovery that would come to form the basis of his system of reformational philosophy.

The Dooyeweerdian Concept of ‘Theory’ According to Dooyeweerd, scientific knowledge arises from the attempt to make logical sense of reality by abstracting one dimension of it. Like Kant, Dooyeweerd admitted the existence of the logical and non-logical (or metalogical – a term widely used today) dimensions that appear united in scientific theories. Every theory, then, is the attempt to conceptualize a meta-logical reality. For example, an attempt to describe a painting with words and artistic concepts would be based on the conceptualization of the aesthetic aspect of that painting. Contrary to the tendency of western philosophy which, influenced by Greek metaphysics, tended to seek through philosophical and scientific reason the true foundation of reality, hidden from ordinary vision, Dooyeweerd asserted that scientific thought does not give us any deeper access to reality than does ordinary experience. Scientific thought can help us better understand certain processes that are qualified by one dimension of reality, which we abstract from the totality, but it does not bring us to basic reality itself. Paradoxically, however, every scientific theory depends on a vision about what the foundation or ‘essence’ of reality might be, simply because there are no scientific concepts that are not related to a pre-scientific worldview. Concepts, however rigorous they may be, have meaning only in the light of other concepts. When we try to think theoretically, our view-of-the-whole will

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

125

be present as a ‘tacit dictionary of presuppositions’. An example: if you try to determine the meaning of the word ‘reality’, you will be required to use other words; and to define these, you will have to use other words, and so on. Our ideas about things are always dependent on other more basic ideas, and finally on a set of master ideas that are the foundation of our worldview. Thus, every scientific theory is an attempt to isolate a substrate or modality of our experience and to describe this substrate logically; but a view-of-thewhole, which we bring within our belief system, will be present in this process, controlling our theorization and its results.

Dooyeweerd’s Critique of the Dogma of the Religious Autonomy of Reason Dooyeweerd, then, believed that he had discovered the religious basis of theoretical thought. The view-of-the-whole, which we all carry into our theoretical thought, has as its central element a vision about the foundation – that is, about the origin and the nature of the cosmic order. Dooyeweerd called this idea the wetsidee or ‘cosmological idea’. This idea is not the product of theoretical thought, but a pre-scientific presupposition that a thinker or intellectual tradition uses to construct its theoretical concepts. By identifying the cosmological idea of a philosophy, we could find its religious basis. But what underlies the choice of a certain reality as the absolute origin of everything, as the ‘unconditioned’, to use the language of Paul Tillich? In which ‘place’ in a person is this choice made? Dooyeweerd called this ‘place’ the Archimedean point of theoretical thought. As he understands it, it is not rationality itself, since this always presupposes an origin. On the basis of biblical anthropology, Dooyeweerd argued that all of a person’s temporal functions – rationality, historicity, emotions, faith, morality, and so on – are concentrated in the heart, and reflect the heart’s orientation to an origin, which may be God or an idol. Therefore, behind any idea of cosmic origin and order lies the basic religious orientation of the human being, and the rational articulations that a person produces are related to that religious orientation; every philosophical or scientific theory has its ultimate basis, not in an alleged autonomy of reason, but in the person’s spiritual life, expressing their religion. The Archimedean point of theoretical thought is the heart. Dooyeweerd’s interpretation of the phenomenon of scientific reductionism can be understood on the basis of this critique of the postulate of the religious neutrality of reason. The ‘isms’ have their root in the rational search for an ultimate foundation of reality within reality as experienced. Reductionism occurs when a thinker artificially abstracts a certain dimension or substrate from the totality found in ordinary experience, then goes on to identify this substrate as the essence or the ultimate foundation of reality, and then seeks to explain all the other dimensions of experience on the basis of this theory. Now, this identification of a certain substrate of created reality as being the foundation of reality is actually a religious and supra-rational act with each individual identifying their own ultimate origin of meaning. Reductionism is,

126

Christian Worldview and Transformation


then, a sort of intellectual idolatry. For example, materialistic thinkers believe that ultimate reality, the fundamental substance from which our world is constructed, is matter. On the basis of this physicalistic belief, some have argued that human consciousness is a phenomenon derived from matter – a ‘by-product’ that disappears with death. In Dooyeweerd’s view, physicalism is a form of reductionism, which isolates the material dimension of reality, treats it as if it were the ‘foundation’ of reality, its essence or self-existent basis, and therefore relativizes everything that is not material. To consider one dimension of reality as the origin and the foundation of all things is an idolatrous religious act, based not on reason but reason in revolt against God. Paradoxically, the various reductionist schools of thought swear to everyone and repeat in chorus the dogma of the religious neutrality of reason. This dogma is precisely a ‘forgetting’ of the existential roots of theoretical thought; it imposes on its advocates a fundamental blindness to the origin of their own ideas, and at the same time prevents a fruitful and conscious dialogue between the sciences.

Dooyeweerd’s Answer to Scientific Reductionism The response to reductionism is, first of all, to reject the postulate of the religious neutrality of thought, and to admit that our primary condition as human beings is an orientation towards an Origin or Arché. Of course, this reflects an Augustinian anthropology, which understands humanity as will and search – like a river that runs to the sea and will only rest when it finds it. Thought is not the defining characteristic of people, but it expresses what they are; thought is a function of the total person. As for the cosmos, it is necessary to ‘de-essentialize’, that is, to deny that any theoretically abstracted dimension of reality can have the status of foundation; so science is relativized vis-à-vis ordinary experience. It is to recognize that science cannot give us access to the Origin, and that therefore we cannot treat any form of scientific thought as being ‘more important’ than any other, or as being ‘truer’ than religious faith, or as being the final criterion to guide our individual lives and our society. But a cosmological idea is still needed to guide us about the relationship between the ‘whole’ and the ‘parts’– that is, some idea about the cosmic order. According to Dooyeweerd, the only defence against identifying one dimension of the cosmos as the foundation (since theoretical thinking always works with dimensions) must be to locate the cosmic foundation outside the cosmos. This means nothing less than an unrestricted admission of Christian theism as an idea of origin and cosmic order; not theism in the Aristotelian-Thomist sense exactly, but in the Calvinist sense. Deus legibus solutus est, sed non ex lex, said Calvin: the sovereign God, the principle of cosmic order, beyond all law – but upholding all laws, transcendent and distinct from all creatures, and from all spheres of our temporal experience.

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

127

That is to say, interpretations of reality that are supposedly secular and neutral, but are in fact reductionist, are nothing less than defective forms of religion; they have their foundation in the partial deification of reality, carrying a residue of sacralization of the world. Only theism is sufficiently ‘secular’ in the sense of completely de-sacralizing the world and freeing itself from the worship of nature in order to present humanity in the fullest possible sense: humanity as imago Dei.2

The Modal Ontology of Dooyeweerd If none of the dimensions of reality which we abstract theoretically is in fact the origin of the cosmos and, at the same time, none of these dimensions has a self-existent substance, but all depend on each other, then it follows that we can try to describe the structure of each sphere, and of reality as a whole, by means of a scale or ladder of hierarchically organized but interdependent modalities. In his effort to identify the nucleus of the meaning of each sphere, Dooyeweerd began with theoretical abstraction and by looking at the meaning structure of the ‘phenomenologically’ isolated stratum; he proceeded by making a correlation between each stratum with the other ontological strata of the real – the other modi. On this basis, seeking for a transmodal structure of meaning, Dooyeweerd constructed his modal scale, identifying a total of fifteen spheres in the following order: numerical, spatial, kinematical, physical, biotic, psychical, logical, historical, linguistic, legal, ethical and pistic (from the Greek pistis, faith). The later spheres are ‘founded’ on the previous ones, without being merely derived phenomena (epiphenomena) in relation to them. And each sphere will ‘mirror’ in itself the totality of the cosmic meaning; this mirroring can be described by anticipatory and retrospective analogies, in which a sense similar to the sense nucleus of each of the modal spheres is identified within the modal sphere under consideration. For example: in the expression ‘economy of thought’, we have an anticipatory analogy of the economic sphere within the logical sphere.3 In Dooyeweerd’s view, each sphere has its own sovereignty, and is subject to a law of its own, established by God. This means that we cannot reduce one sphere to the other – that is, fully explain one dimension of experience by






























































2

On the basis of this fundamental understanding, Dooyeweerd undertook a wideranging and detailed analysis of western thought and culture, and proposed a wholesale reform of this tradition on the basis of a theistic cosmonomic idea. For this reason, his thinking, together with that of his brother-in-law D.T.H. Vollenhoven, has been called ‘reformational philosophy’. The two started a periodical which is still in circulation after more than seventy years – the magazine Filosofia Reformata, which publishes articles in Dutch and English. 3 For a better understanding of Dooyeweerd’s modal ontology, we recommend Andrew Basden’s website: http://www.isi.salford.ac.uk/dooy. To go deeper, cf. SEERVELD, 1985, 41-79 and, of course, Dooyeweerd’s own works.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


128

another. For example, it would not be possible to explain biological life using only chemistry, or to explain the origin of philosophical ideas using only history or sociology. On the other hand, each science should be subject to others when necessary. Sociology, for example, should listen to theology, when speaking about faith. The recognition of the spheres of sovereignty should function as a heuristic model, to guide interdisciplinary dialogue and promote the unification of knowledge, on the basis of the biblical worldview.

MODAL SPHERE

NUCLEUS OF MEANING

15. Pistic or Fiduciary

EXAMPLES OF OF RELATED SCIENCES Transcendental certainty Fundamental Theology, as to the origin of all things Systematic Theology

14. Ethical

Love

Social Ethics, Bioethics

13. Juridical

Judgement, Juridical harmonization

Law, Political Science

12. Aesthetic

Harmony

Aesthetics, Harmonic Theory, Architecture

11. Economic

Conservation of value

Economics

10. Social

Social intercourse

Sociology, Urbanism, Managerial Sciences

9. Linguistic/ Semiotic

Symbolic significance

Semiotics, Philology

8. Historical/ Formative

Cultural achievement

History, Cultural Anthropology

7. Logical

Rational differentiation

Logic

6. Psychic/Sensory

Sensation

Psychology of Education

5. Biotic

Life

Biology, Ecology, Biochemistry

4. Physical

Matter/Energy

Physics, Chemistry

3. Kinematic

Motion

Kinematics

2. Spatial

Extension

Spatial Geometry

1. Numerical

Discrete Quantity

Mathematics

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

129

Social and Political Establishment Of Dooyeweerd ‘Spheres of Sovereignty’: The Reformational Theory of Social Institutions Based on his general ontology, Dooyeweerd developed an analysis of social institutions. In his view, the plurality of modal laws makes possible a plurality of institutions; at the same time, it ensures that each institution has its individual irreducibility or sovereignty.4 In relatively undifferentiated societies or social structures, such as the tribe, the Roman family, or the medieval guilds, for example, separate institutions have not developed due to historical limitations. Societies capable of developing separate institutions are called differentiated societies. Dooyeweerd also introduced other distinctions in his theory: natural and social communities, inter-individual or inter-communal communities and relationships, authoritarian and free-association social forms; but we will not discuss these details of his theory in this text. Based on his modal scale, Dooyeweerd sought to classify the various social institutions from the point of view of the modalities that could define their characteristic nature. Each institution has a grounding modal law and a guiding modal law. We may call them the ‘base-function’ and the ‘guide-function’. The combination of both gives each institution an objective and a positive form.5 In the case of the family, for example, the base-function would be biotic, and the guide-function would be moral. The other institutions could have historical power as their base-functions and different guide-functions, depending on their main purpose. Pistic Guidefunction

Ethical Juridical Economic Social Analytical Semiotic Aesthetic Formative Psychic

Basefunction

Biotic FAMILY

BUSINESS






























































4 5

WITTE, 1986, 24. Ibid, 29.

STATE CHURCH or SYNAGOGUE

130

Christian Worldview and Transformation


The structure of each institution determines its sphere of sovereignty. Thus the sphere of an organization as a business is the economic one; the sphere of religious organization is the pistic (fiduciary), and the sphere of the state is juridical. This does not mean that each institution is not free from other spheres, but only that each has a specific field of action. The spheres of sovereignty, on the one hand, guarantee the autonomy of each sphere in relation to the others and, on the other hand, impose on each institution the need to obey the norm that qualifies it. The need for submission to the norm of each sphere is something we perceive intuitively. We immediately realize that something is wrong when, for example, a church’s main purpose is to raise funds, and when it uses the wealth of its members as a criterion of participation and merit. Why do we have such a negative impression? Evidently, in this case, constructivist responses that locate the origin of this negative impression in habit or tradition are wide of the mark. What we have here is an ontological distinction; for this reason we immediately say: ‘This is not a church, it is a business!’ The same would apply to any institution that tries to operate, while having as its purpose the norms of another sphere of sovereignty.

The Social Spheres in a Differentiated Society

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

131

The result of Dooyeweerd’s theory is a pluralistic conception of society that establishes autonomous fields of functioning for different institutions and provides a framework of principles, or a modal law framework for organizing society. It is important to note that we are not dealing with a variation of the liberal theme of the ‘private sphere’, precisely because that is an individualistic concept. A reformational perspective affirms the rights of a wide range of communities and collective associations, not just of individuals. In addition, Dooyeweerd’s social theory emphasizes that the pistic sphere of society, reflected in institutions dedicated to ‘religious service’ such as the church, synagogue or mosque, should not be identified with the religious foundation of society. The religious ground-motive, which can be a form of paganism, secularism or Christianity, is expressed in a plurality of forms, depending on the social sphere where its influence is felt.

The Dooyeweerdian State The state is, therefore, one social institution among others. Being historically founded, it has the power to impose its will within a particular geographical area. Power here cannot be seen as bad; Dooyeweerd avoids ontologizing evil by identifying it with power itself. The state is, rather, the historically founded ability to produce some kind of cultural good or structure. Dooyeweerd, following the tradition that comes from the political Calvinism of Johannes Althusius (1557-1638), sees the body politic as the meeting of citizens and institutions in a community oriented to the implementation of public justice.6 The state’s authority is recognized by the people as an incarnation of the body politic, even though it is not founded on the will of individuals, on the basis of a fictitious social contract, nor does it hold absolute sovereignty, based on the power of the sword. Its authority comes from its vocation, founded on the law of the juridical sphere. The basic difficulty of political realism, according to Koyzis, is that: […] political realists are able to recognize only the base-function of the state, which is in the historical modality – this is related to technique and to formative cultural power. But since the state, the institutional church, the political party, and the financial enterprise equally originated from the formative power of man, political realism is incapable of properly distinguishing one from the other, because it fails to discern their individual guide-functions.7

This ontological localization of the state definitively rules out any absolutization of the state or of the individual,8 and gives to the state both its duty and its limitations. Its duty is the implementation of public justice, for which it has the right to use force. Its field of action touches on all spheres of sovereignty, with regard to public justice. But it cannot interfere in other






























































6

SKILLEN, 1996, 94. KOYZIS, 2005 (no page reference). 8 DOOYEWEERD, 1978, 44. 7

Christian Worldview and Transformation


132

spheres of sovereignty in areas where the autonomy proper to each sphere is concerned. This is due to the fact that each institution manifests its own form of power, characterized by its guide-function: There are many different kinds of power: the spiritual power of the Word and the sacraments in the ecclesiastical community, the economic power of free enterprise, and the power of the sciences and the arts. All these types of power fulfil extremely important encaptic functions within the structure of the state. It is a totalitarian fantasy, however, to assume that the state, as a modern Leviathan, can make all these kinds of power subservient to its political purposes, as if they could be absorbed within its own sphere of power, denying them their distinctive characters.9

The Norm of the Sphere of Justice We must bear in mind, first and foremost, that justice is a ‘sphere’ of sovereignty. This means that justice is not exactly a ‘quality’, nor something that has an independent existence. In principal, Dooyeweerd argues that the core of each modality is a transcendental reality of our experience, which cannot be fully grasped as a concept. How do we know, then, what ‘justice’ means? We know through a fundamental intuition of the structure of the world, given in ordinary experience. That is why people often ‘know’ intuitively whether or not something is just. But there is a ‘norm’ of the juridical sphere. In a complex discussion, Dooyeweerd describes the kernel or nucleus of meaning of this sphere as being ‘retribution’ (Dutch: vergelding). ‘Retribution’ is the balancing and harmonization of a multiplicity of individual and social interests, with some standard of proportionality being implied. This is in order to regulate the interpretation of social facts and maintain the legal balance by means of appropriate reactions – that is, the implementation of the appropriate legal consequences.10 Given the abstract nature of the definition, Dooyeweerd recognizes that, belonging to the transcendental horizon of experience, ‘justness’ can only be understood approximately, through analogies.11 He also emphasizes that the principle of retribution does not only act negatively; it has application in malam partem but also in bonam partem, being valid for any and all legal consequences, related to any juridical fact.12






























































9

DOOYEWEERD, 1986, 90. DOOYEWEERD, 1955, 129. 11 So we could have the aesthetic element, when we speak of ‘harmonization’; the economic element, in correcting ‘excess’ (injustice); the numeric element, in the ‘multiplicity of interests’; the physical element, in the idea of juridical cause and effect, etc. (DOOYEWEERD, 1955, 135). Many errors in the definition of the juridical norm are linked to an unbalanced emphasis on one of the analogies that belong to the juridical sphere. 12 DOOYEWEERD, 1955, 130. 10

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

133

The classical conception of justice as suum cuique tribuere (‘to give each one what is due’) involved such a sense of retribution from earliest times, as evidenced in the idea of inescapable necessity found in Heraclitus and Parmenides, in which the divine diké imposes limits that no cosmic powers, nor even the gods, can violate.13 Dooyeweerd unequivocally rejects the idea that legal retribution might be sinful, contrary to Christian love, or selfish. On the contrary, it is precisely retribution that makes possible the realization of altruism, by curbing excessive altruism (for example, in the case of gifts that damage juridical interests) and that makes love of one’s neighbour possible.14 As can be seen, Dooyeweerd’s description of the legal sphere and the central legal principle, vergelding or retribution, is of a purely formal character. This formality must not, however, be thought of as a kind of legal positivism, since it does not involve scepticism about the so-called ‘moral content’ of justice. The point is that, even if there is a positive juridical norm, distinct from morality, there is no ‘essential justice’, in the metaphysical sense that appears in several juristic philosophers who desire to steer clear of legal positivism. Justice, according to Dooyeweerd, occurs in human relationships; it is something that needs to be ‘done’, accomplished. Justice is a praxis. It is clear that this does not prevent us from talking about justice abstractly, for it is possible to know, in a given situation, the judgement that must be executed, or the action that must be taken. Therefore, for legal judgement something more than the legal norm is necessary; what is needed is a human context that gives us a positive notion of justice.

Against the Religious Autonomy of Law Although it is possible to isolate a sphere of reality scientifically, it is not possible to understand it without considering it as part of a cosmic totality of meaning. In concrete legal situations, we do not have ‘purely juridical’ issues, but human issues. It is this context that provides ‘content’ for the ‘formal’ legal norm (to use metaphysical language). This introduces, of course, the problem of particularity and cultural conditioning in the consideration of the human context. Dooyeweerd admitted that the perception of creative norms is, in fact, conditioned by the situation of peoples. However, unlike the relativists, who tend to absolutize historical conditioning, Dooyeweerd indicated that the ultimate reference point of juridical judgement is in religion, thus outdoing all the relativists in going beyond rationalism. And this is where the reformational rejection of juridical scepticism comes in: ‘values’ or ‘standards of proportionality’ capable of guiding legal judgement are not merely arbitrary; the positive content for the




























































13

Ibid, 132-33. Dooyeweerd has an extensive discussion on the nature of the moral sphere and its relationship with love, as a religious principle, and with the juridical sphere (DOOYEWEERD, 1955, 141-63). 14

Christian Worldview and Transformation


134

norm of the juridical sphere is given by a social view-of-the-whole, which in turn is rooted in a given worldview, and even legal positivism cannot escape this condition. A social view-of-the-whole is a vision of human nature and the structure of society, including not only the place of the political, but also of the ethical, religious, economic, etc. Different worldviews will lead us to different positive concepts of justice, affecting legal judgement even in small details. Since, as we have seen, the central elements of a worldview are religious, reformational political philosophy denies the existence of a religious autonomy of law and politics.15

The Reformational Idea of Justice It follows that it is not irrational – though perhaps it may be academically unorthodox – to legitimately construct a positive concept of justice on the basis of the theistic cosmological idea, made explicit in Calvinism as the government of God over his creation, by means of his sovereign will. This idea provides a view-of-the-whole that assumes the existence of an ontological basis behind the diversity of individuals, institutions and social relationships – a cosmonomy. Discussing the idea of justice from a Dooyeweerdian point of view, the reformed political philosopher Paul Marshall identifies this ontological basis as the ‘order of justice’ taught in the Scriptures: In general, the meaning of righteousness taught in the Scriptures is that there is an order of right relations between God, people, and things. This is an order of justice. Relationship patterns that conform to this order are just […]. Obviously, this understanding of justice immediately raises the question of what is due to the different creatures in God’s world. […] A Christian response […] must be in terms of each one’s place in God’s creation.16

The Ordo creationis is, therefore, the basis of a positive theistic concept of justice. And as God’s law for creation establishes differentiated spheres of life, each with its own ethos, its own normativity, we are led to a pluralistic and complex concept of justice. Opposing the liberal interpretation that understands the administration of justice as the realization of individual rights, or the collectivist conception that identifies justice with equality, the reformational theory seeks to honour the structural diversity of society, recognizing the plurality of communities: The neo-Calvinist insistence is that each of the types of social body mentioned deserves recognition on its own terms, and that each contains its own unique domain of rights, duties and authorities – its own ‘sphere of justice’, to use the






























































15

For this reason, Dooyeweerd agreed that the political institution was structurally distinct from religious institutions, but stressed that this had nothing to do with the liberal idea of separation of church and state, which is an unreal concept and not sufficiently pluralist (SKILLEN, 1996, 95). 16 MARSHALL, 1984, 55.

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

135

phrase of Michael Walzer, or its own ‘sphere of sovereignty’. to invoke Abraham Kuyper.17

Justice and Rights The Dooyeweerdian theory of rights involves at least three aspects: the right of humans as such, the spheres of juridical sovereignty in society, and positive law, empirically developed. Like Dr Jonathan Chaplin, Dr Marshall noted that Dooyeweerd used the term ‘rights’ as an equivalent expression to ‘sphere of sovereignty’. Sovereignty in a sphere is precisely the right to develop oneself, in that sphere, in a proper way. Thus, what other people refer to as rights, Dooyeweerd refers to as a sphere of juridical sovereignty.18 Spheres of sovereignty are not exactly moral or ethical imperatives that people should obey, as in juridical naturalism; nor are they arbitrary constructions of the legislator’s power, or particular products of the cultural evolution of a people, as in juridical historicism or in Michael Walzer. Although moral, political and cultural elements play an important role in the affirmation of norms and in the historical constitution of the spheres of sovereignty, there is an ontological foundation that guides this process. The theory of the spheres of sovereignty is a statement about how things really are, revealing the structure of the cosmos and of society.19 The first sphere of juridical sovereignty that we deal with is that of the individual. Dooyeweerd praised the notion of ‘the rights of man’ developed during the French Revolution (1798). Despite his strong criticism of the anthropocentrism of the Revolution, he admitted that it had created space for the ‘recognition of the rights of man as such, regardless of a person’s membership in particular communities, such as race, nation, family, or church’.20 Here, apparently, Dooyeweerd admits the existence of a sphere of individual sovereignty, linked to the nature proper to humanity. Considering that, in Dooyeweerd’s philosophical anthropology, the uniqueness of humanity resides in the imago Dei and in their existence as subjects in all spheres of reality, we may safely say that the sphere of individual sovereignty of humanity – that is, the rights of humans as such – are (1) the right to express their religious substance through (2) the realization of the divine call to every sphere of life, having (3) the supply of all the basic conditions necessary for that realization. Biblically speaking, this ‘fundamental right’ is implicit in the cultural mandate in the first two chapters of Genesis, where humanity is given the role of vice-regent of creation to express, in the creation, the divine image by means of their life and cultural action. From this fundamental right, we






























































17

CHAPLIN, 2004, 3. MARSHALL, 1985, 126. 19 Ibid, 127. 20 DOOYEWEERD, 1979, 186. 18

136

Christian Worldview and Transformation


could make explicit a series of individual ‘human rights’ corresponding to each of the spheres of sovereignty.21 Despite his recognition of a sphere of individual sovereignty, Dooyeweerd cannot be classified as a liberal just like others, as if he were teaching a kind of contractualism, basing laws on mere human will. In his view, the social spheres are not less important than the individual sphere; on the contrary, the human individual is present in them as a collectivity, and human communities are no less human than individuals. We have, therefore, spheres of social sovereignty. As we have seen previously, Dooyeweerd believed that the cosmos and society have their structure on the basis of spheres of sovereignty that cannot be ignored. Thus, for example, the state may try for a time to suppress the church, or science, or economic freedom. But this effort will ultimately fail, for each sphere is ontologically sovereign, and no decree can change that. It is true that the state can regulate by force a social structure belonging to another sphere, but it cannot change the laws of that sphere. The ontological diversity behind social structures undergirds the right of individuals, institutions and communities as the ontological right to function in a sovereign way, following their own internal laws without the heteronomous control of other social spheres. These ‘fundamental’ rights establish other sources for laws, beyond the state: It is because of the spheres of sovereignty that Dooyeweerd stressed that the state is not the only source of valid laws. Really, in its most precise sense, the idea of a sphere of social sovereignty refers to the fact that each sphere answers to and makes its own laws… the law of the state, the public law, is only one kind of law. There are many legislative bodies, many sovereignties in society. For Dooyeweerd, the state is not the only sovereign institution; it is sovereign only in its own sphere, as other institutions and associations are sovereign in theirs.22

Finally, we can move on to positive law which, in Dooyeweerd’s language, reflects the positivization of divine norms for the juridical sphere. For the Dutch philosopher, reality has a ‘law-side’, or ‘cosmonomic’ side, and a side of ‘entities’, or ‘subject-side’. Created beings (subject-side) maintain relationships between subject and object. These relationships always take place under and within the whole cosmonomy, but are guided or co-ordinated by the norm of a given sphere. Thus, there can be a relationship between a person (subject) and a
































































21 Dr Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale, who is deeply influenced by Dooyeweerd, presents quite a useful discussion about what constitutes basic rights. He identifies four main types: rights to protection, freedom, participation and sustenance. These rights would be based on the moral duty that human beings have relative to each other: ‘Rights are grounded in responsibilities’ (Wolterstorff 1983, 83). In basing rights, at least in part, on this moral duty, Wolterstorff follows the same line as Dooyeweerd, agreeing about the need for a human right, connected with the nature of humanity. From a reformational perspective, however, we would say that, in addition to a ‘moral’ basis for rights, we have a religious foundation, which is the value of the human being as created in the image of God, and the covenantal religious duty of humans to God and to their neighbour. 22 MARSHALL, 1985, 129.

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

137

car (object). This relationship involves the totality of the subject and the object, but can be dominantly legal, economic, or aesthetic, etc. Thus, in every juridical relationship, there is a universal element, given by cosmonomy, and an element of particularity, given by the contingency of the subjective side of reality. On this subjective side, there are the particularities of the subject and the object. In a judicial question, therefore, there is always an element of human creativity, in the positivization of the legal norm in a particular situation. On the subject-side is what we can call positive law, or subjective right.23 Another important point is the relational nature of justice. Positive rights, described in law, always refer to a given subject-object relationship. In this case, right does not depend on an innate quality or characteristic that the subject presents, but on the legal relationship, which involves both the subject and the object. As Marshall points out, this has important implications: Rights exist in political contexts and cannot be understood only as characteristics of private persons. Secondly, this means that rights […] should never be considered as the source of legal rules. Legal norms are discovered on the lawside of reality, and these norms reveal how rights can be properly developed.24

Of course, we are not speaking here of the spheres of juridical sovereignty, which provide the content for the development of a subjective right based on the application of the formal legal principle. We refer to positive rights, which are legitimized on the basis of the recognition of the spheres of sovereignty, but which cannot be developed without consideration of concrete situations. A subjective right cannot be valued above divine norms, given in the cosmonomy, nor can it be used to justify privileges in a situation where its admission would imply an injustice. The state must protect rights, but the authority and limits of the state do not derive from positive rights. Subjective or positive rights have a pre-political, ontological basis, but in their particularity they are legally formed, depending on historical developments and political acts.25 This avoids the danger of making the exercise of justice a mere ‘geometric calculation’, based on the letter of the law, without consideration for real-life concrete situations. One last important point about rights: according to the order of the modal scale, not everything can be a legal object. In order for someone to be entitled to something, it must have a pre-juridical modal qualification. Goods that are qualified morally or spiritually cannot be objects of legal rights. Thus, for
































































23 Marshall explains the Dooyeweerdian theory of subjective rights as ‘the justly (that is, retributively) positivized interests of subjects, determined in a juridical subject-object relation’ (MARSHALL, 1985, 137). Later he explains that ‘according to Dooyeweerd, rights do not in themselves supply the norms in terms of which they are positivized. The specification of rights in positive law is subject to the fundamental norm of justice and to the principle of sphere sovereignty. Rights are imputed via a just regulation of a multiplicity of juridical subject-object relations’ (Ibid, 139). 24 MARSHALL, 1985, 133. 25 Ibid, 135.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


138

example, a child has a religious, ontological, right to his father’s love, but he has no legal right to it. A church has no legal right to the commitment of its members. Hence, the law cannot compel anyone to do these things.26 Furthermore, only objects that have an economic function (because of scarcity) and an objective cultural function (existing cultural products) can be objects of law.27

Political Power and the Realization of Social Justice From the reformational perspective, the crucial role in the implementation of public justice belongs to society assembled as a political society, which is embodied in the state. It is this historical institution, qualified by the legal sphere, which has the responsibility of ensuring respect for the spheres of legal sovereignty, judging subject-object relationships based on the legal norm and spheres of sovereignty, and spelling out rights in the form of positive laws. In addition, the state must ensure that these rights are respected, by promoting legal retribution through its coercive power, and it must itself be overseen in its duty by the whole of society. In practical terms, this boils down to four basic principles; three of them are immediate duties of the state, and the fourth, the duty of society as a whole vis-à-vis the state: 1. Preserving the Spheres of Juridical Sovereignty in Society Dooyeweerd, and Abraham Kuyper before him, never tired of emphasizing that the state cannot become an octopus that dominates all areas of life. The first duty of the state, in the quest for public justice, is to recognize the ontological basis of every right, that is, the spheres of juridical sovereignty. The only right of the state, as a form of human association, is to implement the norm of its sphere – the formal principle of law – in the harmonization of human life. Substantial positive content for the realization of social justice is received only as it is based on the recognition of the ontological limits of the juridical task, and in submission to the deliberations of the other spheres of sovereignty. Political negotiation, legislation and the judiciary must respect the autonomy of the academic-scientific sphere, of religions (as beliefs), of the economic sector, of art, of the family and so on, guaranteeing each sphere the freedom to flourish based on its own principles. Therefore, it is not permissible for a state to try to establish laws for family life that disregard the normative aspects of the family. Nor can the state reinforce, as it currently does in Brazil, in primary, middle and higher public education, unilaterally humanist, ‘supposedly neutral’ approaches and content, impeding the freedom of individuals and religious institutions to present points






























































26 27

Ibid, 135-36. Ibid, 136.

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

139

of view contrary to humanism.28 In general, a socialist state is incompatible with the reformational theory of law and politics, because it has a statist and collectivist character – incapable, in principle, of respecting the spheres of legal sovereignty.

2. Preventing the Tyranny of One Social Sphere over Another If the state is to guarantee the implementation of public justice, it must ensure respect for all spheres of society. Therefore it cannot simply be a ‘minimal state’, as in classical liberal theories. If an institution or social sphere acquires cultural power and begins to convert the goods of other spheres into its own, or imposes its norms on other social spheres, the state must intervene and set limits. Thus, for example, the state must intervene when a religious group becomes totalitarian and tries to subject the law, economy, art and science to ecclesiastical power. This happened, for example, in the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. It is clear that much contemporary social injustice is due to the economic sector. The excessive accumulation of capital and the inadequate distribution of income, as well as the collapse of family structures and the capitalization of many churches, are evident signs that the economic sphere has taken over as the ruler of society. The tyranny of the market has its basis in the idolatry of capital and its outcome in the destruction of the poor. Where is the state at this critical moment? 3. Preventing Injustice within a Sphere of Sovereignty In each sphere of sovereignty, there are authorities designated to co-ordinate the distribution of goods and guarantee the ‘justice’ peculiar to that sphere. The realization of the good of each sphere is beyond the competence of the state. We may look at some simple examples. When it is said that the son ‘owes’ love to his parents, it is an example of ‘moral justice’; of course, in this case, justice, has an analogical meaning. It is not ‘legal’ justice. It is therefore not possible for the state to achieve such a quality of justice. From the religious point of view, the same principle applies: a member of a religious community may be excluded because of a doctrinal error. The state cannot judge whether such action is just or not ‘in itself’, but only whether, in its mode of execution, the general rights of that person have been respected. If a company decides to sell tyres instead of car bumpers because its profit will be greater, or if it decides to increase the price of car bumpers, this would be an economic judgement that is beyond the competence of the state. More than questions of
































































28 As Koyzis rightly observes, the central role in education belongs to the parents; it is not the state’s role to determine the spiritual orientation that children should receive. The ‘secular’ education of the public system is nothing less than a system of humanist domination and ideological control (KOYZIS, 2003, 252-58).

140

Christian Worldview and Transformation


constitutional limits, Dooyeweerd saw these as questions of principle that the state necessarily should recognize. There are, however, things that can be considered specifically ‘public’. Parents may, for example, choose which school their children should go to, but they do not have absolute sovereignty over them; they cannot, for example, violate their emotional integrity. If this happens, the state must act and guarantee justice: … we can say that the child’s rights to physical and emotional integrity derive not from the family’s inner sphere of justice but from the public status of children as citizens. Thus, when the state acts to remove a child from an abusive family, it is not interfering with the family’s internal rights – no family has the right to abuse their children – but it is simply requiring the parents to respect the public rights of children.29

Therefore, beyond the freedom proper to each sphere, over which the state has no power, there are legal rights, which find expression in a particular social institution. In this sense, the state is not invading the sovereignty of another sphere when it punishes parents who mistreat children, or when it fines companies that are involved in monopoly, or when it hears a case against a pastor who takes advantage of the faith of the church members. Rather, it is guaranteeing the ‘sphere of sovereignty’ of individuals and institutions and associations against the oppression of other individuals and institutions. A present and perhaps controversial example in which the state should act is the area of rights within the scientific sphere. The state certainly cannot say what is or is not science – that belongs to the sphere of academic knowledge. But it can prevent the sphere of knowledge from dominating other spheres – for example, it could prevent scientists from deciding what kind of research hurts human rights and what kind of research does not. The state can also put a stop to the economic sphere dominating the sphere of science – for example, it could subsidize research that has no immediate economic value or is contrary to economic interests. Finally, the state can and should prevent scientific theories from being discriminated against by the academy, not because they suffer from poor methodological quality or lack of scientific rigour, but because they are based on philosophical and religious presuppositions opposed to the academic status quo. Some Brazilian scientists, or scientific journals such as the publication Superinteressante, are campaigning to galvanize public opinion against scientific creationism and the Intelligent Design movement; and they are doing this, based not on an objective refutation, but on a rejection of philosophical presuppositions. This campaign has a persecutory and discriminatory character, and should have a response from the state in order to guarantee intellectual freedom. Such a response would not, of course, take the form of preventing public debate; rather, it would guarantee the freedom of response in the same scientific media, ensure fair procedures in the granting of research funding and






























































29

CHAPLIN, 2004, 6.

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

141

scholarships, and protect non-naturalistic researchers against discrimination in universities, scientific associations, etc.

4. And What If the State is Unjust? In the case of an unjust state, the answer is political struggle. The people must organize and fight for respect for justice, not merely positive rights. This means defending respect for acquired rights, but it can sometimes mean challenging a right, when it becomes unfair, or is interpreted in a way that leads to injustice. The right to property, for example, cannot have a final character. From a reformational point of view, laws can be unjust, not merely when they contradict themselves, or when they are not socially useful, as in positivist and utilitarian approaches, but also, and especially, when they become obstacles to the realization of justice in the broadest sense – that is, the realization of humanity’s ultimate vocation and respect for the creation order. If the state remains too corrupt, to the point of rendering political struggle unfeasible by legal means, then civil disobedience may be necessary. Thus, early Christians rejected the control of the Roman state over their consciences, preferring to die rather than deny their faith. The Puritan Calvinists in seventeenth-century England promoted armed revolt and seized power to institute a just political order. From the standpoint of Calvinistic thought, it may be right, in certain situations, to break the law and resist the state, not to deny it, but to assist it in fulfilling its duty. The state is not sovereign over humanity, but only over the juridical sphere of society, and the Calvinist, by his nature, will not bow to any tyrant.

The Need to Defend the Poor Gordon Spykman, a theologian and student of Dooyeweerd’s thinking, acknowledged that the notion of the ‘preferential option for the poor’, the central element of Latin American liberation theology, accurately expresses the divine order for the state. He shows that in Scripture, and in Calvin, there is a clear connection between the implementation of justice and the defence of the poor.30 This is because the transgression of the spheres of sovereignty always takes place through the action of an individual, institution or human community that holds more power than others. For this reason, the best way to ensure public justice is simply to look at society for signs of oppression at any level. And since, as we have seen, subjective rights are always linked to scarce objects, the economic aspect is of crucial importance. According to Dooyeweerd, the core principal of the economic sphere is stewardship. This means that the accumulation of capital cannot be an end in itself; it must involve redistribution of income to increase the quality of life of






























































30

SPYKMAN, 1989, 86-89.

142

Christian Worldview and Transformation


the whole of society. Wealth and property are legitimate, but ultimately they have a social destiny, and the state must create means to guarantee this destiny. In any case, we cannot think that ‘social justice’ can be achieved merely by the redistribution of income. When, for example, Dr Sonia Felipe, an advocate of John Rawls’s thought, states that ‘proposing and employing a just model for the distribution of goods is the political task par excellence, unquestionable and unending in a democratic society’,31 we must raise an objection: it depends on what we mean by ‘goods’. Provided we accept the plurality of social goods and the inaccessibility of certain goods to the regulatory power of the state, we can agree with her. In this respect, Dooyeweerd’s theory closely approximates Michael Walzer’s theory of ‘spheres of justice’ with his concept of ‘complex equality’.

Final Considerations According to Dooyeweerd’s thinking, there is no contradiction between ‘power’ and ‘justice’. The contradiction occurs only when there is an inadequate conception of justice, or when the reality of justice is denied, or when the concept of power is constituted from a tyrannical model or experience of power. For there to be a substantial coherence between power and justice in the social life of a people, it is necessary to combat tyranny and heteronomy, clearly identifying the limits of state power and recognizing the legal sovereignty of each sphere of creation and of society. Obviously, it will be necessary to abandon the collectivist theories of the state, as well as all liberal forms of contractualism, since they dissolve the sovereignty of the social spheres in individual rights or in the ‘collective good’, and suffer from the limitation of recognizing only one single source for laws – the sovereignty of the state. Thus, in Dooyeweerd, the realization of social justice necessarily passes through social pluralism – confessional pluralism and institutional and associative pluralism. It involves overcoming collectivist and individualist ideologies, and the dogma of the religious autonomy of law; and it involves the predominance of a theistic worldview at the heart of political thought and practice. Is it possible to position Dooyeweerd’s political philosophy ideologically? Certainly, it cannot be identified with either political liberalism or socialism. It is progressive in the struggle for social justice, but it does not share the social constructionism of the left, which relativizes all forms of social order. I believe we can describe it as a kind of Reformed Christian democracy, a particular type of ‘Christian centrism’, to use the language of Robinson Cavalcanti. It is precisely here that we can find one of the main contributions of Dooyeweerd’s






























































31

FELIPE, 2001, 134.

Society, Justice and Politics in Christian Worldview Philosophy

143

social and political thinking: the possibility of a base for democratic political action with a clearly Christian identity. But perhaps his greatest merit was the way he could integrate the Christian worldview, which contains the ideas of divine sovereignty, creation and fall, with the social and political philosophy of modernity, in a system that is both Christian and contemporary. With this, he offers us one of the most sophisticated models for the integration of faith and rationality so far produced by Christianity. And such integration is indispensable for the practice of integral transformation today. In modern societies, action without knowledge is not possible; in various fields such as politics, social service, education, economics and theology itself, attention must be paid to science, and Christians can no longer ignore this characteristic of modern societies when articulating their action in the world. On the other hand, we cannot become corrupt and let go of the faith in order to guarantee spheres of action and influence; we cannot simply assimilate humanist standards of thought and action. Dooyeweerd’s reformational thinking can help us to maintain a dialogue with humanistic social thinking without jeopardizing the foundations of faith. It not only challenges us to change social reality, as did liberation theology, but it also challenges us to change our thinking about society with the Christian worldview as our basic premise.




8. NICHOLAS WOLTERSTORFF AND THE SOCIAL ETHIC OF DUTCH CALVINISM1 Luiz Roberto França de Mattos The primary aim of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the thinking of the Dutch Calvinist school of thought, the basis for Nicholas Wolterstorff’s social ethics. As will become clear to the reader, Wolterstorff also makes critical use of a presupposition usually associated with liberation theology – namely, the so-called ‘dependency theory’.

Nicholas Wolterstorff: A Valid Option in Socio-Economic Issues? Nicholas Wolterstorff2 has written on a variety of subjects such as aesthetics, education, epistemology and the theology of Revelation.3 Some of his works – such as Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate, and the series of lectures entitled Why do Religious People Feel They Are Losing their Voice in American Political Affairs? (given at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, in 1998) – deal specifically with socio-political issues. Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, only one focuses specifically on socio-economic issues: Until Justice and Peace Embrace (UJ, 1983), the Kuyper Lectures delivered at the Free University of Amsterdam in 1981. In this chapter, I evaluate Wolterstorff’s social ethics on the basis of a matrix consisting of the socio-cultural, economic and religious spheres. This matrix






























































1

The term ‘Dutch Calvinism’, also known as ‘neo-Calvinism’, refers to a return to, and development of, the Calvinist tradition in Holland, from the mid-nineteenth century. Its main exponents were Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), and among their successors are Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977), and also (in North America) Wolterstorff himself. 2 Nicholas Wolterstorff has a BA from Calvin College (1953) and a PhD in Philosophy from Harvard University (1956). Before taking up his present position as Noah Porter Professor of Philosophical Theology at Yale University, he taught for two years at Yale University and for thirty years at his alma mater, Calvin College. 3 See, for example, the following works in different areas. Aesthetics: Art in Action: toward a Christian Aesthetic (1980); Education: Educating for Responsible Action (1980); Voices from the Past: Reformed Educators (1992); Keeping Faith: Embracing the Tensions in Christian Higher Education (1996); Epistemology: John Locke and the Ethics of Belief (1996); Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology (2001); Theology of Revelation: Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (1995).

Christian Worldview and Transformation


146

will be useful in helping us, first, to identify his diagnosis of contemporary society and, secondly, to understand Wolterstorff’s proposals in this area.

Human Societies: Fallen Societies in Need of Reform Socio-Cultural Model According to Wolterstorff, social structures are not part of the order of nature, but are a result of human decisions. His diagnosis is clear: the structure of the social world is ‘decayed, in need of reformation’ (UJ, 3). He expresses it in the following terms: The structures of the world are fallen. They are alienated from the will of God. Instead of providing authentic satisfaction to us who live in them, they spread misery and injustice, crushing the realization of what human life was designed to be (ibid. 23).4

This judgement, he adds, is consistent with the Calvinist and Puritan tradition,5 and it is on the basis of this tradition that he elaborates his assessment of contemporary society, as the following quotation vividly illustrates: *Our world is a world of striking triumphs […] but it is also a world of deep sorrows. There are, for one thing, the sorrows of injustice. Those who enjoy a vast range of choice co-exist in our world-system with nearly a billion others who live in a state of perpetual poverty, and with hundreds of millions for whom political terror, torture and tyranny are the ever-present context of their lives […] There are also the sorrows of misplaced values. […] Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year on armaments to terrorize and kill our fellow human beings. […] In addition, there are all those miseries that result from our social order – call them the sorrows of undesired consequences: the destruction of traditions, the loss of a sense of rootage and support and belongingness resulting from the destruction of concrete communities […] the boredom resulting from work utterly lacking in intrinsic satisfaction and performed merely as a means to acquire the money to support one’s family […] the elimination of environments expressive of our inner selves resulting from the pervasive rationalization of our lives (ibid. 42).6






























































4

Later, Wolterstorff refers positively to Bob Goudzwaard’s evaluation of western society, saying: ‘That something is wrong, profoundly wrong, he (Goudzwaard) is in no doubt’ (UJ, 59). 5 Wolterstorff does not offer a detailed historical study, but simply appeals to Thomas Case, a Puritan minister, to justify his statement (cf. UJ, 9). 6 Translator’s note: an asterisk is placed before a quotation which has been supplied from the original text of Until Justice and Peace Embrace.

Nicholas Wolterstorff and the Social Ethic of Dutch Calvanism

147

Economic Model On the economic level, Wolterstorff rejects the so-called ‘modernization theories’,7 seeing them as inadequate to explain the varying degrees of development among nations, and to formulate appropriate responses to the under-development of the so-called Third World. He affirms that these modernization theories are developed on the basis of two assumptions: (1) In principle, it is possible for all societies to reach a point of modernization without any change in societies already modernized; (2) The causes of the lack of modernization (development) of a society must be explained by intrinsic factors of that society – be it lack of money for investment, inadequate character formation, or other factors – rather than by any outside influence of other modernized (developed) societies. Wolterstorff’s categorical rejection of modernization theory is evident in his statement: It is my judgement, along with a good number of others, that in the face of these facts (the growing distance between more and less developed societies, the worsening standard of living of many under-developed people and societies after World War II), it is time to stop making excuses and begin to admit that the theory of modernization is bankrupt (emphasis ours). It simply does not provide a plausible and adequate justification for these phenomena – or similar phenomena – in the last five centuries. The lack of development among undeveloped [countries] cannot be explained without taking into account the impact of highly developed areas on undeveloped ones (UJ, 25).

Wolterstorff, following a common insight of liberation theologians, finds more satisfactory the theory that interprets the world as containing a single society, or an integrated economy unifying different nations.8 Consequently, he does not hesitate to endorse the liberationist perspective, which sees the underdevelopment of the Third World as primarily ‘derived from exploitative domination of the periphery by the core (centre)’ (ibid. 44).9 Wolterstorff explains the notions of ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ as follows. Our world-system has a ‘horizontal structure of core and periphery, with a dividing zone between them, which can be called the semi-periphery’ (UJ, 31). What characterizes certain core areas is, above all, their economic preponderance in
































































7 Those who defend the so-called modernization theories ‘see our world as containing a large number of distinct societies, each at a certain point in the process of modernization’ (UJ, 24). 8 The so-called world-system theory. Wolterstorff’s acceptance of this theory could not be plainer. ‘Surely,’ he states, ‘the world-system thesis is correct: there is no area in today’s world that is not significantly influenced in its “development” by other areas’ (UJ, 26). 9 *’It is important for us in the West,’ Wolterstorff argues, ‘to let these words [the liberationist thesis of the exploitation of the periphery by the core] sink in. Most of us are still in the thrall of development (modernization) theory. […] From what I said in the preceding chapter, it will be evident that my own conviction is that the Third World is largely right on this issue and that we are wrong’ (UJ, 45).

148

Christian Worldview and Transformation


the global system, as a consequence of the concentration of wealth. This structure, Wolterstorff believes, explains significantly, if not completely, the reason for the asymmetry in the distribution of capital in the world – namely, that the workers on the periphery have been exploited repulsively by the owners of capital (UJ, 32). Wolterstorff’s critique of the contemporary economic model, however, is not derived only from ideas originating in the theology of liberation. In fact, in spite of his clear appreciation for some of the contributions of this theology, Wolterstorff also recognizes the value of the neo-Calvinist economic analysis which, he considers, provides a superior explanation as to the relationship between humanity and creation. The vocation of humanity is to bring to reality the potential stored in creation. I think we should see this neo-Calvinist view as an advance beyond the perspective of liberation theology which, while struggling to reach this point, was prevented from doing so by its acceptance of the contemporary theological premise that God’s creation is only important in relation to salvation (ibid. 32). Among those who endorse the neo-Calvinist perspective, Wolterstorff appeals mainly to Herman Dooyeweerd and Bob Goudzwaard. Dooyeweerd, notes Wolterstorff with apparent sympathy, sees no conflict in the process of dominating nature; in fact he says, ‘mastery is good; only its abuse is bad’ (1979: 67). An appropriate process of domination, according to Dooyeweerd, stimulates a flourishing of culture in spheres such as science, art, the church, industry, commerce, schools and voluntary organizations (ibid. 79). This process of social differentiation has, therefore, an ontological basis for neo-Calvinists: the permanent types of social formation – the state, the family, the school, the productive enterprise – represent a flourishing of the potentials of creation and must be developed by humans (Wolterstorff, UJ, 57). NeoCalvinists also propose that each of these types of social formation has a specific nature – in fact, a normative nature (UJ, 58). Dooyeweerd suggests that humanity must pursue three aims in the development of this historical-cultural process: (1) It is up to each sphere to understand its own normative nature. […] (2) Institutions belonging to one sphere should not dominate over institutions belonging to another, because when one sphere is dominated by another, life in that sphere becomes distorted and unable to flourish according to its own nature. We must work for the sovereignty of the spheres […]; (3) It is for humankind to seek what may be called the discovery, or the revelation of the potentials of creation inherent in each sphere. In this process, each sphere must be open to the norms of others, though free from domination by the rest (UJ, 58-59). Although Wolterstorff clearly appreciates Dooyeweerd’s proposal, he still finds it inadequate to explain why the development of the potentials of creation occurred primarily in the western world, suggesting the emergence of the capitalist economy as a possible explanation (ibid. 57).

Nicholas Wolterstorff and the Social Ethic of Dutch Calvanism

149

Leaving aside the ambiguities of Dooyeweerd,10 Wolterstorff also appeals to Bob Goudzwaard’s diagnosis of western society. The fundamental problem in the West is that ‘we accept economic growth and technological advancement as the greatest social good’. Goudzwaard adds: In the private sphere, we subordinate everything to the production of more and more surplus by making profit the decisive target of our undertakings, and by using this profit to obtain more capital goods – which are then used to produce even more surplus, and so on. At the national level, we subordinate everything to GDP growth. Economic growth, technological innovation and scientific advancement outweigh all other values and, furthermore, they are considered to be above all normative evaluation (ibid. 59-60).

This unrestricted commitment to the production of a surplus has, according to Goudzwaard, brought about three undesirable consequences. First, the economic sphere exercises dominion over all the others. Secondly, economic life has not followed proper norms. Thirdly, the economic sphere has not been open to the norms of other spheres, thus hindering their proper development (ibid. 61). Wolterstorff is explicitly appreciative of Goudzwaard’s analysis, which he calls *’profoundly insightful’ (UJ, 62). Goudzwaard (1979: 152) identifies the ceaseless capitalist striving for economic growth as a kind of contemporary idolatry. This idolatrous practice, Wolterstorff adds, has been followed by a theoretical justification. *’A whole ideology – a framework of justifying beliefs – has arisen within the society shaped by this practice, and this too must be seen as a component of our idolatry’ (UJ 64).11 We are dealing with a social idolatry: *I myself think that what we find of fundamental worth in our modern worldsystem is less accurately described as increased production than as increased mastery of nature and society so as to satisfy our desires… (UJ, 65).

Two basic dynamics summarize, therefore, the neo-Calvinist analysis of society: the dynamic of differentiation – the revelation of the potentials of creation – formulated by Dooyeweerd, and the dynamic of faith/idolatry, formulated by Goudzwaard (ibid. 65). Where is Wolterstorff situated between the two ethical-social currents mentioned above, namely liberation theology and neo-Calvinism? His clear intention is to draw upon both. ‘Each vision,’ he says, ‘has perceptions that we should incorporate into a larger perspective, and each has limitations that the other helps to correct’ (ibid. 67). I shall examine later the synthesis Wolterstorff seeks to achieve when I deal with his proposal for the economic model. Before doing so, however, it is important to emphasize his conviction that the economic dimension has profoundly shaped our modern (or post-modern) world, with many negative
































































10 Wolterstorff sees an ambiguity in the possibility that social conservatives could take over Dooyeweerd’s formulation to justify their own positions. 11 It is not entirely clear in the text whether this is Wolterstorff’s conclusion or Goudzwaard’s (or maybe both).

150

Christian Worldview and Transformation


consequences. The most important of these – ‘the great question that surpasses all others in importance’ – is the ‘question of poverty’ (ibid. 67). In a statement that closely resembles those of the liberation theologians, such as Leonard Boff, Wolterstorff exhorts: Of course, it is not the simple fact of widespread world poverty that is a scandal for the Church and for all humanity; the scandal lies in the fact that this infamous poverty is not today an inevitable feature of our human situation, and even more so in that the impoverished co-exist in our world-system with an equal number living in an unprecedented affluence. Poverty in the midst of abundance, with the distance (between the two) becoming greater: this is the scandal (ibid. 74).

There is no doubt that Wolterstorff views the theory of dependence sympathetically,12 and therefore rejects the explanations proposed by development theories, such as those suggested by Michael Novak (UJ, 92). In his own words, *‘[much of the] poverty of the Third World… is the result of the interaction of the core of the world-system with the periphery over the course of centuries’ (ibid. 86). It is important to note that he does not deny the existence of other factors behind Third World poverty, such as character formation, or religious perspectives and attitudes. However, these factors do not per se constitute the whole picture; Wolterstorff would probably add that they are, to some degree, a social consequence of the First World’s impositions on the Third. Among the basic causes of poverty he would count an unrestricted commitment to economic growth, lack of regulation of the market economy, and the absence of the voice of those who provide labour in industrial and commercial activities (UJ, 141).

Religious Model The accusation of some liberation theologians that an emphasis on the transcendence of God is ultimately responsible for dissociating him from the world he created certainly does not apply to Nicholas Wolterstorff, for whom God is deeply involved with his creation. Indeed, when he refers to the fallen structure of our world, which has spread misery and injustice, he adds that God is ‘profoundly disturbed by our human condition’ (ibid. 23).13 I do not have space here for a discussion of the sacramental nature that Wolterstorff attributes to the world. In any case, his thesis seems to be simply that blindness to this sacramental nature is the determining factor of western idolatry. Since the world in general and human beings in particular are not






























































12

According to the theory of dependence, there is a causal relation between the wealth of developed countries and the poverty of the undeveloped. In other words, the underdevelopment of the poorer nations is a by-product of the development of the rich nations. 13 A discussion of Wolterstorff’s vision of divine passibility is obviously far beyond the scope of this chapter.

Nicholas Wolterstorff and the Social Ethic of Dutch Calvanism

151

perceived as divine sacraments,14 both are used and abused by an economic system that gives priority to profit at the expense of higher values. The consequence that Wolterstorff derives from this sacramental – or revelational – perspective is that the world should be considered to be the object of an appropriate attitude of stewardship by human beings.

Shalom: A Reality For All Nations Wolterstorff firmly believes that Christians have their role; in fact, they play a fundamental part in the reform of the social order. ‘The saints,’ he says, ‘are responsible for the structure of the social world in which they find themselves’ (UJ, 3). Such a conviction, he argues, is deeply rooted in the Puritan tradition, as Michael Walzer demonstrated in his book, The Revolution of the Saints (1965). In fact, Wolterstorff traces the roots of this Puritan commitment to their spiritual predecessor, John Calvin. According to Calvin, says Wolterstorff, the knowledge of God is not understood simply as a mere contemplation of the divine essence; rather, it consists of an ‘appropriate response to his works’ (ibid. 13). This response, stemming from gratitude, must be exercised by all occupations in society. This is a true possibility, according to Calvinism, for all these occupations are fundamentally of equal value from God’s perspective. In other words, ‘a career directed towards this world, by someone who has God behind him, should not be considered inferior to a career directed towards God’ (ibid. 17). The conviction of the early Calvinists about God’s call to work in society as an expression of gratitude to him does not mean, however, that they failed to recognize that ‘the structures of society, as presented to us, are corrupted and do not serve that aim’ (ibid. 17). On the contrary, they were aware of the need for a radical social critique, a critique based primarily on Scripture (ibid., 18). What, then, is the root of this radical social critique, according to Calvinism? ‘The answer is clear,’ says Wolterstorff: It is the Word of God, presented to us in the Bible, which shows us the corruption of our social order. It is this same Word of God that provides us with our






























































14

Wolterstorff’s view that the world is a sacrament of God differs from the Reformed view which, historically, has confessed only two sacraments. See, for example, the Heidelberg Catechism, question 68, which asks: ‘How many sacraments has Christ instituted in the New Testament?’ The answer is: ‘Two, holy baptism and the holy supper’ (Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions, 1988, 41). The Belgic Confession declares: ‘Furthermore, we are satisfied with the number of sacraments that Christ, our Master, ordained for us. There are only two: the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Supper of the Lord’ (ibid. 113). The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms: ‘There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord’ (Chapter XXVII, section IV; Hodge, 1988, 334). Perhaps Wolterstorff was only wishing to emphasize the natural revelation of God through the world, something which does not in fact require that the world be considered a sacrament.

152

Christian Worldview and Transformation


fundamental standard for reform. The reform of society according to the Word of God: this was the Calvinist goal (ibid. 18).15

Deeply appreciative of this ‘passionate desire to reshape the social world’ (UJ, 21), Wolterstorff recognizes two major failings in the attempts to achieve this goal, namely, intolerance and triumphalism (ibid. 22).16 I mentioned above that Wolterstorff aspires to benefit, to ‘learn’ as he himself affirms, from ‘two of the most penetrating contemporary articulations of the Christian worldview: liberation theology, especially in its South American model, and neo-Calvinism, which had its origins in Holland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’ (UJ, 43). He is convinced that it is possible to combine both of them in a higher synthesis that incorporates their insights and also corrects their respective deficiencies (ibid., 67). What would this synthesis – let’s call it Wolterstorff’s Revised Neo-Calvinism (WRNC) – look like? From the theology of liberation, Wolterstorff would critically incorporate one of its main theses: dependency theory. This means that WRNC would recognize that our situation must not be described simply by admitting that ‘we are all dominated by the idol of growth’. We must also admit that ‘certain groups of people are exploited by another group of people’ (ibid. 67). From the neo-Calvinist school, in turn, WRNC would embrace the emphasis on the discovery or revelation of the potentials of creation – in other words, *’the importance of freedom by mastery’ (ibid. 69). Wolterstorff argues that there is a comprehensive biblical view that incorporates in a single image the positive elements of liberation theology as well as those of neo-Calvinism: the vision of shalom, initially articulated in the Old Testament literature, but also expressed in the New Testament (ibid. 69). Shalom, though intertwined with justice, goes beyond it. Shalom, as Wolterstorff defines it, is ‘the human being dwelling in peace in all his relationships: with God, with himself, with other human beings, with nature’ (ibid. 69). Or again: *Shalom in the first place incorporates right, harmonious relationships to God and delight in his service. […] Secondly, shalom incorporates right, harmonious relationships to other human beings and delight in the human community. […] Thirdly, shalom incorporates right, harmonious relationships to nature and delight in our physical surroundings (ibid. 70).

*‘The peace which is shalom is not merely the absence of hostility, not merely being in right relationship. Shalom at its highest is enjoyment in one’s relationships’ (UJ, 69). It is, therefore, nothing less than the cause of God
































































15 To formulate a critique of the social order, we should not appeal to an ‘inner voice’. For such a purpose, Wolterstorff affirms, ‘we have a word from outside – a word from God’ (UJ, 18). 16 To be exact, Wolterstorff does not use the word ‘intolerance’, but he says that Calvinists, when they referred to justice, ‘failed to think how they could live together, in a just society, with those with whom they disagreed.’ This, he adds, ‘was their great and tragic failure.’

Nicholas Wolterstorff and the Social Ethic of Dutch Calvanism

153

himself and, consequently, the cause in which all who believe in Jesus and all who wish to do the will of God are called to be engaged (ibid. 72). In short, Lima and Amsterdam have to walk side-by-side. Wolterstorff suggests that a synthesis of the theology of liberation and neo-Calvinism is not only possible – it is mandatory. Such a synthesis will ensure that *’our work will always have the two dimensions of a struggle for justice and the pursuit of increased mastery of the world so as to enrich human life’ (UJ, 72). What would a society that longs for shalom look like, according to Wolterstorff?

Socio-Political-Cultural Model As already mentioned, the society Wolterstorff longs to see is one in which the glory of God is pursued in the various occupations of its citizens as an expression of gratitude. Each occupation must aim for the common good. Activities that do not meet this criterion should be ‘discarded’ (ibid. 16). As far as I can tell, Wolterstorff does not go into detail about what kind of sociopolitical structure will ensure compliance with this condition. The choice of the socio-political model by the various countries apparently allows for some degree of flexibility. What should be observed is that any models adopted must promote and/or allow the development of the potentials of creation, thus allowing the dynamics of cultural differentiation to take place (ibid. 54-57). Any socio-political system that allows the flourishing of culture in areas such as the spheres of the sciences, the arts, the state, industry, commerce, schools and voluntary organizations, to use some of the examples mentioned by Dooyeweerd, should be considered acceptable. In addition, it seems logical to conclude that all political systems that, in fact or potentially, prevent the existence of the different spheres of sovereignty, or even compromise their distinction, should be rejected. For this reason, regimes that suppress religious freedom, voluntary associations or free trade should be judged inadequate in their contribution to the realization of shalom. Regimes that oppose the development of a harmonious relationship with nature are subject to the same criticism (ibid. 70).

Economic Model Wolterstorff’s model, in the mould of the neo-Calvinist tradition, is one in which space exists for the mastery of creation, and for the development of its potential. Industrial activity, free trade and, more broadly, business activity are thus counted among the obligations that human beings have to God (ibid. 57). These economic arrangements must differentiate themselves from political, family and ecclesiastical arrangements. In other words, although economic activity must have the necessary freedom to develop its potential, care must be taken to prevent the economic sphere from dominating the others (ibid. 61).

154

Christian Worldview and Transformation


Following Goudzwaard, Wolterstorff proposes an economic model in which two principles prevail. First, the economic sphere is *’genuinely open to the norms of the other spheres’; secondly, all economic activity follows the principle of stewardship (UJ, 61). As far as I can tell, Wolterstorff does not draw detailed conclusions from these general principles, but it seems clear that in his economic model there is an appropriate combination of sufficient freedom to allow the development of the potential of creation with sufficient regulation to prevent economic maxims from being imposed on the other spheres of life. In the light of Wolterstorff’s neo-Calvinist position, are there systems that would, in principle, be eliminated? It seems that there is little room for doubt that a laissez-faire capitalism, in which the market has the last word, would be unacceptable, since this would allow the economic sphere to invade other spheres, such as the family and the state. In addition, any socialist system whose regulation of the economic sphere implied the risk of misuse or abuse of government power, thus threatening freedom, would also be inappropriate. Wolterstorff’s vision is of a society whose institutions serve the cause of justice and shalom. It is a social vision characterized by harmonious relationships with other human beings and nature, as well as by a strong concern for the poor. In such a society, the rich would have a voluntary role in fighting poverty. This is the conclusion I draw from the following statement: It is against his [God’s] will that there be a society in which some are poor; in his perfected Kingdom there will be none at all. It is even more against his will that there be a society in which some are poor while others are rich (ibid. 76).

If a political system that imposes equality simply by taking away from the rich and distributing among the poor seems to be discarded because it would violate the autonomy of the economic sphere, and if a laissez-faire capitalism is discarded because it lacks the necessary moral foundation to prevent the idolatry of capital, the solution seems to point to an economic model where legislation grants the poor some minimal rights which they possess simply because they are made in the image and likeness of God (ibid. 77-78). Wolterstorff believes that we, as human beings, have *’rights to sustenance’ (ibid. 81). These rights, he adds, are basic *’in the sense that they essay to guarantee life itself – without which, of course, all other rights are meaningless’ (ibid. 82). The rich, insists Wolterstorff, appealing to Calvin,17 have a key role in shaping a social structure striving for shalom: *I want to say, as emphatically as I can, that our concern for poverty is not an issue of generosity, but of rights. If a rich man knows of someone who is starving and has the power to help that person but chooses not to do so, then he violates the starving person’s rights as surely and reprehensibly as if he had physically assaulted the sufferer. Acknowledging this truth may make us uncomfortable, but it is a conclusion that we must draw from our reflections on shalom and the solidarity of all humanity in the image of God (UJ, 82).
































































17 See, for example, Commentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians, 20 v. (Calvin, repr. 1979, 2, 296-97).

Nicholas Wolterstorff and the Social Ethic of Dutch Calvanism

155

Socio-economic arrangements should necessarily ensure that other human beings are ‘adequately sustained in their existence’ (ibid. 81). Wolterstorff does not seem to rely solely on piety and charity to deal with the issue of poverty. ‘These are not enough,’ he says (ibid. 81). Is socialism the answer, as Wolterstorff at some points seems to suggest? If this is the case, what kind of socialism does he have in mind? He does not explore these issues, merely making a vague reference to Kuyper’s endorsement of socialism. In any case, the socio-economic regime adopted must ensure that the people are protected from the loss of their livelihood while avoiding the creation of structures of oppression (ibid. 84-85).

Religious Model As already mentioned, the concept of shalom set out by Wolterstorff includes not only a harmonious relationship with other human beings, with nature and with God, but also pleasure in his service. This perspective, far from withdrawing us from our physical environment, ‘embodies our proper relationship with the physical, but more than that, our delight in it’ (ibid. 132). The physical world is, therefore, ‘adequate for our satisfaction’ (ibid. 130), and ‘sensory delight is not to be repudiated, but disciplined, so as to be a component within the life of gratitude’ (ibid. 133). The Christian way of being-in-the-world is the appropriate response, a response that incorporates both gratitude to God, and responsible care for the divine creation. A life of gratitude, expressed in the rhythmic alternation of work and worship (ibid. 147), lies at the heart of the religious model proposed by Wolterstorff for a society that pursues shalom. It is easy to see that, for the individual [and for society, I would add] that perceives the world as a divine sacrament, work and worship are fundamentally connected. Both are expressions of gratitude; together they constitute the two sides of the manifestation of devotion (ibid. 151).18 A historical manifestation of work and worship, developed in rhythmic alternation, can be observed in the history of Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament. In that historical context, a 6-and-1 alternation between work and rest, with adoration occurring primarily in the context of rest, represents the alternation of ‘dominion over the natural and social world with grateful enjoyment of this world’ (ibid. 153). Even more, according to the Christian mode of being-in-the-world, work and rest/worship are not only an expression of gratitude, but also an anticipatory celebration of the new creation and future redemption (ibid. 153). This worship is more than mere liturgical activity; it must be followed by works of mercy and justice in order to be indisputably authenticated (ibid. 156).






























































18

Work and worship, as expressions of gratitude, are not necessarily connected to the view of the world as a sacrament of God. They can and should be legitimate expressions of gratitude, even though we may not see the world in this sacramental perspective.

156

Christian Worldview and Transformation


Gratitude to God, expressed through work and worship, is the essence of the religious model proposed by Wolterstorff. Work must treat the world as God’s revelation and still leave room for the exercise of mastery over it; worship must be expressed in a liturgical life validated by works of mercy and justice. This is Wolterstorff’s proposal for our planet.

Conclusion Wolterstorff’s diagnosis of the present situation, and in particular his appeal to neo-Calvinist socio-economic ethics, is both discerning and illuminating. In addition to adopting what appears to be a more correct version of dependency theory,19 it also benefits from the adoption of a neo-Calvinist perspective on the relationship between human beings and creation. Human beings, according to this perspective, are called to master nature and develop its potential. This activity is properly translated by the notion of stewardship, which makes it clear that human beings are called to rule over creation, though always aware that creation does not belong to them, but to God. And this rule involves all areas of life in which human beings must express their gratitude, through their earthly callings, with the ultimate goal of giving glory to God. The neo-Calvinist emphasis on the flourishing of different spheres of power, each with its set of norms and with autonomy in relation to the others, seems to provide a system that allows sufficient freedom in the economic sphere to safeguard the existence of a market economy and private property, while also ensuring the possibility of an appropriate degree of government regulation. How much regulation will be required for the proper functioning of the market is an empirical question that will possibly have different answers in different contexts. Wolterstorff’s vision of nations striving co-operatively for shalom is a challenge and a call to responsibility. Nonetheless, the detailed outworking of neo-Calvinist socio-economic ethics, in order to respond properly and relevantly to complex contemporary issues and to implement policies that can effectively lead to shalom, is something that remains to be done.
































































19 A discussion of dependency theory is clearly beyond the scope of this chapter, which is no more than an introduction to Wolterstorff’s social ethic. It is the present writer’s opinion, however, that an unqualified acceptance of this theory is inadvisable, for various reasons.




9. THE POLITICAL THEOLOGY OF INTEGRAL MISSION IN BRAZIL AND REFORMATIONAL SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY: COMING TOGETHER Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho One of the key features of the Integral Mission movement in Latin America is its focus on politics. From the outset, in the interest of bringing ‘the whole gospel to the whole person’, the movement’s theologians and missiologists engaged in political discourse, and joined forces to formulate evangelical political action. The climax of these efforts was the well-known ‘Declaration of Jarabacoa’ (Dominican Republic, 1983), when a large group of Latin American evangelical theologians, politicians and activists reached agreement on the main lines of evangelical political action. The discussion continued with various continental consultations on evangelical participation in Latin American politics, as well as with local consultations in different countries. This reflection also took place in Brazil, mainly through the work of Robinson Cavalcanti and Paul Freston, but with the contributions of many others, including progressive evangelical publishers and organizations such as World Vision and the Progressive Evangelical Movement, all of which played an important role. In this chapter, we discuss the most important themes in the social and political reflection of the Integral Mission movement in Brazil, and seek to make a critical assessment of it. Recognizing that no interpreter can escape their own theological and political position, I begin by making explicit my own point of reference for this evaluation: we shall examine the political reflections of Integral Mission from the standpoint of the Reformed worldview, and specifically with reference to Herman Dooyeweerd’s Reformed social philosophy.

The Political Theology Of Integral Mission In Brazil Reflection in Brazil: An Overview Broadly speaking, Brazilian evangelical political thought, in Integral Mission circles, follows the same general trends as in Latin America in general. It maintains a stance strongly committed to criticism of American intellectual colonization and to the development of autochthonous reflection; it adopts dependency theory as a global explanation for Brazilian under-development

158

Christian Worldview and Transformation


and the main cause of poverty; although it resists an identification with Marxism, as is more common among ecumenical and liberation theologies, it is almost always socialist. Several entities have been key in the social and political reflection of the Integral Mission movement in Brazil. For example: the Fraternidade Teológica Latino-Americana, Setor Brasil (Latin American Theological Fraternity, Brazil Sector) (FTL-B) which, through its Theological Bulletins, exerted a profound influence among Brazilian evangelical theologians; the Aliança Bíblica Universitária (ABU) [affiliated to IFES, similar to UCCF in Britain], which has published books, organized conferences and has an important discipleship ministry; World Vision, through its projects and the publication of many important books by its Missão Editora and especially, in partnership with ABU, the ten volumes of the ‘Lausanne Series’; the magazine Ultimato and its publishing house, which since the 1980s have defied the evangelical status quo, presenting progressive opinions, and becoming the main vehicle for spreading the thinking of Robinson Cavalcanti; the Vinde ministries of Caio Fábio, which unfortunately collapsed; the Encontrão movement and publishing house, and the MEP – Movimento Evangélico Progressista (Progressive Evangelical Movement) which has been going since 1992.1 In Brazil, Robinson Cavalcanti and Paul Freston have been the leading figures in the political reflection of the Integral Mission movement. Robinson Cavalcanti, from the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, was a bishop of the Episcopal Church, a Professor on the Master’s degree course in Political Science at the Federal University of Pernambuco, and [former] Director of the Faculty of Science and Philosophy at the same university. [Tragically, he died in 2012, after this book was published.] He was probably the most influential evangelical political thinker of his time. His leadership developed through his important involvement in various spheres, such as his active participation in the pro-Lula evangelical movement in 1989, the founding of the MEP, his many articles, several of them published in the magazine Ultimato, and his most important book, Cristianismo e Política (Christianity and Politics), written in 1985 and still in print (Editora Ultimato). Paul Freston, an Englishman who has lived for over twenty years in Brazil, worked for ten years with ABU (Aliança Bíblica Universitária) before turning to sociological research and becoming one of the leading authorities on evangelical politics in Latin America and Brazil.2 He has written several books, among them: Cuba e Nicarágua: Uma Análise dos Processos Revolucionários (Cuba and Nicaragua: An Analysis of Revolutionary Processes) and Fé Bíblica






























































1

For a fuller discussion of the impact of these institutions on the establishment and consolidation of the Integral Mission movement, see BARRO, Antonio Carlos. Revisão do Marco da Missão Integral. In CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE EVANGELIZAÇÃO, 2. Missão integral: proclamar o reino de Deus, vivendo o evangelho de Cristo. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2004, 73-89. 2 Translator’s Note: Freston is a naturalized Brazilian, now over 40 years in Brazil.

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

159

e Crise Brasileira (Biblical Faith and Brazilian Crisis), both published by the ABU. His doctoral thesis in sociology at the State University of Campinas was the basis of the book Evangélicos na Política Brasileira: História Ambígua e Desafio Ético (Evangelicals in Brazilian Politics: Ambiguous History and Ethical Challenge), published by Encontro Publicações.3 Due to their importance in the political theology of the Integral Mission movement in Brazil, our discussion will be based mainly on these two thinkers, but we will also take into account the contributions of other theologians of the movement.

Assessing the National Situation Looking at political structures, Cavalcanti notes that they are intended for ‘external consumption’. The presidential system, which also prevails in Latin America, […] has functioned as a pseudo-democratic facade for one-man authoritarianism, for caudillo legislation. The executive power has experienced varying degrees of hypertrophy in all our nations.4

The political system is not totally federative; there is a centralized administration, but the member-states have little autonomy. The presence of a certain messianic trait in Brazilian political culture, originating in Portuguese Sebastianism, reinforces the lack of local initiative and the paternalistic attitude of the powers-that-be. Following Raymundo Faoro, Cavalcanti further observes that Brazil’s social structure developed in accordance with the patrimonial-state model; with a strong state and maintained by ties of blood relationships, it serves the interests of a group of relatives and friends.5 In other words, we have a state that is not only authoritarian and centralizing, but also the extension of the patrimony of the elites, preserved in a family structure. It is a political culture that affects all levels of society with various damaging effects: lack of transparency in decisions, lack of representation of society, political arbitrariness and corruption. From the economic point of view, Brazil has a culture of exploitation and backwardness, linked to the predatory nature of Iberian colonialism and the absence of an ethic that values labour and savings.6 So capitalist practices have never taken root in the local population, but have always been under overseas






























































3

Dr Freston has recently become a Professor at Calvin College, a world-renowned evangelical academic centre, and has published two books in English, which unfortunately we have not been able to consult before the publication of this book: Evangelicals and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Cambridge University Press), and Protestant Political Parties: A Global Survey (Ashgate). Another work, Evangelical Christianity and Democracy in Latin America (Oxford University Press) is due to appear in July 2006. [It appeared in April 2008.] 4 CAVALCANTI, 1992, 13. 5 Ibid, 7. 6 Ibid, 8.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


160

control. In this way, an ideological and economic dependence was guaranteed, first on Europe and then on the United States, with the economic exploitation of the country being supported by the national elites. Such a system of economic dependence is maintained through the patrimonial power system. The period of military domination, here and in other Latin American countries, was simply an instrument of the elites (later rejected by them) to ensure modernization and economic growth with the containment of society.7 The ‘neo-liberal wave’ swept over all of Latin America in the 1990s, led by ‘young technocrats’ who studied in the United States, and resulting in the destruction of the state’s social function and an increased concentration of income.8 As well as a strong state which serves an economic elite, we also have a weak civil society, not only lacking access to power, but also without a political culture or the necessary organization. But not everything is bleak. Cavalcanti points to the trade union movements introduced by immigrants which took root, despite having been co-opted several times by the ruling powers. After the military government, they came to have an important role in the nation with the CUT – Central Única dos Trabalhadores (Trades Union Congress). The impressive growth of social movements such as pacifist groups, ecologists, ethnic groups, etc., as early as the 1980s, and the PT – Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party) were signs of a true transformation in the country’s political culture.9

Evaluating the Political Practice of Evangelicals In Cristianismo e Política,10 the author presents a 63-page exposition of the relationship between religion and politics in Brazil, and shows how the political positioning of evangelicals has evolved. At first, at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, evangelicals were viewed positively by the progressive sectors of the time – liberals and Freemasons – for their political stances, their work in the field of education, their connections with Britain and America. In the first half of the twentieth century, they avoided association with the left and experienced frustration with the growth of Catholic influence over the state. Examining the evolution of evangelical political participation in the country, Paul Freston noted that it took a leap forward in 1986, when the churches, especially the Pentecostals, abandoned their isolationist discourse and defended the presence of evangelicals in the Constituent Assembly. The trend continued in the 1988 municipal elections, and was consolidated with the 1989 presidential election, when most Pentecostals supported Collor and, according to Freston, may have been decisive in his victory in the second round run-off.11






























































7

Ibid, 10. Ibid, 12. 9 Ibid, 16. 10 CAVALCANTI, 2002. 11 FRESTON, 1992, 30. 8

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

161

Since then, evangelical involvement in politics has been constant and the theology of isolation definitively abandoned. However, evangelical political participation in these years has brought to light a whole set of disquieting blemishes. The worst, and most obvious, is the lack of ethics. Evangelicals have been elected on a platform which, among others things, promises to defend a Christian ethic, especially in issues such as abortion and sexuality, but they have consistently assimilated the worst aspects of Brazilian political culture.12 And, while society and politics have made some progress in moralizing public life, evangelicals remain ‘at the forefront of ethical backwardness’, involved in much shady electoral manoeuvring and some of the worst corruption scandals all through the 1990s. Little has changed since then. Speaking on the subject at CBE II – the Second Brazilian Congress of Evangelization (October 2003), Freston stated: ‘Truth to tell, from an ethical point of view, the reputation of evangelical politicians is terrible – terrible! In society at large, their reputation is terrible!’13 He then pointed out two dimensions of the problem: the lack of politicians’ personal ethics (a reflection of the low moral standards in the churches), and ill-conceived political projects that ignore the specificity of political ethics and confuse morality with legislation.14 Evangelical politicians are often controllers or agents of ecclesiastical machines, defending particular aspects of the Protestant ethic, such as family and Christian sexual morality, but disconnected from the grassroots public and their social needs. They do not, therefore, represent significant social projects, but are simply serving to strengthen these ecclesiastical machines, and increase their capacity for growth and religious control.15 Such control would involve, for example, the incorporation of such important themes as re-democratization and the claims of society in a way that is controlled so as to prevent the faithful from being co-opted by competing ideological or religious projects.16 We have, therefore, an ecclesiastical instrumentalization of politics. Another difficulty, which affects not only the majority of these politicians involved in ecclesiastical machines, but also part of those who are more independent, is the absence of projects for Brazilian society within Protestantism.17 The root problem here is undoubtedly the profound ignorance of the evangelical community. Our activism is poorly instructed regarding the political and social history of the country; it is ignorant of Christian theology, or adopts defective forms of theology; it knows little of the Christian church’s






























































12

FRESTON, 1994, 104. FRESTON, 2004, 261. 14 Ibid, 262-63. 15 According to Paul Freston, the alienating character of Pentecostal political action in Brazil is not necessarily a universal characteristic of Pentecostalism as such, linked to its doctrine, but a peculiarity of the Brazilian situation (FRESTON, 1992, 33-35). 16 FRESTON, 1992, 35. 17 Ibid, 36. 13

162

Christian Worldview and Transformation


journey in Brazil and of other Christian political experiences in the history of Christianity. As a result, it goes along with existing projects, without making any distinctly evangelical contribution, except, of course, to favour ecclesiastical interests.18 Ideologically, evangelicals are divided. From 1933 to 1986, Protestant politicians were more inclined to the left,19 though during the military government, a strong rightist tendency emerged in the evangelical churches. This right-wing tendency became evident politically with the evangelical presence in the Constituent Assembly in 1986 and the election of Collor in 1989; so much so, that Antonio Flavio Pierucci suggested that this evangelical grouping meant a new ‘Christian right’, comparable with the ‘Moral Majority’ in the United States. Pierucci’s thesis was refuted by Freston, who showed that the evangelical presence does not signify a restorationist movement or a broad project of grassroots evangelicals, and that the Pentecostals in the Constituent Assembly tended to vote more in favour of the workers than the average parliamentarian.20 On the other hand, there was in fact a strong rightist tendency, concentrated in the representatives of historical churches, mainly Baptists. Beginning at the time of the military regime, it continued until the decade of the 1990s.21 In part, this right-wing emphasis could be explained by the relationships of evangelical Christianity with North American right-wing evangelical missions and leaders, and also by the Brazilian political situation: Evangelicals emerge politically in Brazil in this context marked, on the one hand, by the tradition of a militantly atheist left and, on the other hand, by the recent phenomenon of progressive Catholicism. It is not surprising, then, that Brazilian Pentecostals, strongly anti-Catholic, should have positioned themselves mostly to the right. In another context, such as in Nicaragua, the result might have been different.22

Apparently, however, the evangelical commitment to the right was merely pragmatic. The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, for example, supported Collor against Lula in 1989, and Fernando Henrique Cardoso against Lula in 1994, identifying the latter as the ‘Bearded Devil’, but backed Lula in 2001. Commenting on the subject in 1994, Freston writes: ‘The new evangelical political class has a habit of changing parties even more than the national average.’23 This practice continued through the 1990s and is still the






























































18

Robinson Cavalcanti, referring to Latin America as a whole, points out three areas where there is a crying lack of knowledge: history, biblical theology, and political ethics (CAVALCANTI, 1994, 180-81. ). 19 FRESTON, 1994, 107. 20 FRESTON, 1992, 30-33. 21 Paul Freston observed that ‘the position of the Baptist hierarchy during the military regime was so notorious that President Carter, himself a Baptist deacon and working for human rights policies, avoided meeting with Brazilian Baptists when he visited the country’ (FRESTON, 1994, 26). 22 FRESTON, 1992, 36. 23 FRESTON, 1994, 47.

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

163

case, owing to the continuing lack of projects and consistent political orientation, and the dominance of ecclesiastical interests over public interests. The orientation of the ‘progressive Christians’ is much more definite, being clearly of the left. With the collapse of Communism and the weakening of the association of the left with atheism, the way was open for progressive parties to build on new foundations; the restoration of democracy and the tendency to moralize public life brought about a situation more favourable to progressive evangelicalism.24 The movement began to gain public attention in the 1989 presidential elections, with the organization of the Pro-Lula Evangelical Movement led by Robinson Cavalcanti. His television appearance during the first round of the elections had an impact among evangelicals, who had tended to demonize the left.25 In 1990, the MEP (Movimento Evangélico Progressivo or Progressive Evangelical Movement) was formed, and in 1993 the Second National Forum of Discussion and Understanding between Evangelicals and Progressive Parties took place. Its political position can be illustrated by the composition of the new board of directors, elected in the assembly of August 1999; the whole board, composed of members of Baptist, Assembly of God, Anglican and Presbyterian churches, was affiliated to the Workers’ Party,26 thus maintaining the initial orientation of the MEP. The theological roots of this movement are clearly in the line of the Integral Mission school of thought: At present, the main force of progressive evangelicalism is linked to evangelicals influenced by the Lausanne Covenant, which, in defending the ‘Integral Mission of the church’, speaks of social justice and stands against ‘all forms of alienation, oppression and discrimination’.27

Cavalcanti made the same historical connection: We recognize the valuable contributions of the Congress of Lausanne and its Covenant, and of the Latin American Theological Fraternity, for the dissemination of the theological proposal of the Integral Mission of the Church in our continent and in our country. The MEP (Progressive Evangelical Movement) is a legitimate expression of this historical moment.28

In the 1990s, the main public figure of progressive evangelicalism was the Pentecostal Beneditada Silva, with Cavalcanti the main internal leader.29 With the advance of neo-liberalism in Latin America, the PT (Workers’ Party) absorbed some aspects of this school of thought into its political program in 2001. This took place through a process of concentration of intraparty power, as well as an already ongoing ideological transformation; there was also a political necessity to form an allied base for the government. These changes led to an unprecedented crisis on the Brazilian left, with a hardening of the PT leadership and the ‘radicalisation’ of some sectors of the left. This crisis






























































24

Ibid, 112. Ibid, 93. 26 MEP, 2003, appendix F. 27 FRESTON, 1994, 110. 28 CAVALCANTI, 2003, 10. 29 FRESTON, 1994, 111. 25

164

Christian Worldview and Transformation


was followed by the organization of the PSOL (Socialism and Freedom Party) and a series of scandals, culminating in the Mensalão [a scheme in which the government gave monthly payments to buy votes in Congress] in 2005, which profoundly damaged the PT, weakened the government and abandoned much of the militant left to despair. In an article entitled ‘Progressive Christians and the Crisis of the Left in Brazil’, written before the scandals began, Robinson Cavalcanti pointed to one cause of the PT’s disorientation: its abandonment of its history in the name of ‘a so-called “strategic project” which nobody knows what it is’.30 He criticized the label of ‘radicals’ given to critics of the New PT, the neo-peleguismo [trades union leaders who advocate government interests rather than those of the workers] of the CUT, and the transition to social democracy. With some bitterness, he noted that the Lula government had received support from progressive evangelicals in all previous campaigns, but Lula, when elected, totally ignored them, preferring ‘band-wagon opportunists’ who were erstwhile political opponents.31 And he made this diagnosis: Brazilian political history seems to have precociously (and regrettably) turned over a new page. We have to be honest: there is a deep crisis on the left. The intellectuals, the working class, the manual workers are feeling orphaned. The classic question arises: What to do now?32

What should be the role of progressive Christians in the face of the crisis of the left? In his reply, Cavalcanti seeks to show that our political loyalties are secondary to the kingdom of God, and reminds us that ‘no political party, ideology or government can be identified with the kingdom of God’.33 But he firmly rejects any turn to the right or any compromise with capitalism. Our role must be to ‘denounce, protest and propose’.34 In practice, Cavalcanti suggests that progressive evangelicals avoid a complete break with government, but also avoid unconditional support, opting for ‘topical support and topical opposition, case by case, theme by theme’.35 And he defends staying with the left and facing the moment of crisis with courage.

Proposals for Evangelical Political Action We now present the general orientation and some of the proposals and lines of reflection of some theologians and political thinkers of Integral Mission. We have selected those we consider most significant and helpful in making the correlation between the political theology of Integral Mission and reformational political philosophy.






























































30

CAVALCANTI, 2003, 6. Ibid, 11. 32 Ibid, 7. 33 Ibid, 12. 34 Ibid, 13. 35 Ibid. 31

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

165

1. Progressivism and social justice Regarding the social and political responsibility of the church, the most obvious and important banner of the Integral Mission movement, inherited by the MEP, is that of progressivism and the struggle for social justice. The two concepts are closely related. At the Consultation on Evangelism and Social Responsibility, held in Grand Rapids in June 1982, following the Lausanne Congress, the struggle for social justice was pointed out as one aspect of the church’s mission: The other type of responsibility is the pursuit of social justice, which deals not only with people but with structures; not only with the rehabilitation of prisoners but with the reform of the penitentiary system; not only with the improvement of working conditions, but with the transformation of the economic system (whatever it may be) and the political system (whatever it may be), facilitating liberation from poverty and oppression.36

This represents a commitment, not to a specific ideology or utopia, but to a non-conservative stance and an orientation towards social justice. We know that, to a great extent, the progressive positions of the Lausanne Congress and subsequent consultations are due to the militancy of Latin American evangelical theologians such as René Padilla and Samuel Escobar, with the support of John Stott. Padilla himself points to social justice as ‘God’s standard for the exercise of political power’.37 Similar perspectives were presented in the CLADE meetings (Latin American Congress of Evangelization) and found echo among progressive Brazilian Christians. Thus the MEP calls itself progressive ‘because it is committed to social change. MEP works for justice in defence of the most needy, for Christian integrity and for ethical rigor’.38 Being progressive means having a commitment to the permanent transformation of the social and political order in the search for social justice. An illustration of this is the biblical motto of the MEP that appears in its documents and presentations: ‘until righteousness rolls on like a never-failing stream’ (Amos 5:24). The quest for social justice is concretely expressed in the defence of political proposals ‘which have the serious intention of redistributing resources and, what is even more important in the light of the law of Moses, democratizing the control of the economy’,39 and placing not only material but also cultural riches at the service of the poor.

2. Alignment with democratic socialism In Brazil, the commitment of Integral Mission to progressivism and social justice became visible in a clear choice for the socialist left, understood as






























































36

STOTT, 1982, 40. PADILLA, 1992, 56. 38 MEP, 2003. 39 MEP, 2003, IV. 37

166

Christian Worldview and Transformation


opposition to conservatism and as a struggle for the transformation of unjust structures of society. The roots of this political option lie in the very formation of the Integral Mission movement which, in its search for an application of the ‘whole gospel to the whole person’, pointed out the ideological conditioning of all theological reflection and defended the project of a contextualized evangelical theology, attentive to the social, economic and political situation of Latin America. This situation was interpreted as being one of oppression and economic dependence in relation to the United States and Europe – a situation associated with an ideological colonization expressed even in the way the political choices, theology, forms of worship and language of North American evangelical churches have predominated in Brazilian churches. To speak of an integral gospel in these conditions necessarily means to seek the transformation of the country’s social and political structures. The only possible response to this state of affairs would be the production of an autochthonous evangelical theology,40 critical of the theology of the northern hemisphere, and associated with political militancy committed to breaking the chains of dependency and transforming the internal structures of injustice and the concentration of income. Such concerns inclined the movement to socialism – but to a ‘renewed’ socialism, to use the language of Robinson Cavalcanti – a socialism that is humanistic and democratic, and which unequivocally rejects authoritarianism: ‘I am politically a liberal, because I defend democracy and not dictatorship; and I am not a liberal in economics, for I am not advocating capitalism but socialism.’41 Such socialism would embody a new ‘utopia’ to guide the struggle of Christian politicians: In co-belligerency with secular partners, we must renew our disposition to struggle for a world order capable of effectively guaranteeing the right to equality among nations, their self-determination and their non-subservient integration into the world. A utopia that builds on and critically renews the history of libertarian proposals of civilization: freedom, pluralism, organization, social justice, ample mechanisms of representation and participation, transparency and responsibility of government bodies, leisure, quality of life, defence of nature, an end of discrimination, equal opportunities, a plurality of non-monopolistic and nonoligopolistic forms of economic life, promotion of citizenship.42






























































40

The Latin American Theological Fraternity (known here as FTL-Brasil) was established to serve this end. The aims of the Fraternity are: a) to promote reflection on the gospel and its significance for human individuals and society in Latin America […]; b) to serve as a forum for dialogue between thinkers who confess Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, and desire to engage in Biblical reflection in order to communicate the gospel in Latin American cultures; c) to contribute to the life and mission of evangelical churches in Brazil and Latin America, without seeking to speak in their name or become their mouthpiece in Brazil. 41 CAVALCANTI, 1997, 18. 42 CAVALCANTI, 1992, 18.

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

167

Cavalcanti saw in the PT the best Brazilian expression of this form of socialism. He went on to illustrate how the biblical view of humanity is compatible with democratic socialism, citing an excerpt from the political platform presented at the first Congress of the Workers’ Party: Socialism, to be humanistic and democratic, will have to be a society in which real human beings – with their passions, their desires, their greatness and their defects – govern and realize themselves; real human beings, not some mythical perfect human being, which is nothing other than a negation of the human being.43

This option for a form of democratic socialism is at the heart of the MEP project which, as we have seen, has its theological roots in the Integral Mission movement. Recalling the debate about the acronym for the movement when it was founded, Cavalcanti cites other proposals that were aired: ‘Leftist evangelicals? Revolutionary evangelicals? Socialist evangelicals?’44 The themes of social justice, the redistribution of wealth, the need for the application of the whole gospel to the whole person, including the person as a political being, and the critique of the ideological conditioning of American evangelical preaching, were taken up into a project that, without fully adopting Marxism, intends to associate anthropology and biblical social ethics with a progressive project of social transformation. This project found in socialism, especially as advocated by the Workers’ Party, the proposal that was most coherent with biblical ethics.

3. The call for a new utopia and a new political-economic option Cavalcanti called himself a socialist in the area of economics. This, in fact, is the trend in Integral Mission thinking: the admission of certain Marxist theses, such as the theory of surplus value and the use of dependency theory,45 as the main explanation for the origins of Latin American and Brazilian underdevelopment, and a rejection of capitalism. But the appropriation of socialist ideas in the thought of Integral Mission is not naïve. Progressive evangelicals have not assumed the dogmatic Marxist positions of liberation theology colleagues about economics46 – there is






























































43

Ibid. CAVALCANTI, 2003, 10. 45 Although, strictly speaking, dependency theory is not a ‘Marxist theory’, it found support among Marxists because of the way it explained poverty as being the structural result of the international capitalist system. 46 This is probably the reason why, when the worldwide collapse of Marxism-Leninism led to the exhaustion of ecumenical and liberation theology, the thinking of the Integral Mission movement, so often criticized by these other movements, remains alive and relevant. Commenting on this at CBE II, Ricardo Gondim joked: ‘There was the door of liberation theology. We could have gone through this door because it offered us, at that moment, a useful way of reading history. And I find myself wondering where we would be today if we had walked through that door. Instead of doing aerobics for Jesus, we 44

168

Christian Worldview and Transformation


widespread recognition of the failures of real socialism. What the theology of Integral Mission intends is a new alternative that supersedes capitalism without abolishing economic freedom, and incorporates the best of socialism. Paul Freston cites the reflections of Valdir Steuernagel at the second National Forum of Evangelicals and of Progressive Parties in 1993: We must think of an economic order that is not based on the authoritarian socialist state, or on the capitalist market. Economics is a matter of people. It is necessary to construct an alternative that is not the property of anyone, neither of the left, nor of evangelicals, nor of this or that party.47

A democratic path of transformation, without the abolition of private property or total control of the economy by the state, but with substantial interventions in the economic sphere – according to Marcos Kruse, this would mean, for example, large-scale investment in education to empower the people in the struggle against the dominant capitalism; public policies that guarantee the restitution of private ownership of the means of production to direct producers, through projects such as ‘co-operative industry’; investment in technology; a joining of forces to overcome dependence on developed countries; containment of population growth rates; greater employee profitsharing; agrarian and urban reform; and so on. According to this author, ‘a Christian-based economic project must co-exist with capitalism with the aim of transforming it.’48 As for private property, Kruse says: ‘It is just the right to private ownership of the means of production that is constantly violated by capitalism: rather than fight the right to property, it is necessary to radicalize it.’49 Robinson Cavalcanti, one of the main mentors of the progressive Christians’ alignment with the socialist left, yearns for something to replace the present ideologies. In A Utopia Possível (The Possible Utopia), he expresses himself in terms similar to those of Steuernagel, but with a broader focus than just the economy: In the contemporary age, we are aware of two main utopias: liberalism and socialism (with their variations), with emphases, respectively, on freedom and social justice. It is possible that today we are moving towards a new utopia, which is the convergence of the positive points of the previous ones.50

And again: Many evangelicals have been influenced by the stance (politically leftist). It is good to take a political position, so long as it is on the left […] For the nth time, Christians are simply trooping along, following one thing after another.51








































































































































would be embracing trees with the neo-pantheistic theology of the liberation theology crowd, who lost their coherence and credibility’ (GONDIM, 2004, 283). 47 FRESTON, 1994, 115. 48 KRUSE, 1993, 16-17. 49 Ibid, 17. 50 CAVALCANTI, 1997, 152. 51 CAVALCANTI, 2002, 232.

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

169

Is the alignment of Integral Mission with socialism more a form of strategic association than a necessary ideological commitment? Is this commitment more linked to a thematic affinity and the existence of a common enemy? Possibly. In that case, we could think seriously about the possibility of evangelical political action appearing in some form of Christian Democracy that is non-socialist, but also non-capitalist. The recent crisis of the Brazilian left can weaken the ideological connections of Integral Mission with socialism, and so leave space for new proposals. Cavalcanti himself points out a concrete way forward. In his view, all the socio-economic achievements of the Marxist-Leninist autocracies were accomplished in pluralistic democratic systems, with Social Democracy remaining as an option. But this option would be very close to the Christian Democratic parties, which also favour systems of political intervention in the economy to ensure social justice, maintaining private property but socializing decisions and benefits. Cavalcanti identifies Christian Democracy as a particular form of ‘centre’, because of its commitment to democracy, pluralism and social justice, associated with a Christian cultural project: If there is thus a centre in the broad sense, a pluralist democratic stance, there is also a centre in the narrow sense, a current within the democratic gamut, represented by the Liberal-Progressive parties and the Christian-Democratic or Christian-Social parties.52

So Christian social centrism would advocate democratic pluralism, a ‘social market economy’ that overcomes the dichotomy of liberalism vs socialism, a rejection of ideological dogmatism, and a confrontation with the process of secularization.53 And in this last point lies the particular contribution of Christian Democracy: the reintroduction of the Christian faith into the public sphere. Cavalcanti’s reflections point to the possibility of going beyond the old alignment with socialism: an ‘ideological’ independence of Christians that contrasts with secular humanist parties. The question remains: could a Christian Democratic movement embody ‘new theories’ and ‘new utopias’, committed to social transformation, but with a clear and consistently Christian worldview? Could such a movement provide a more adequate political orientation for the ideals of Integral Mission?54

4. The call for a distinctly evangelical political philosophy A Christian Democracy with its own identity can only develop on the basis of serious and contextualized political reflection. We need theories, ideas. This






























































52

Ibid, 257. Ibid, 257-58. 54 In spite of these observations, Cavalcanti still maintained, up until the Second Brazilian Congress on Evangelism, his alignment with the left: ‘The left has not died; it will always be reborn from the ashes. The prophetic church will be the chaplain of this rebirth’ (CAVALCANTI, 2003, 14). 53

170

Christian Worldview and Transformation


need has been pointed out long ago by the theologians of Integral Mission and by progressive thinkers. As we have seen, Robinson Cavalcanti awaits a new social utopia. He defines a utopia as a kind of food for the dreams and aspirations of human beings, which can inspire them to transformative action. Although the Christian hope is something different from a utopia, it would be of importance in guiding our political projects: In the present circumstances, the political incarnation of the gospel definitely requires a re-elaboration of social theories and utopias in the light of the kingdom’s values and the interest of our peoples, which can make explicit such projects and causes as are worth dying for.55

In this talk, given at CLADE III, Cavalcanti suggested that evangelicals use ‘kingdom values’ to produce new social theories and new social utopias. It is clear that, in his view, we cannot simply link Christian political action to a secular social theory or social utopia without revision. We must produce something distinctively Christian. But it is not clear what these ‘kingdom values’ are, or what is the distinction between ‘utopias’ and ‘social theories’. The production of a Christian social theory or a Christian political theory has to go far beyond proposing a social utopia of Christian inspiration; it requires some scientific rigour and greater concreteness. The idea of an explicitly Christian proposal for social order and politics does not have unanimous support in the Integral Mission movement. At the roundtables on politics during CLADE III in 1992, the Colombian Jaime Ortiz Hurtado unequivocally supported this possibility: In the biblical perspective, there is a ‘way of God’ for moral, social, economic, political, cultural, scientific and other areas of life. […] I believe that there is nothing to discuss, given the affirmation that the Word of God is what presents us with its own perspective, its own concept of State, of government, politics and the economy.56

On the other hand, Emilio Castro, from Uruguay, asserted ‘there is no Christian political program for society’, and expressed fear about the possibility of making a party platform equal to the faith itself.57 In October 1991, the second International Consultation on Evangelicals and Political Participation in Latin America was held in Buenos Aires. In his talk, Paul Freston was quite explicit about their theoretical weakness: […] there is not yet a well developed political theology among Brazilian evangelicals – a theology that includes a biblical understanding of the state, of the task of rulers, of the function of laws; Christian principles that can guide political action beyond moralism and ‘Christian compassion’; the distinction between






























































55

CAVALCANTI, 1994, 184. HURTADO, 1995, 191-93. 57 CASTRO, 1995, 216. 56

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

171

morality and legislation, and an understanding of the specificity of political morality.58

Freston’s claim here is quite broad. What he is asking for, in fact, is something more than a political theology; it is a movement that starts from theology and is consolidated in a positive political philosophy, with key concepts that can be used to guide political projects. This kind of reflection could strengthen or weaken the alignment of progressive thinkers with the left, depending on the theological orientation that is adopted. Cavalcanti has come up with several positive ideas along these lines. In his comparative analysis of socialism and liberalism, he uses biblical anthropology as a criterion for assessing different positions. It is worth quoting him at some length: The vision of humanity according to Machiavelli and Adam Smith (‘every one wants their own betterment first’) seems to correspond more to the biblical view (‘there is no-one righteous, not even one’) than to Rousseau’s vision (man is good, but corrupted by society; the ‘good savage’ of yesterday, the ‘good poor’ of today). Capitalist theoreticians put forward the idea that the common good will be realized by the convergence of individual self-interests… Socialist theoreticians are, in their anthropology, disciples of Rousseau: they propose the realization of the common good by rightly directing the sum total of the intrinsic goodness of every individual– the eradication of external causes that generate evil. An evangelical vision will have to disagree with both views.59

This is a good example of the kind of reflection that could lay the foundations for evangelical political and social thinking: applying the basic categories of the Christian worldview (creation, fall, redemption) to the available theories and proposing an ‘evangelical vision’. Along the same lines, Paul Freston pointed the way for the MEP with a programmatic declaration: ‘The Progressive Evangelical Movement needs to be based on a solidly biblical view of God and of humanity.’60

5. The call for dialogue with the humanities Of course, the development of Christian social and political thinking requires dialogue between Christian theology and philosophy and the humanities.61 Again, Robinson Cavalcanti is aware of the challenge: knowledge of the social sciences, in particular, would be a ‘qualitative leap’ for Protestantism, helping in the understanding of reality and in the processes of intervention in this






























































58

FRESTON, 1992, 40. At CBE II, on the other hand, during the discussion at the group working on politics, I asked Freston about the possibility of a Christian social and political theory, and his answer was that such an undertaking would run the risk of confusing the gospel with an imperfect, socially conditioned project. 59 CAVALCANTI, 2002, 237. 60 FRESTON, 1992/b, 92-95. 61 In fact, this dialogue has already begun, with many good results, as can be seen in the Theological Bulletins of the FTL. But there is still much work to be done.

172

Christian Worldview and Transformation


reality. The great obstacle would lie in the prevalent anti-intellectual attitude, in the mental protective barriers based on insecurity, and in the fear of raising hard questions.62 There is, however, a reason for these fears. The process of secularization produced anthropocentric theories and, in the end, excluded faith from the public sphere. In Brazil, there is a strong resistance to the introduction of Christian perspectives in social and political thinking, because of the dominance of positivism in the origins of Brazilian politics and academia, and the influence of the French model. The Christian Democrat movements – the ‘Christian social centrism’, according to Cavalcanti – were characterized by ‘taking a position vis-à-vis the process of secularization’. This position consisted of the rejection of anthropocentric ideologies and a commitment to historical Christian theology and to a biblically informed social theory. Christian social thought will therefore require a break with the scientistic mentality: For very many circles of Christian thinkers, the action that will liberate us from this strait-jacket of contemporary scientistic prejudice will have to be by way of theological reflection about reality, and by the Christian presence in the world, maintaining its identity, not trailing along behind secular projects, but in a position of responsible leadership, based on studying and living out a Christian social doctrine embodied in revelation.63

The temptations here are to reject dialogue and isolate theology from the human sciences, or to accept secular humanism as a common basis for evangelical political reflection and action. Such risks are real, and both would subject Christians to an ideological captivity. Both the theology of liberation and the ‘theology of prosperity’ are clear examples of this. So the challenge around a critical dialogue between theology and the sciences remains: How to carry it out? What kind of philosophical structure could guide it? What would an evangelically dialogical and evangelically critical position look like?

6. Strengthening civil society and extra-ecclesiastical Christian action The combination of a strong state and a weak civil society has been recognized as one of the greatest obstacles to social justice and to the functioning of true democracy. This situation is repeated in Latin America and especially in Brazil, where we have a level of nationalization that is close to that of socialist countries, but with neo-liberal social policies! The relative inaction of civil society – a factor that has seen some improvement in recent years – is directly linked to the paternalistic, authoritarian and messianic culture that characterizes Brazilian society. Curiously, this political culture was assimilated by the evangelical churches and associated with an ecclesiocentric ideology, which blocks Christian social and political involvement. A system of religious legitimatization has been






























































62 63

CAVALCANTI, 1994, 182. CAVALCANTI, 2002, 258.

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

173

developed that does not permit transformational actions that are not subject to pastors and ecclesiastical machines. During CBE II (the Second Brazilian Congress of Evangelization), the pastor and evangelical sociologist Alexandre Carneiro Souza pointed out this obstacle, in what I consider one of the most significant contributions of the Congress: […] The participation of the church in the establishment of a policy of citizenship… will not be possible without the partial or total loss of a kind of Christian rationality that ideologically circumscribes the Christian community around itself, producing its own personalized version of the world… The church’s action was monitored by the exaggerated appreciation of an idea of church life, in which sibling relationships were emphasized to the detriment of the relationship between citizens, and private relationships within the circle of church life received greater investment, to the detriment of broader public relationships… The church still persists in the error of shooting down every project that does not replicate its own institutional form.64

Thus, Souza attacks the ‘logic of a competition between the church and other sectors and expressions of social life’, which he calls a ‘congregational logic’: a tendency to identify the church’s mission with the task of the local church, and to consider that Christian vocation means doing the work of local churches – under the authority, of course, of pastors. In this conception, the involvement of the faithful with non-ecclesial organizations, movements and activities not approved by the church is seen as ‘worldliness’. Because of this tendency (which is still strong) in the institutional rationalization of the Christian church, people and certain agencies that develop a commitment to human dignity are recognized as initiatives that are, at best, parallel to the kingdom, if not competitors.65 We have therefore two ‘enemies’: internally, religious institutions of a totalitarian inclination which neither prepare nor equip their members, nor send them into civil society; externally, a social and political culture and a state with paternalistic and totalitarian tendencies which tends to weaken civil society. So action is needed at two distinct levels: the struggle for a reduction of the state apparatus, not only reducing its very high political cost, but also making it more pluralist and democratic; and, as Carneiro pointed out, the struggle for a redefinition of the very nature of the Christian mission that clarifies the role of the local church and encourages plural, trans-ecclesiastical transformative actions. This redefinition would, of course, involve the re-evaluation of our ecclesiology.

7. Distinguishing between the political and ecclesiastical spheres Reacting against the self-serving of evangelical politicians and the control of evangelical political action by ecclesiastical machines, progressive evangelicals advocate the withdrawal of churches from the political arena and the






























































64 65

SOUZA, 2003, 248-49. SOUZA, 2003, 248-49.

174

Christian Worldview and Transformation


encouragement of the formation of evangelical movements and institutions of a specifically political character. In the position of Robinson Cavalcanti, reproduced in the MEP documents, … The church must always strive to avoid party-political positions… If we are to avoid the church as an institution opting for a specific political party, we must also recognize that the action of Christian individuals is of reduced efficacy. A jointly organized Christian presence must be brought about by the creation of groups and movements.66

This sort of differentiation is fundamental in order to break the control of ecclesiastical machines over evangelical politics. This, in turn, could open the way to the rediscovery of politics as a vocation in its own right, rejecting the idea that political involvement can only be justified as part of the evangelistic task of the church.67 The theological-philosophical foundation for this differentiation between the church’s action as an institution and the church’s action as part of political society has long existed in the Integral Mission movement. According to René Padilla, our commitment to the introduction of Christian values in the laws of the country […] does not mean that we must renounce the separation of church and state. It means rather that we renounce the separation of faith and politics; we recognize that the church and the state have different responsibilities or spheres of authority, but both are under the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ.68

The concept presented here by Padilla is apparently the Kuyperian notion of ‘spheres of sovereignty’, which we shall discuss below. The point is that we need a progressive form of political thinking and action that combines the integration of faith and politics with a consistent rejection of secular humanism and the maintenance of political pluralism, while (just as consistently) avoiding Constantinianism and promiscuous relations between church and state. What kind of theology and ecclesiology could support such a perspective? How can it be justified in terms of social and political theory? How to put it into practice?

8. Distinguishing between morality and political ethics As early as 1990, Freston wrote about the need to distinguish between morality and legislation. This important note was sounded again in his talk at CBE II, when he highlighted evangelicals’ lack of understanding of the nature of






























































66

CAVALCANTI, 2002, 263. ‘It is best not to think of politics as a means to a higher end, which would be the advance of the Christian faith in our own context. Let us consider political commitment as an end in itself, which relates dialectically with the goal of living our faith in God fully and wholly’ (NOYA, 1995, 206). 68 PADILLA, 1992, 54. 67

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

175

politics and its particularity. According to him, ‘there is a specificity of political ethics’69 that transcends individual ethics: A very important aspect that we must learn quickly, if we are to avoid major errors in public life, is the distinction between morality and legislation. Our morality can lead us to take a certain position – for example, we can say that ‘such behaviour is reprehensible, it should not happen’. Legislation, however, is something else. From the point of view of morality, not everything we condemn is condemned by law. Our desire to legislate and our set of moral positions will generate many, many political problems in the coming decades.70

It is not entirely clear whether, for Freston, the law belongs to an order completely different from the gospel (the Lutheran doctrine of the ‘two kingdoms’?) or whether it is simply distinct from morality; but it is clear that, in his view, the legislator does not have as the primary focus of his activity the promotion of a certain type of morality. The autonomy of the legal sphere in relation to ethics is thus assured.

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in the Reformed Worldview The time has come to take stock of the political reflections of progressive evangelicals from the perspective of neo-Calvinism. We shall examine, point by point, the proposals of Integral Mission political theology for evangelical political action; making criticisms, but also looking for points of convergence between the Integral Mission movement and the ideas of the Christian worldview school of thought, in an attempt seek to draw these two strands closer together.

Common Ground: Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation We begin with the precision and evangelical coherence of the Jarabacoa Declaration of 1983, which avoids indicating a specific political ideology, but fulfils its role as a document of principles. Thus, in the first part of the statement entitled ‘Biblical-theological principles’, we find the four themes that have been pointed out within the neo-Calvinist tradition and in most ‘worldview studies’ as the key to the Christian interpretation of the world: creation, fall, redemption in Christ, and consummation. Since these themes are the starting point for the discussion of the positive principles of political action, we can say that there is an agreement of principles and a common ground between Latin American evangelical political theology and the neo-Calvinist philosophy of worldview, even though there is disagreement as to the outworking of these points.






























































69 70

FRESTON, 2004, 263. Ibid.

Christian Worldview and Transformation


176

Proposals for Evangelical Political Action: The Neo-Calvinist Vision 1. What progressivism? In his masterful study of Christian social theory, Nicholas Wolterstorff distinguishes between avertive and formative religions, the former seeking an extramundane fulfilment and the latter identifying earthly existence as the locus of religious experience and seeking an intramundane religious life. When it first emerged, Calvinism was a ‘fundamental change in Christian sensibility’,71 for it abandoned the avertive character of medieval Christianity and introduced a formative position of a specific character. Amongst the Calvinists, the English Puritans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries stand out for their radical involvement in society, which Wolterstorff describes as per Michael Walzer’s The Revolution of the Saints. For these early Calvinists – The saints are responsible for the structure of the social world in which they find themselves. This structure is not simply a part of nature; on the contrary, it is the result of human decision, and by planned effort it can be changed. In fact, it must be changed, because it is a fallen structure, in need of reform.72

This systematic, theologically motivated suspicion, that social structures always reflect the effects of the Fall and thus need to be reformed, was what motivated Calvinists to plunge into revolutionary politics. Moreover, Calvinists saw the activities of cultural enrichment and production as a sacred vocation of humanity, and looked on cultural progress with approval. However, this theological form of progressivism has nothing to do with the humanist version in which the social order is seen as being a mere construction; the Calvinists sought to question and judge the unjust order on the basis of the Scriptures, and not on the basis of an abstract concept of justice. Theologically speaking, we must remember that before the Fall, there was creation, and that the Fall was not able to negate the structures created by God, nor to create new structures. Herman Dooyeweerd used an interesting image to illustrate this reality; in his view, the Fall corrupted the direction of creation, but not its structure. So although humanity may act in ways contrary to the laws of God, the laws in themselves remain intact. There is a divine ordering for social life, established in creation. This means that, as far as politics as per the Christian worldview is concerned, ‘progressivism’ must be in a dialectical relationship with ‘conservatism’ (in the best sense of the word), because cultural and social advancement not only entails overcoming old evils, but also introducing new forms of evil, as humanity attempts to escape the laws of God and to re-create the social order at its whim. However, society is the result, not merely of the creative and arbitrary will of humanity, but of that will acting within the limits






























































71 72

WOLTERSTORFF, 1983, 11. Ibid, 3.

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

177

of the order of creation. We must always make progress in order to enrich our culture and overcome social injustice; but it is necessary to secure our advances and preserve what is according to the ordo creationis. This position diverges radically from the revolutionary social constructivism of certain leftist schools, which seek to deconstruct the social order again and again, in the hope that human freedom will finally be obtained within this flux; but, tragically, they experience it only as an ever-elusive reality. Although I do know some leftist evangelical political activists who could be identified as advocates of quasi-absolute social constructionism, it is not possible to conclude that this is the dominant orientation in the political theology of the Integral Mission movement. But the fact that interest in any concept of creation order is practically absent from their reflections does indicate a real difference between this theology and the neo-Calvinist perspective. After all, of what progressivism does the theology of Integral Mission speak? The Christianity that we might (with Wolterstorff) call world-formative is not merely disruptive, but also redemptive; and it is non-reactionary, because it understands that there is a line of cultural advancement and differentiation rooted in the cultural mandate in Genesis. The neo-Calvinist form of progressivism is, then, a commitment to the reform of the social order, to subject it to the laws of God; a reformational progressivism. From this perspective, the problem of poverty will not be resolved simply by ‘making the cake grow and then sharing it’. The confrontation of poverty as the fruit of injustice is, as we have seen, a mark of the political progressivism of Integral Mission, and is entirely in accord with the neo-Calvinist vision. In his book, Fé Bíblica e Crise Brasileira (Biblical Faith and Brazilian Crisis), Freston presents an interesting discussion entitled ‘God Defends the Poor: Who Invented this Idea?’ The text begins with a quotation, whose author argues that Jesus always stands on the side of the poor and oppressed. Then he reveals the author of the quotation: Who said that? One of the Liberation theologians? No. It was Abraham Kuyper, an ardent defender of biblical orthodoxy against liberal theologians, founder of the Free University of Amsterdam and Prime Minister of the Netherlands. When did he say that? Twenty years ago when some theologians discovered the poor? No. It was in 1891, in a book entitled Christianity and Class Struggle.73

Freston’s words are significant as they show that, at the origins of Christian worldview thinking, there was no prejudice against seeing the issue of poverty and liberation as a concern of the church. It is precisely at this point that worldview thinking is sometimes subject to criticism. For example, Wolterstorff noted in his book that reflections on the problem of poverty, economic exploitation and the subject of liberation are absent in Dooyeweerd. Wolterstorff himself pointed out, however, that this absence was not a natural part of Kuyperian thought, which has always endeavoured to address the






























































73

FRESTON, 1992/b, 55.

178

Christian Worldview and Transformation


problem of poverty. On the other hand, as Edward Echeverria replies, this absence can be explained as a result of the historical situation of Dooyeweerd who, working between the two great wars, strove to give a Christian answer to the spiritual crisis of the West.74 One cannot deduce from this absence an incompatibility with the themes of poverty and liberation, particularly because these themes are native to Christian worldview thinking.

2. Democratic Socialism? The dominant tendency in worldview thinking has been the rejection of socialism – and with good reason. One of the hallmarks of socialism is the strong intervention of the state in the organization of society, and the dissolution of the intermediary forms of social life, such as family, church, economic relations, etc. This trend is noticeable even when we are dealing with ‘democratic’ forms of socialism. To give an example, the administrative actions of the PT (Workers’ Party) in Brazil tend to increase the state apparatus. In addition, the PT government has been known to impose a form of ‘state morality’ that strengthens individuals and weakens family structures – hence the ‘Brazil without Homophobia’ programme – and the so-called ‘Smack Law’ which prohibits parents from using physical force to discipline their children.75 This tendency – to diminish those social commitments that conflict with the citizens’ loyalty to the state so as to guarantee the practical indivisibility of the state’s sovereignty – is nothing new: it received its classic formulation in Plato’s Republic. In modern times, it received an impetus from Rousseau, in his concepts of the ‘general will’ and the ‘sovereignty of the state over its subjects’. Such an understanding of sovereignty has been adopted by socialism because of its need to control the assets of citizens in order to redistribute them.76 Thus socialism believes that the key to the equitable reordering of society lies in the political body, formed primarily of the oppressed masses, and it assumes that common property or (to use the language of John Paul II) the universal destination of goods, is more important than individual ownership. It is then up to the state to oversee the production and distribution of economic goods, and the necessary social re-engineering. For this reason, even democratic socialism, although theoretically anti-statist, tends to concentrate power and increase its coercive capacity to guarantee this economic distribution and social re-engineering.77






























































74

ECHEVERRIA, 1985, 226-27. Although it could be argued that this characteristic appears in a considerable number of those nations which are marked by liberal tendencies. However, for progressive parties, this moral re-engineering is generally part of their social programme, and not a merely circumstantial effect. 76 KOYZIS, 2003, 159-62. 77 Ibid, 169. 75

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

179

In my own view, Brazil has suffered profoundly under the domination of a paternalistic and centralized form of power (as Cavalcanti himself has confirmed), which has tended to undermine individual initiative and citizenship. Thus our need for social and economic justice calls for state intervention, but our political history calls for a reduction of the state.78 In this context, socialism does not seem to be the best alternative. However, it must be recognized that the socialism proposed by Cavalcanti is a form of pluralism in which there is freedom in the civil sphere, and in which state interventions are justified solely in the name of justice. One might question whether this should still be called socialism, but it is certainly coherent with the neo-Calvinist perspective.

3. Neo-Calvinism goes beyond liberalism and socialism When we examine the positive proposals of the political theology of Integral Mission in the political-economic field, its substantial coherence with neoCalvinist political thought is evident. As we have already observed, what the theology of Integral Mission aims for is a new alternative, one that goes beyond capitalism without abolishing economic freedom, and also incorporates the best of socialism, rethinking the tension between freedom and justice in a creative and efficient way. In confronting the problem of poverty, David Koyzis points out the basic difficulty of each ideology: liberal individualists tend to assume that poverty is the fruit of individual failures, and socialists treat the poor as mere victims of external circumstances, denying their personal responsibility. Both explanations are correct, but neither is exhaustive.79 The absolutization of the former leads to statism, and the absolutization of the latter leads to unrestrained savage capitalism. We need, then, a more complete model to guide our action. This is the claim of Kuyperian-Dooyeweerdian political thought, based on the concept of spheres of sovereignty. Each sphere of social life responds directly to God, in regard to its purpose and its principle, having a relative autonomy in relation to the other spheres. The sphere of the state is public justice, and it can only interfere with the other spheres if there is some form of injustice. This guarantees a free and pluralistic society, in which the corrective and redistributive actions of the state bring about conditions for the individual to work hard and promote upward mobility without eliminating either the need for personal initiative or the freedom for economic initiative. On the other hand, the economic domination of capitalism in all spheres of life is something idolatrous and unjust, requiring state intervention. Cavalcanti affirms categorically: ‘Any accumulation of assets and capital in the hands of individuals, families and groups will only be lawful in a society where there is




























































78

‘Today Brazil has the highest level of state control of any country, except for MarxistLeninist nations, a level much higher than any desired by the socialist parties’ (CAVALCANTI, 2002, 255). 79 KOYZIS, 2003, 180.

180

Christian Worldview and Transformation


food, shelter, school, work, health and leisure for all.’80 In political liberalism, this inequality is accepted in the name of freedom, but in Calvinism no freedom can justify such a state of affairs. So, like socialism, Cavalcanti advocates the intervention of the state to set right economic injustice.81 For this reason, the crisis of the left is not something we can look on with equanimity. We still need to reaffirm the Christian critique of capitalism, as Freston pointed out in 1990.82 All of this suggests that Cavalcanti’s unpretentious suggestion, when he reflected on the viability of a centre-ground Christian Democracy, is exactly the sort of thing that neo-Calvinist political action would advocate, rather than identifying itself as part of the left wing (or, worse, of the right wing).

4. Neo-Calvinism presents a true evangelical political philosophy Freston has called for a political theology that encompasses the Biblical view of the state, rulers, laws and the principles of political action, and goes beyond mere moralism – and, indeed, this reflection is taking place. However, it must be pointed out that more precise and functional definitions of the points cited (and others) cannot exist independently of a philosophy and science of politics. Would it not be more accurate, then, to speak of a Christian political philosophy? Perhaps – but only to the extent that one’s understanding of the relationship between faith and science (philosophy) allows it. For many Christian theologians (and for most philosophers), the introduction of concepts of theological origin into scientific and philosophical reflection is a kind of perversion, but it is exactly here that the neo-Calvinist philosophy of worldview concentrates its main line of attack. For the leading Calvinistic philosopher Dooyeweerd, the belief that scientific and philosophical reason operates from autonomous principles, being intrinsically independent of religion, is an illusion that has become an unquestioned dogma of secular humanism. Dooyeweerd attacks this belief, and fires off his philosophical critique, showing that the only possible philosophy for Christians is a Christian philosophy, and that this applies to all areas, including politics. Since any philosophical and scientific thought has its roots in some religious position, whatever it may be, the Christian cannot take non-Christian (or ‘Christian’) theories and adopt them uncritically; sin’s consequences affect the full extent of human life, including our thinking. The Christian must critically






























































80

CAVALCANTI, 1997, 113. However, we must repeat that neo-Calvinism cannot accept some socialist theses used to justify state intervention, such as the belief that poverty is caused by the existence of wealth, or the belief that the social division of labour is intrinsically wrong: ‘If Marxism is a variation of the Gnostic heresy, which sees the root of evil as lying in some structural defect in the world, then for Marx the division of labour is just this root of evil’ (KOYZIS, 2003, 174). 82 FRESTON, 1992/b, 49. 81

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

181

re-read these theories, through the lens of the Christian worldview, and reform them from within. Thus, we must seek a distinctly Christian political philosophy, based on Christian presuppositions. In the case of the neo-Calvinist movement, this is not merely a proposal; it has become a reality, thanks to the work of Kuyper, and, especially, of Dooyeweerd, who was a jurist and profoundly versed in politics. He developed a general theory of law and state, based on Biblical presuppositions, and his proposal more than meets the need in Brazil for a distinctively evangelical political philosophy.

5. Worldview Philosophy: a Heuristic Structure for Interdisciplinary Dialogue The thinking of Integral Mission has given priority to dialogue with social sciences, thus following the trend of liberation theology. Such dialogue is indispensable since, in modern societies, actions of public impact are scientifically oriented, based on the collation of strategic information and the elaboration of theoretical models. Undoubtedly, the instrumentalization of rationality and the culture of technical control have their negative side: scientism is an ideology incompatible with Christianity, since it precludes the possibility of basing any action on non-scientific knowledge. However, it would be reactionary and anti-normative to ignore the reality of historical progress and propose the annulment of technique and science. It is necessary first to seek a unity between the non-technical, non-scientific dimensions (Husserl’s ‘life world’ or Lebenswelt) and techno-scientific rationality – and this unity can be found only in the relativization of reason to the religious foundation of life. In other words, the same life-and-worldview that governs subjectivity, private life and the non-rational aspects of life must find expression in science. Taking the Christian worldview as a starting point, neo-Calvinist philosophy proposes more than a dialogue with the social sciences; it wants rather the internal reform of the social sciences, so as to achieve coherence between both the faith-religion and the techno-scientific dimensions. In this way, actions seeking to effect transformation in the economic and political fields, in social relationships in general, in cultural life, in art, etc. would combine faith and scientific inquiry, both proceeding from the same spiritual root: communion with God in Christ by the Spirit. Evidently, then, Christian action for integral transformation needs to directly face the challenge of reforming theoretical thinking, especially in its technoscientific form – and this is exactly the proposal of reformational philosophy. That is why it is capable of giving the Christian thinker concrete tools for getting free from the ‘strait-jacket of contemporary scientistic prejudice’, in Cavalcanti’s phrase. Starting from Christ, reformational philosophy proposes not only a dialogue between theology and the human sciences, but a heuristic structure to guide dialogue and mutual criticism between the various human sciences. As is well known, the human sciences suffer from the problem of

182

Christian Worldview and Transformation


fragmentation and super-specialization, and have even been the target of academic campaigns in search of the so-called ‘reunification’ of knowledge. Is not this the time to present a Christian proposal?

6. A consistent proposal for extra-ecclesiastical Christian action At the beginning of the Integral Mission movement, one of the great debates that took place was about the role of so-called ‘Para-ecclesiastical institutions’, such as missionary organizations, social projects, music groups, etc. In part at least, these debates were understandable, as it was necessary to delineate the role of the local church and the criteria of co-operation, and also to give legitimacy to such institutions. However, the discussion remained largely unproductive, due to the popular notion that such institutions existed only to accomplish tasks that the church was not performing properly; and there were pastors who were totally opposed to investing in social projects, considering them ‘a job for the government’.83 The observations of Alexandre Carneiro Souza in CBE II addressed the current confused evangelical understanding of citizenship and civil society. Pastors tend to cast a shadow of illegitimacy over Christian involvement in non-church activities (‘para-’ or ‘extra-’ ecclesiastical), preferring to reinforce their ministries, and to respond to the pressures from peers, and from their own members, who demand growth and success. To yield to these pressures, neglecting the need to enable the saints to act in the integral transformation of society, is an attitude of weakness that ends up shaming the name of Christ and the church. However, many pastors discourage believers’ involvement as citizens for theological reasons: there are forms of evangelical theology in which the church is viewed as an ‘alternative society’, so that believers are discouraged from venturing beyond it, with the risk of becoming lost.84
































































83 In addition, the distinction between genuinely para-church associations and extrachurch organizations was not always recognized. A para-ecclesiastical organization is, in fact, an organization in support of the fulfilment of the central task of the churches – that is, the promotion of the faith – existing within the sphere of the sovereignty of faith (the ‘pistic’ sphere). This includes evangelistic ministries, missionary organizations, denominational publishers, Bible seminaries and institutes, and so on. Extraecclesiastical organizations, however, are those which have a genuinely Christian character, but their purpose and principle of operation belong to another sphere of sovereignty. Thus, for example, a Christian university or college belongs to the sphere of scientific knowledge. An assistance organization is primarily intended for assistance, not evangelism. A political movement like MEP has a Christian background, but its purpose is political. Because of the failure to make this key distinction, many Christian organizations have great difficulty in determining their true identity, and even end up competing with the church. 84 Cavalcanti also attacks this kind of attitude: ‘For most people, the Christian life is only mediocre […] lives which make no contribution to human history. Communities who make no difference in the state or in civil society. Energy spent on programmes just

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

183

This problem simply does not exist in neo-Calvinist thought, because in it the involvement of believers in para-ecclesiastical and extra-ecclesiastical projects is not seen as a way of ‘compensating’ for the weakness of the church, but as one of its main purposes. In this perspective, the church is seen as a kind of ‘pastoral centre’, which aims to empower and send the saints out to implement integral transformation in the various fields of society. More importantly, these actions are not and cannot be controlled by the church, because of the principle of the spheres of sovereignty according to which each part of society is under the norm and authority established for it by God.85 This puts an end to the ‘logic of competition’, described by Alexandre Carneiro Souza, and the need for churches to ‘write off’ projects that are not used to ‘duplicate their institutional form’. The churches’ way forward is different now: to encourage the saints to organize themselves in political associations, parties, social projects, cultural organizations, schools, etc., in order to seek social reform on the basis of the Christian worldview, working within these areas, with pastoral guidance from the church, but without the need for pastors to control or authorize these actions. This will imply, not only the limitation of ecclesiastical machines, but also a civil confrontation of the state machine, controlling its secular interference in the spheres of education, family and morality by the peaceful means of occupying these spaces. And if we allow ourselves to dream and speak in utopian terms, we might imagine an invasion of Christians into civil society, participating, sustaining and initiating transformational projects in all areas – politics, academia, health, community development, education, art – working in groups on the basis of gospel principles, defying the abuse of pastoral power and reforming the Brazilian state! Is that not a vision to fire our passion?

7. Church and state: distinction without secularization Undoubtedly, here is one of the greatest challenges for evangelical political action: reducing the control of ecclesiastical machines over politics. The only way to do this is by the extra-ecclesiastical organization of Christians. Cavalcanti stressed that individual political action is ineffective and that our need at the moment is for an ‘organic presence’ of Christians, ‘by the creation of groups and movements’. Such organizations, like the MEP (Progressive Evangelical Movement), can dialogue with denominational churches and leaders, but without being controlled by them. They should maintain their integrity as legitimately political organizations, not political entities at the service of non-political interests (which would characterize disrespect for spheres of sovereignty). This








































































































































for internal consumption, and on the endless squabbles of denominational sectarianism’ (CAVALCANTI, 1997, 122). 85 It remains to be seen how far evangelical pastors will be willing to give up the control of their members in order to send them into the real spiritual battle of our times – the battle for the heart of western culture.

184

Christian Worldview and Transformation


is good, both for the state and for the church: especially for the church, as it is kept from two dangers – losing sight of its own sphere of sovereignty and responsibility, which is the promotion of faith, and becoming contaminated by political scandals and disappointments. None of this implies the separation of faith and politics, as Padilla put it so well. On the contrary, it is the neo-Calvinist worldview itself that advocates the autonomy of the various spheres of sovereignty. What makes a political action Christian is not the tutelage of a church or denomination, nor just the presence of a Christian ethic, but a political proposal that reflects the Christian worldview in its view of the state – its proposals in the areas of society, the economy, etc., and, above all, its commitment to the fulfilment of the central divine norm of the political sphere, which is the realization of public justice. When the saints organize to fight for justice from a Christian perspective, we do not have the institutional presence of the church, but we have its organic presence. In the name of this justice, the Christian politician must confront the churches and contribute to their ‘reform’, by limiting their spurious, corporative, self-interested interference, and announcing the sovereignty of God in the political sphere.

8. Morals and politics: distinction without rupture This was what Freston has insisted on: the distinction between the realization of justice, which is the task of the body politic, and Christian ethics, which cannot be legislated: ‘The government has no unlimited Biblical mandate to repress any and every sinful action. The task of government is not to implement morality, but rather justice.’86 Here we have a substantial coherence with the neo-Calvinist perspective, that the sphere of sovereignty of the government is justice, and this sphere is different from the sphere of morality. According to Freston, the desire of evangelicals to legislate the whole of their morality will create problems in the future. In fact, it is not possible to regulate people’s love and faithfulness by means of legislation. It is not possible, for example, to guarantee the love and moral commitment of parents to their children. But it is possible to interfere when a lack of ethics leads to injustice – for example, if parents do not send their children to school, or when people do not honour contracts. It follows that, even though there is no complete identity between ethics and public justice, there is an internal relationship between them.87 Thus, legislation on sexual behaviour cannot make people sexually pure; but to avoid injustice, we must seek to ensure that morally questionable sexual






























































86

FRESTON, 1992/b, 47. For an exposition of how, within Calvinism, the political-juridical sphere won its autonomy in relation to the moral sphere without becoming secularized (in contrast to the Lutheran experience), cf. my article: A cosmovisão calvinista e a resistência ao Estado (The Calvinist worldview and resistance to the State) in Fides Reformata, vol. X, nº 2, 21-44, 2005.

87

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

185

behaviour is discouraged and proper moral behaviour is promoted. In that sense, we cannot agree with those evangelicals who advocate that the church should not intervene on issues such as the legalization of homosexual civil union, inasmuch as this has implications for family organization, child adoption, sex education in state schools, and so on – and all these questions are not merely ethical but also legal. Similarly, the existence of sex education programmes to prevent teenage pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, based solely on the use of condoms, and the systematic rejection of abstinence programmes, reflect, not an alleged ‘secularity’ of the state, but the effective promotion of sexual promiscuity. And it is impossible to deny, in this case, the impact of ethics on justice. What about the children born sick or without a structured family? Is this not a legal and economic cost for the teenage parents? Is this not a public health problem that affects the pockets of all citizens? And the rights of these children – what about them? Thus, if Freston means that, in the political field, our positions must relate, first and foremost, to the implementation of public justice, we can agree with him. So, we will be on the side of people whose moral behaviour is questionable, when their cause brings about more social justice. But if, as some evangelicals think, Christians cannot stand idly by when witnessing the moral corruption of society, when governmental legitimizations of immoral behaviour are proposed, then we have another situation. We will not be witnessing a healthy independence of the political sphere, but a closing of the political sphere to morality, something that endangers the very idea of the implementation of public justice.

9. Political co-belligerence Finally, a word must be said about the tradition of political co-belligerence between Catholics and neo-Calvinists. Evangelicals, confusing ecclesiastical space with public space, tend to treat Catholics as political opponents, when there are several fundamental questions in which substantial agreement could motivate joint political action. Thus, Abraham Kuyper, in spite of strongly criticizing Catholicism, allied himself on several occasions with it, in defence of justice and in resistance to Dutch political liberalism. Today, the Christian Democrat party in the Netherlands brings together the Calvinists of the former ARP (Anti-Revolutionary Party) of Kuyper and the Catholics. In North America today, there is much co-operation between the Calvinists of James Skillen’s Institute for Public Justice and Catholics such as Richard John Neuhaus. This openness to co-belligerence was transmitted to Francis Schaeffer, who defended it on several occasions. Cavalcanti relies on Schaeffer when writing about the subject: Having the Scriptures as the standard, the Holy Spirit as the source of discernment, and the values of the kingdom as a reference, let us act, as Schaeffer suggests, in co-belligerence with any persons, groups, movements, organizations

Christian Worldview and Transformation


186

and institutions that converge towards these values, in whatever situation, at any point, maintaining our independence and identity, guarding the sacred deposit of our faith, exercising our piety.88

Some areas in which we should seek political co-operation with Catholics in particular are: (1) advocacy for more efficient forms of income redistribution; (2) the struggle against the secular control of public education; (3) the defence of the family, and of Christian sexual morality, not by its imposition but by resisting the imposition of humanistic sexual morality; (4) the struggle for the participation of the churches in debates on biomedical ethics; (5) the development of Christian politicians; (6) the joint development and promotion of a Christian human rights programme.

Final Considerations All things considered, we need to recognize that there is more similarity than difference between the mainstream Brazilian political theology of Integral Mission and neo-Calvinist thought represented by Kuyperian-Dooyeweerdian political philosophy. There are undoubtedly important differences: neoCalvinism is critical of socialism as a political solution, and much more radical in its search for a specifically Christian policy. In spite of these differences, neo-Calvinist proposals for most of the issues raised by the Integral Mission school are consistent with the proposals of that school, such as the struggle for social justice, criticism of neo-liberal capitalism, defence of evangelical involvement in civil society, disagreement with subservience to ecclesiastical interests, etc. But there is more to be said. It is possible to detect meaningful points of contact between the political thought of the Integral Mission school and Reformed worldview thinking. For example, the notions that the specific sphere of the state is public justice, and that Christians must fulfil the cultural mandate, both have Calvinist origins. Historical examples of Calvinism have also served as inspiration at times. When he mentions evangelicals who were agents of historical transformation, Freston cites only two examples: English 89 Puritanism and the Dutch Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper. There is also a connection with the literature of the Neo-Calvinist movement, noticeable in the 90 bibliographical references of some works. Finally, it is necessary to cite the text A Ressacralização do Mundo Contemporâneo: Enfoque Sociológico e Teológico (The Re-sacralization of the Contemporary World: a Sociological and Theological Approach),91 in which Freston outlines a sort of ‘worldview analysis’, showing that Christianity is an






























































88

CAVALCANTI, 1997, 126. FRESTON, 1992/b, 63-67. 90 Freston, for example, relies heavily on Nicholas Wolterstorff. 91 Chapter 4 of the book Fé Bíblica e Crise Brasileira (Biblical Faith and Brazilian Crisis) (São Paulo: ABU, 1992). 89

The Political Theology of Integral Mission in Brazil

187

alternative system to secular humanism and ‘pantheism’, and describing the fundamental aspects of biblical religion. The specific merit of neo-Calvinist political philosophy lies in its ability, not only to bring together theological groundwork and scientific sophistication, but also to provide a comprehensive view of society, with proposals for political action for the economy and for the social order as a whole. This characteristic has its roots in the Kuyperian understanding of Christianity as a total system of life and thought – that is, as a complete life-and-worldview. The Kuyperian view, by its very nature, breaks through the narrow boundaries of the local church and requires the involvement of all believers in all areas of life. Thus, Kuyper gave us that famous saying, which perfectly represents the intentions of the Christian worldview movement: ‘There is not a single centimetre in any domain of human life, over which Christ, the Lord of all, does not cry, It is mine.’ During CBE II, Kivitz gave a talk entitled: ‘A Theological Synthesis of Integral Mission’, and declared that ‘Integral Mission implies action so that Christ may be the Lord over everything, everyone, in every dimension of human existence’.92 Is that not what Kuyper meant? For this reason, we believe that there is, in principle, a consistency between the Christian worldview movement and the Integral Mission movement. The practical examples and the theological production of Integral Mission form a basis of experiences and perceptions about the gospel and Brazilian reality, on the basis of which Christian worldview thinking can gain meaning and relevance; they are the shoulders on which we want to lean. In turn, the neo-Calvinist proposal, by its theological and philosophical characteristics, can fortify the Integral Mission movement, producing a greater degree of depth, consistency and cultural penetration. The union of Christian worldview thinking and Integral Mission thinking can bring renewal to evangelical action in the ongoing endeavour for Christian politics, as we work for the integral transformation of Brazil.






























































92

KIVITZ, 2004, 64.




EPILOGUE Mauricio José Silva Cunha This book has attempted to lay a foundation for the concept of worldview, with its theoretical, historical and philosophical underpinnings, and so to outline possible paths to a transformative praxis for the Brazilian evangelical church on the basis of the Reformed Christian worldview. I repeat what has already been said in the introduction: this is not an attempt to start another ‘fashion’ in the church – to provide a ‘salvation’ or ‘solution’ to all our problems. On the contrary, what is proposed here is a return to something old, but very much alive; traditional, but renewing; considered old-fashioned, but definitely contemporary; considered by some as outdated, but more relevant than ever: the application of the Christian worldview and its transforming power in a society. It is the continuing of a journey that still has a lot of mileage ahead: the challenge of constructing a theory and practice contextualized to the 21stcentury Brazilian reality, but based on timeless and supra-cultural truths – and therefore perfectly applicable in our context. In this journey, there is no place for those who want ‘ready-made solutions’, magical and infallible recipes. There is room only for those who, committed to God, are seeking the wholehearted establishment of Reformation proposals on a solid basis – in other words, the application of Christianity ‘until the utmost consequence’, in every sphere of life. This book is an invitation to all those who, longing for the establishment of the Kingdom in our country, desire, in dependence on the Holy Spirit, to leave their mark on our generation, dreaming and working for a truly transformed Brazil. Amen!




BIBLIOGRAPHY ANTONIAZZI, Alberto. ‘O sagrado e as religiões no limiar do terceiro milênio’ in: CALIMAN, Cleto, org. A sedução do sagrado: o fenômeno religioso na virada do milênio. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1998, 11-19. AZEVEDO, Antônio Carlos de Amaral. Dicionário de nomes, termos e conceitos históricos. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1999. BARRO, Antônio Carlos. ‘Revisão do marco da missão integral’ in: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE EVANGELIZAÇÃO 2. Missão integral: proclamar o reino de Deus, vivendo o evangelho de Cristo. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2004, 73-89. BIÉLER, André. A Força Oculta dos Protestantes. São Paulo: Cultura Cristã, 1999. BOA, Kennet, BOWMAN, Robert. Faith Has Its Reasons. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2000. BOFF, Clodovis. Teoria do Método Teológico. 2nd ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1999. BONINO, José Miguez. Fé em Busca de Eficácia. São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1987. BROWN, Colin. Philosophy and the Christian Faith: A Historical Sketch from the Middle Ages to the Present Day. IVP Academic, 1969. BRÜMMER, Vincent. Transcendental Criticism and Christian Philosophy: A Presentation and Evaluation of Herman Dooyeweerd’s ‘Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea’. Franeker: T. Wever, 1961. CAIRNS, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. A History of the Christian Church. Zondervan Academic, 1996. CALVIN, John. Commentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979. 20v. CARDOSO, Alexandre A. Os Alquimistas Já Chegaram: Uma Interpretação Sociológica das Práticas Mágicas em Belo Horizonte. [Doctoral thesis] São Paulo: FFLCH, USP, 1999. CARVALHO, Guilherme V.R. ‘O Calvinismo e a Resistência ao Estado’, Fides Reformata. São Paulo: vol. X, no. 2 (2005), 21-44. CARVALHO, J. Jorge de. ‘Características do Fenômeno Religioso na Sociedade Contemporânea’ in: BINGEMER, M. Clara L., org. O Impacto da Modernidade na Religião. São Paulo: Loyola, 1992. 133-63. CASTRO, Emilio. ‘A Igreja Evangélica e a Questão Política’ in: STEUERNAGEL, Valdir, ed. E o Verbo se Fez Carne: Desde a América Latina. CLADE III. Curitiba: Encontrão, 1995. 215-18. CAVALCANTI, Robinson. ‘A Situação Sócio-Econômica e Política da América Latina’ in: Boletim Teológico 6 (18) (Nov. 1992), 5-20. ______. ‘O evangelho e a política na América Latina’ in: STEUERNAGUEL, Valdir, ed. No princípio era o Verbo: todo o Evangelho. CLADE III. Curitiba: Encontrão, 1994. 179-86. ______. A Utopia Possível: Em Busca de um Cristianismo Integral. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 1997. ______. Cristianismo e política: teoria bíblica e prática histórica. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2002. ______. Os cristãos progressistas e a crise da esquerda no Brasil. Brasília: LAI — BRASIL/MEP, 2003.

192

Christian Worldview and Transformation


CHAPLIN, Jonathan. ‘Defining “public justice” in a pluralistic society: probing a key neo-Calvinist insight’ in: Pro Rege, March 2004, 1-11. COOPER, John W. ‘Teilhard, Marx, and the Worldview of prominent liberation theologians’. Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 24, no 2 (Nov. 1989). CUCHE, Denys. A noção de cultura nas ciências sociais. Bauru: EDUSC – Editora da Universidade do Sagrado Coração, 1996. CUNHA, Mauricio J.S., WOOD, Beth A. O reino entre nós: transformação de comunidades pelo evangelho integral. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2003. DOCKERY, David S., THORNBURY. Shaping a Christian Worldview. Nashville: B&HP, 2002. DOOYEWEERD, Herman. A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Vol. II: The General Theory of the Modal Spheres. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955. ______. A Christian Theory of Social Institutions. La Jolla: The Herman Dooyeweerd Foundation, 1986. ______. In The Twilight of Western Thought: Studies in the Pretended Autonomy of Philosophical Thought. Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960. ______. The Christian Idea of the State. Nutley: The Craig Press, 1978. ______. Roots of Western Culture; Pagan, Secular and Christian Options. Trans. John Kraay. Toronto: Wedge Pub. Foundations, 1979. DUNCAN, Graham. ‘Practical Theology: Faith apart from works is dead’ in: Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 53/01 (2001). ECHEVERRIA, Edward J. ‘Until Justice and Peace Embrace: a review article. Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 20, no 2 (Nov. 1985). ECUMENICAL CREEDS AND REFORMED CONFESSIONS. Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1988. FELIPE, Sônia T. Rawls: ‘Uma teoria ético-política da justiça’ in: OLIVEIRA, Manfredo A., org. Correntes fundamentais da ética contemporânea. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2001. 133-62. FERREIRA, Franklin. ‘Uma introdução a Max Weber e à obra “A Ética Protestante e o Espírito do Capitalismo”’. Fides Reformata. São Paulo: vol. V, no 2 (2000). FRAME, John M. Cornelius van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1995. FRESTON, P. ‘Evangélicos na política brasileira’. Boletim teológico 6 (18) (Nov. 1992), 21-42. ______. Fé bíblica e crise brasileira. São Paulo: ABU, 1992. ______. ‘Breve história do pentecostalismo brasileiro’ in: ANTONIAZZI, A. et al., orgs. Nem anjos nem demônios: interpretações sociológicas do pentecostalismo. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1994. ______. Evangélicos na política brasileira: história ambígua e desafio ético. Curitiba: Encontrão, 1994. ______. ‘Ética na política’ in: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE EVANGELIZAÇÃO, 2. Missão integral: proclamar o reino de Deus, vivendo o evangelho de Cristo. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2004, 261-66. GEERTZ, Clifford. Islam Observed: Religious Development in Morocco and Indonesia. University of Chicago Press, 1971. GEORGE, Timothy. Teologia dos Reformadores. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1994. GIBELLINI, Rosino. A teologia do século XX. São Paulo: Loyola, 1998. GOMES, Antônio Máspoli de Araújo. ‘O pensamento de João Calvino e a ética protestante de Max Weber, aproximações e contrastes’. Fides Reformata. São Paulo: vol. VII, no 2 (2002).

Bibliography

193

GONDIM, Ricardo. ‘Desafio e Consagração’ in: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE EVANGELIZAÇÃO, 2. Missão integral: proclamar o reino de Deus, vivendo o evangelho de Cristo. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2004, 281-93. GONZÁLEZ, Justo L. E até aos confins da terra: uma história ilustrada do cristianismo. vol. 8: ‘A era dos dogmas e das dúvidas’. São Paulo: Vida Nova. 1995. ______. E até aos confins da terra: uma história ilustrada do cristianismo. vol. 10: ‘A era inconclusa’. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1995. GOUDZWAARD, Bob. Capitalism and Progress: A Diagnosis of Western Society. Trans. and ed. Josina van Nuis Zylstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. HODGE A.A. The Confession of Faith. Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988. HOKSBERGEN, Roland. Centesimus Annus: A Neo-Calvinist Critique. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Christian Economists, in conjunction with the meetings of the Allied Social Science Association. New Orleans, LA: January 1992. HOOYKAAS, Robert. Religion and the Rise of Modern Science. Regent College Publishing, 2000. HORTON, Michael S. Where in the World is the Church? Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 2002. HURTADO, Jaime Ortiz. ‘A igreja evangélica e a questão política: um caso colombiano’ in: STEUERNAGEL, Valdir, ed. E o Verbo se fez carne: desde a América Latina. CLADE III. Curitiba: Encontrão, 1995, 191-96. KIVITZ, Ed René. ‘Uma síntese teológica da missão integral’ in: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE EVANGELIZAÇÃO, 2. Missão integral: proclamar o reino de Deus, vivendo o evangelho de Cristo. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2004, 63-65. KOYZIS, David T. Political Visions & Illusions. A Survey & Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003. ______. Introductory Essay to Herman Dooyeweerd’s Political Thought. Available at: http://www.redeemer.on.ca/academics/polisci/dooyeweerd_intro.html, accessed 07/10/2005. KRUSE, Marcos. ‘“Ecônomo-teologia”: preliminares’. Boletim teológico 6 (20) (March 1993), 7-17. KUYPER, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Eerdmans, 1943. LEITE, Cláudio Antônio Cardoso. ‘A ética pentecostal e o espírito emotivo: da ética protestante racional à ética protestante emocional’ in: NOBRE, Renarde Freire, org. Teoria e sociedade. Revista dos Departamentos de Ciência Política e de Sociologia e Antropologia da UFMG. Belo Horizonte: Edição Especial: ‘O pensamento de Max Weber e suas interlocuções’, 172-89, 2005. LIBÂNIO, João Batista. Introdução à teologia: perfil, enfoques, tarefas. São Paulo: Loyola, 1996. MARKEY, John J. ‘Praxis in Liberation Theology: Some Clarifications’ in: Missiology: An International Review, vol. XXIII, no 2 (April 1995). MARSHALL, Paul. Thine is the Kingdom: A Biblical Perspective on the Nature of Government and Politics Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. ______. ‘Dooyeweerd’s Empirical Theory of Rights’ in: McINTIRE, C. T. The Legacy of Herman Dooyeweerd: Reflections on Critical Philosophy in the Christian Tradition. Boston: University Press of America, 1985, 119-42. McGRATH, Alister. A Life of John Calvin: A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture. Wiley-Blackwell, 1993. MILLER, Darrow L. Discipling Nations: The Power of Truth to Transform Cultures. YWAM Publishing, 2001. ______. The Worldview of the Kingdom of God [lecture notes].

194

Christian Worldview and Transformation


NAUGLE, David K. Worldview, The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. OBERMAN, Heiko A. The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. OLTHUIS, James H. ‘Evolutionary dialetics and Segundo’s “liberation of theology”’ in: Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 21, no 1 (April 1986). PADILLA, C. René. ‘Em busca de uma ética política evangélica’ in: Boletim teológico 6 (18) (Nov. 1992), 43-61. PAULO II, João. Carta encíclica ‘Centesimus Annus’. 6ª ed. (1ª ed. 1991). São Paulo: Paulinas, 2004. PEARCEY, Nancy, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004. PIERUCCI, Antônio F. ‘Apêndice: As religiões no Brasil’ in: GAARDER, J., HELLERN, V., NOTAKER, H. O livro das religiões. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2000. PLANTINGA, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. RASCHKE, Carl. The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals must embrace postmodernity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academy, 2004. RENDERS, Helmut. ‘A memória de John Wesley: “mergulho no social”, “participação cultural” e confessionalidade’. Revista de Educação do Cogeime, year 12, no 22 (June 2003), 47-58. SCHAEFFER, Francis A. The Church at the End of the 20th Century. Inter-Varsity Press, 1970. ______. Escape from Reason. IVP Books, 2006. ______. How Should We Then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Crossway Books; Anniversary edition, 2005. SEERVELD, Calvin G. ‘Dooyeweerd’s legacy for aesthetics: modal law theory’ in: McINTIRE, C.T. The Legacy of Herman Dooyeweerd: Reflections on Critical Philosophy in the Christian Tradition. Boston: University Press of America, 1985, 41-80. SILVESTRE, Armando Araújo. Calvino e a resistência ao Estado. São Paulo: Editora Mackenzie, 2003. SKILLEN, James W. From Covenant of Grace to Equitable Public Pluralism: The Dutch Calvinist Contribution in: Calvin Theological Journal, 31, no 1 (April 1996), 67-96. ______, McCARTHY, ROCKNE. M. ‘Political order and the plural structure of society’ in: Emory University Studies in Law and Religion, vol. 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. SKINNER, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, 1978. SOUZA, Alexandre Carneiro de. ‘Cidadania e responsabilidade social’ in: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE EVANGELIZAÇÃO, 2. Missão integral: proclamar o reino de Deus, vivendo o evangelho de Cristo. Viçosa, MG: Ultimato, 2004, 239-60. SPYKMAN, Gordon J. ‘The principled pluralist position’ in: SMITH, Gary Scott. God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989. STARK, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton: University Press, 1996.

Bibliography

195

STOTT, John et al. Evangelism and Social Responsibility: An Evangelical Commitment. Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization World Evangelical Fellowship, 1982. STOTT, John. Issues Facing Christians Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. ______. Basic Christianity. A Handbook of Christian Faith. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2008 (first published 1958). ______. The Contemporary Christian: Applying God's Word to Today's World. TEIXEIRA, Antônio Braz. Sentido e valor do direito: introdução à filosofia jurídica. 2ª ed. s/l. Imprensa Nacional/Casa da Moeda. Estudos Gerais: Série Universitária, 2000. MOVIMENTO EVANGÉLICO PROGRESSISTA. O cristão e a política. 4ª ed. Brasília: MEP, 2003. Accessible at WALZER, Michael. The Revolution of the Saints. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. WITTE, John. ‘Introduction’ in: DOOYEWEERD, Herman. A Christian Theory of Social Institutions. La Jolla: The Herman Dooyeweerd Foundation, 1986, 11-30. WOLTERS, Albert. Creation Regained: Biblical basis for a Reformation Worldview. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. WOLTERSTORFF, Nicholas. Art in Action: toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. ______. Educating for Responsible Action. Grand Rapids: CSI Publications, Eerdmans, 1980. ______. Until Justice and Peace Embrace; the Kuyper Lectures for 1981, delivered at the Free University of Amsterdam. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ______. Voices from the Past: Reformed Educators. OPEWALL, Donald (Ed.). Grand Rapids: Calvin College, 1992. ______. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. ______. John Locke and the Ethics of Belief. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. ______. Keeping Faith: Embracing the Tensions in Christian Higher Education. Essays and pieces on the occasion of the inauguration of Gaylen J. Byker as President of Calvin College, Ronald Wells. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ______. Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. WOLTERSTORFF, Nicholas, AUDI, Robert. Religion in the Public Square: the Place of Religious Conviction in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.




EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS Editors Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite teaches at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, where he is a researcher at the Pierre Sanchis Centre for the Study of Religion. He is a member of the Kuyper Association of Trans-disciplinary Studies. Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho, a Baptist pastor, is a member of the Paul Tillich Association of Brazil, a founder of L'Abri in Brazil and President of the Kuyper Association of Transdisciplinary Studies. Mauricio José Silva Cunha is an agronomist, business administrator and is the founder of CADI (Centre for Integral Care and Development) and a project director of World Vision in Brazil. He is co-author of O Reino Entre Nós: transformação de comunidades pelo evangelho integral.

Contributors Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite holds a bachelor’s degree in social sciences and a master’s degree in sociology, with studies on Christian worldview, at L’Abri Fellowship in England. He teaches at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, where he is a researcher at the Pierre Sanchis Centre for the Study of Religion. He is a member of the Kuyper Association of Trans-disciplinary Studies. Fernando Antônio Cardoso Leite has specialized in the history of art and culture at the Federal University of Minas Gerais. He is a history teacher in the public education sector in Minas Gerais, and a founding member of the Kuyper Association of Trans-disciplinary Studies. Rodolfo Amorim Carlos de Souza, a graduate in International Relations, is a specialist in voluntary sector management. He has a Master’s degree in sociology from the Federal University of Minas Gerais, and a degree in Christian leadership from the International Bible Institute of London. He is Executive Director of the Betel Baptist Community Association, which works for the integral transformation of needy communities, and a founding member of L’Abri in Brazil.

198

Christian Worldview and Transformation


Mauricio José Silva Cunha is an agronomist and business administrator and has a Master’s degree in social anthropology from the Federal University of Paraná. He is the founder of CADI (Centre for Integral Care and Development) and a project director of World Vision in Brazil. He is co-author of O Reino Entre Nós: transformação de comunidades pelo evangelho integral (The Kingdom in Our Midst: transforming communities with the whole gospel). Nilson Moutinho dos Santos is an electrical engineer and Master in Pastoral Theology. He was a Professor and co-ordinator of the course of Computer Science in the State University of Maringá for fifteen years. He is pastor of the Reformed Confessional Church in Maringá in the state of Paraná. Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho, a Baptist pastor, has a Master’s degree in Theology from the Baptist Theological Faculty of São Paulo and a Master’s degree in Science of Religion from the Methodist University of São Paulo. He is a member of the Paul Tillich Association of Brazil, a founder of L’Abri in Brazil and President of the Kuyper Association of Transdisciplinary Studies. Marcel Lins Camargo is a sociologist and postgraduate in Globalization and Culture. He is a missionary of the Evangelical Church ‘Building up in Christ’, São Paulo; he is a founding member of the Citizenship and Life Christian Nucleus in São Paulo and a director of CADI – The Centre for Integral Care and Development. Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho, a Baptist pastor, has a Master’s degree in Theology from the Baptist Theological Faculty of São Paulo and a Master’s degree in Science of Religion from the Methodist University of São Paulo. He is a member of the Paul Tillich Association of Brazil, a founder of L’Abri in Brazil and President of the Kuyper Association of Transdisciplinary Studies.


Luiz Roberto França de Mattos, a civil engineer, had a Master’s degree in Systematic Theology from the Andrew Jumper Presbyterian Centre in São Paulo and a PhD in philosophy from Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was a professor and director of the Andrew Jumper Presbyterian Graduate Centre and pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Praia Grande. He died in December 2004. Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho, a Baptist pastor, has a Master’s degree in Theology from the Baptist Theological Faculty of São Paulo and a Master’s degree in Science of Religion from the Methodist University of São Paulo. He is a member of the Paul Tillich Association of Brazil, a founder of L’Abri in Brazil and President of the Kuyper Association of Transdisciplinary Studies.

Global Voices Series What’s the point of the church being a global family if we never listen to one another? Or worse, if only some members of the family get to do all the talking? It is vital that the voices of the global church are heard by those in the western churches who have tended to listen only to themselves – especially when those voices are speaking from the cutting edge of the church’s mission. So I heartily commend the vision and intentions of this project.

Christian Worldview and Transformation • What is Christian Worldview? • What are the practical applications or ethical implications of Biblical truths? • How can Christians influence society? These are the questions which the authors of this volume seek to answer, along with other issues which challenge biblical faith. Through theoretical reflection and suggested practical actions; looking at the Early Church, the Reformation and historical experiences of poverty in Brazil; with a commitment to piety and an integral mission practice; Christian Worldview and Transformation raises proposals and alternatives for a spirituality which can bring changes to society and social relations.

Christopher J. H. Wright, This book contains essays that collectively offer an integrated view of Langham Partnership a life that is truly lived under the sovereignty of God.Though Brazil specific in its reflections and applications, there is much in this book that resonates with my current African context. All Christians are indeed called to the same gospel, Jesus Christ, and to be witnesses to his comprehensively transforming power.This book offers Brazil as a point of departure for a message on worldview that the world needs to continue listening to. It draws on lessons from history - various contexts, movements, individuals - to invite readers to a recasting of worldview that facilitates the re-presenting of the same old story in a manner that positively impacts the totality of life. Every reader stands to benefit from this book. Rev Dr Benhardt Quarshie, Principal of the Akrofi-Christaller Institute of Theology, Mission and Culture

regnum www.ocms.ac.uk/regnum

Cláudio Antônio Cardoso Leite teaches at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, where he is a researcher at the Pierre Sanchis Centre for the Study of Religion. Guilherme Vilela Ribeiro de Carvalho, a Baptist pastor, is a member of the Paul Tillich Association of Brazil, a founder of L'Abri in Brazil and President of the Kuyper Association of Transdisciplinary Studies. Mauricio José Silva Cunha is an agronomist, business administrator and is the founder of CADI (Centre for Integral Care and Development) and a project director of World Vision in Brazil.

regnum