Yet, as Sovereign, the Lord commands us to build culture and to be salt and light in it. It is not for us to quibble with the King; in the words of Tennyson, “ours is but to do – and die.” And that perspective is precisely the gospel’s own. It calls us each to come and die. Die to self, die at the hands of the world. Die. Period. But die that we might live to God. Such personal death and resurrection is quintessential to being a pilgrim people!

Carl Trueman is generally one with whom I agree.  But not this time.  This time I think he misses the point about Keller and Kuyper almost completely.  Let me add from the outset – so do some who use the rhetoric of “transformation.”  But it is Carl Trueman’s piece to which I am responding at the moment.   If a piece appears from the other side of the spectrum, I will address it accordingly.  However, the issue here is not “how we will effect the transformation of society,” be ye pro or con on the matter.  The issue is fidelity to the Sovereign God’s call to build culture, and for Christians to be salt and light in it.  Any transformation is, and has forever been, in God’s hands alone as the Sovereign.   I think both Kuyper and Keller make that point throughout their respective bodies of work.

Yet, as Sovereign, the Lord commands us to build culture and to be salt and light in it.  It is not for us to quibble with the King; in the words of Tennyson, “ours is but to do – and die.”  And that perspective is precisely the gospel’s own.  It calls us each to come and die.  Die to self, die at the hands of the world.  Die.  Period.  But die that we might live to God.  Such personal death and resurrection is quintessential to being a pilgrim people!  And as ironic as that juxtaposition of dying and building may be, it is there.  In light of that reality, efforts to build and penetrate culture are hardly utopian, elitist, or naïve.  They are expressions of faithfulness.  And such a view is essential to the (singular) “Christian worldview.”  Whatever diversity there may be on other points among Christians about how best to view the world, this point should not be in dispute.  It is (or ought to be) truly “catholic.”

Understood in that context, then, the gospel is (or has the potential to be) transformative – both personally and culturally.  On that point, surely there is no debate.  Dr. Trueman raises the spectre of present-day Amsterdam.  Fair point.  Many similar cases could be added.  Let’s mention apartheid, or American slavery under the watchful eyes of Southern (and Northern) Presbyterians.  Nor should we forget the Crusades themselves, which we have to thank (in no small part) for the current ills with Islam.  At the same time, however, Dr. Trueman neglects the work of men like Wilberforce and his lifelong devotion to the elimination of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.  He neglects Thomas Chalmers and the strength of diaconal ministry to the poor which helped transform urban ministries and environments altogether, at least where his efforts were duplicated.  He forgets the place that the Church achieved in Roman society, in the space of less than 300 years – a place it achieved on the strength of fidelity to the gospel in all facets of Roman society, and in spite of all facets of Roman society.  He forgets the role the Scoti peregrini had in the development of the very universities in which Dr. Trueman himself matriculated and from which he graduated.  Dr. Trueman’s (or his assertion of D.G. Hart’s) history lesson is, in short, selective – and thereby misleading.

There is a story (apocryphal or true, I don’t know) of Luther being asked what he would do today if he knew that Christ were returning tomorrow.  “Plant a tree,” he replied.  “Why? What on earth for?,” was the incredulous response.  “Because it is the faithful thing to do,” was his reply.  So, at least, is my recollection of the anecdote.  And in any case, it illustrates my point:  We are called to be faithful, regardless of any outcome we might expect, good or bad.  We are called to be faithful – in business, in education, in the home, in politics, and in the arts.  All of life is to be shown the ingredient of the gospel as the essential ingredient that makes life honorable and uplifting.

In the process, the Sovereign Lord may make use of those efforts to lead some of His elect to faith in His Son, at least as the gospel itself is declared within each of those spheres.  In the process, the Sovereign Lord may actually grant awakening and revival such that there really is a transformation of the culture – or He may not.  For instance, as of this writing, Egypt is erupting in civil war.  Christians there for the first time in centuries have a realistic opportunity to play a meaningful role in what kind of culture emerges from this conflict.  Their fidelity to Christ as salt and light in Egyptian culture is hardly a case of “pandering to middle class tastes and hobbies.”  They are literally dying, trusting in Christ and the final resurrection, and doing so for the sake of witnessing to Christ in their culture, in hopes too that Egypt may emerge more humane as a result.  That outcome may be forthcoming; it may not.  But truly, our brethren in Egypt understand poignantly what it means to be a pilgrim people.  We in the West should not be smug in the face of their sacrifice; indeed, we should be so faithful!

In any event, failure to be faithful to the gospel in these endeavors will not deprive the Lord of any of His elect.  Nor will infidelity result in the obstruction of the Lord’s ultimate judgment and rejuvenation of creation.  But it will deprive us disciples of the joy that arises from faithfulness to Him.  And it will deprive the cultures we build of the stability that the gospel can provide as a function, at the very least, of God’s sovereign, common grace.  And in any case, failure to be faithful is simply unrepentant and disobedient.

I’m not sure who all have promoted the grandiose rhetoric of transformation.  I am vaguely aware of the “two kingdom” v. “one kingdom” debate (although I do confess, I don’t recall hearing those categories back when I studied under Kline, and I am left somewhat confused by their use.  Shame on me if I was asleep in class on those days).  I know too that some brands of postmillennialism promote such hype.  Even some branches of amillenialism.  Regardless of who promotes it or even why, triumphalistic rhetoric is wasted – even mistaken.  Until Christ returns, the Westminster Standards (rightly summarizing Scripture’s teaching) remind us that sin will continue.  And any view that minimizes the ongoing reality of sin, and then hyper-extends the hope of temporal transformation into a promise, should be corrected.  And if Dr. Trueman was aiming precisely to provide such correction, then I applaud him for doing so.

But I do not believe that either Kuyper or Keller is triumphalistic, and therefore are not liable for such correction.  By asserting that they are, Dr. Trueman runs the risk of polarizing opinions where they need not be – indeed where they should not be.  Kuyper and Keller are eachgospel-motivated.  And that outlook is something to be emulated by all.  More specifically, Kuyper himself, in his Lectures on Calvinism, makes the point that the Calvinistic portion of the Church will likely always remain a minority voice; and he makes that observation on an optimistic assessment of the influence Calvinism may have (not a guaranteed outcome, even in Kuyper’s estimation).  Such a perspective does not appear to me like one that is triumphalistic.  On the contrary, his observation looks remarkably circumspect.

Thus, I think that Carl Trueman, whom I have grown sincerely to respect as a commentator on matters pertaining to faith and life, needs to rethink his position on these men.  It’s one thing to hold us all accountable for departing from the faith.  Triumphalism does depart in that manner, as liberalism and the social gospel of previous generations only too well illustrate.  Thus, yes, we need to confront triumphalism.  By all means!  But please let’s distinguish between triumphalism and fidelity.  And please do not attack those who are being faithful.  Instead, we should do all in our power to encourage Christians who, in Christ’s name, participate in the spheres of culture as salt and light, come what may.  It’s just faithful to do so.  If we recapture that faithfulness now, we will be able to withstand whatever the near future holds.

David Wallover is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is pastor of Harvest Presbyterian Church in Medina, Ohio. This article first appeared on their website and is used with permission.