Darryl has been able to give a pejorative name to advocates of Christian civil government: Transformationalist. What a dirty sounding word to anyone who stands upon anti-liberal ground. Surely Christian civil government must be rejected, it is an ideology that seeks to change (transform… yuck) society through politics… to tinker (transform) with human nature to conform to our NAPARC dreams.
But then I ask myself the question. What if the gospel takes root in China? Will China remain unchanged? Will its culture not be… transformed? Not on the basis of politics, but through the impact of souls who have been ordered according to the standards of a Christ and His law.
This is how it was in the West and I am grateful for it. Grateful for our heritage of ordered liberty, economic freedom, and respect for humanity as made in the image of the living God. It has checked the power of the beast; it has made daily life more humane, and given honor to the church as the eschatological Kingdom dwelling in our midst.
Chellis appears to be responding to some level of criticism to his understanding of cultural transformation. My contention over this matter has always been the same for years. Instead of placing Abraham Kuyper versus those who would oppose cultural transformation, (D.G. Hart, etc.) the proper Biblical approach is a both/and. The church needs to preserve her duty to minister bread and wine and proclaim the gospel, while at the same time encouraging, rather, emboldening her people to transform every dimension of society into a repository of Biblical righteousness. There simply is no other option. Anyone who dares assume that the gospel has no transformative power beyond the spiritual change has not properly understood the completeness of Christ’s work to bring all His enemies under His feet.
