An Elephant in a China Shop: Unleashing the Transcendental Argument in the Civil Sphere

Here’s another resurrected post from my former blog.  I thought I’d put some of my VanTillian/Two-Kingdom musings back in “print!”

———————————–

I’ve been thinking a bit about the dialogue between John Frame, Richard Muller, and David Wells from a few years ago in the Westminster Theological Journal. Our senior seminar class here at WSCAL, the “capstone” class for the WSCAL curriculum, recently read the articles in this dialogue, and had an interesting discussion in class over their contents. I’ll give the lay of the land from 30,000 feet a minute before weighing in on this.

The first article we read was by John M. Frame, formerly of WSCAL and now of RTS-Orlando, and was entitled “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism: Reflections on Sola Scriptura and History in Theological Method” (WTJ 59, 1997, pgs. 269-91). In his article, Prof. Frame gives an overview of how history is studied, how the word “Biblicism” is used, and how Sola Scriptura was understood and practiced in the history of Westminster Theological Seminary (Frame refers primarily to the Philadelphia campus in this discussion). Frame ties his article together, arguing that since the scriptures are sufficient, they do, in fact, speak to every square inch of life. They aren’t just relegated to religious use, but are brought to bear on every element of life. In making applications, however, Frame draws Wells and Muller into the discussion, critiquing what he perceives to be an over-emphasis on history and confessions, and an under-emphasis on the God’s word itself. In a fourth article (”Reply to Richard Muller and David Wells,” WTJ 59 (1997): 311-18.), Frame further articulates (and nuances) his position and adds some important clarification which was lacking in his first article.

The second and third articles we read were by Wells and Muller respectively (David Wells, “On Being Framed,” WTJ 59 (1997): 293-300 and Richard Muller, “Historiography in the Service of Theology and Worship: Toward Dialogue with John Frame,” WTJ 59 (1997): 301-310.). In these articles, Wells and Muller critique Frame’s approach as being too Bible centered, and not lending enough credence to general revelation and common grace. Both writers primarily critique Frame’s discussion of historiography. They argue that Frame’s insistence that the Bible itself doesn’t just contain history but in fact gives us a method of historiography is mistaken. They argue that Frame has argued an elitism which doesn’t respect the very common-grace that the Reformation has generally upheld. If one can only do history according to the Bible, they argue, why is it that many non-Christian historians are able to do the excellent history writing that they do? Muller especially argues that history writing actually should be done on more “religiously neutral” soil, and that Frame’s proposal actually will undermine objective history writing.

I know this summary is pretty short (and perhaps even inadequate). I apologize for that, but my intent was mostly to give a broad overview. Readers really should read the articles in WTJ 59 (1997): 269-318. Not a long read, but a very interesting one. I’d like to weigh in on this debate because I think that there is something pretty interesting going on.

When I read Frame’s article, I was surprised at the many points on which I agreed with him. I’ve been disappointed with some of his writings in the past, and must confess that I came at this debate with that in mind. I did find a bit of the usual “Framian lack of clarity” throughout, but found myself very appreciative of his VanTillian emphases. As a card-carrying VanTillian myself, I always appreciate to find someone showing their indebtedness to Dr. VanTil, even though Frame himself can’t be considered a VanTillian of the “purest” sort. As a Dutch, former Christian Reformed guy, I was of course very endeared to Muller (who teaches at Calvin Theological Seminary) from the start. His Four-Volume Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics set has been on my shelf for a couple of years now and I have learned a great deal from his thorough and scholarly writing. Muller is the one who proved to me that Calvin and the “Calvinists” (i.e., Beza, Ursinus, Turretin, etc.) really are all on the same page! Unfortunately, Muller’s writing in this article didn’t seem to be accounting for VanTillian categories very well. This made things a bit muddy!

At first I was reading the articles through the lens of VanTil’s “transcendental argument.” Since I believe that VanTil demonstrated that Christianity is the pre-condition for intelligibility, I am unable to accept that history can be done apart from presupposing the Christian world-view. In this sense, I surprisingly found myself rooting for Frame! When Muller argued that history must be done neutrally (almost a cuss-word in VanTillian circles!), I just about had a heart attack! When Muller argued that a Christian computer software technician doesn’t have any advantage over the non-Christian computer software technician, I found myself wondering if Muller had ever read VanTil! After all, VanTil said that non-Christians do all sorts of rational and intelligent things – but they are able to do them because they “borrow” rationality which is intelligible only in the Christian world-view – rationality which can’t be accounted for in their own, non-Christian world-view.

Here’s where things broke down. . .

I believe that what was really going on here was a debate regarding the “Two-Kingdoms.” Martin Luther (and subsequent Reformed and Lutheran scholars) argued that there was a spiritual kingdom (involving Church, the Bible, the sacraments, the gospel, etc.) and a civil kingdom (involving politics, the arts, transmission repair, etc.). Christians are members of both kingdoms, but carry themselves in different ways in each. In the spiritual kingdom, we interact with non-believers in a distinctly spiritual way (i.e., sharing the gospel with them, evangelism, showing the futility of unbelief with the transcendental argument, etc.). In the civil kingdom, however, we cooperate with unbelievers in a civil, common-grace way.

Frame approached this dialogue with no two-kingdoms doctrine to speak of. He attacked Muller’s approach by stressing the antithesis, and by arguing against neutrality in a transcendental fashion. Because of this, he placed this discussion about the role of historiography, in the spiritual kingdom and argued against neutrality the way he would argue with a non-Christian. Muller, however, who seems to be distinguishing between the civil and spiritual kingdoms was trying to have a discussion about historiography in the civil realm. As such, he was speaking of neutrality, not in terms of autonomy, but in terms of common-grace civil cooperation. Let me illustrate.

If I’m talking with the handyman at my apartment complex about why my bathroom sink has been leaking, I’m engaging with him in the civil kingdom. Because of this, I don’t right away launch into him and show him that because he is not a Christian, he is unable to account for the rationality required to do plumbing correctly. When he informs me that the drain is broken, I say, “You’re right, it is broken.” This is because we are in the civil sphere and are accomplishing civil interactions. Sure, he is only able to do plumbing because he is presupposing my world-view, but I’d rather him just fix my sink – albeit in an epistemologically incoherent fashion! If my handyman and I were to sit down for coffee and Bible study, however, I would then be able to interact with him in the spiritual sphere. There I could show him the futility of unbelief and call him to repentance and faith in Christ.

Frame’s response to Muller was like me arguing with my handyman transcendentally in the civil sphere! Muller was trying to talk about cooperating with unbeliever-historians in the civil sphere but Frame was trying to stress the ultimate epistemological impossibility of doing that. Had Frame and Muller gotten on the same page, however, and agreed that they were talking about doing historiography in the civil sphere, Frame could have quit treating Muller like he was claiming to be autonomous and independent of God, and Muller wouldn’t have felt the need to explain to Frame that non-Christian computer software engineers do a fine job of engineering software – without help from the Bible!

I guess this dialogue in WTJ helped to cement in my mind how VanTillian presuppositionalism done in the context of a two-kingdom mind set can help to clear up all sorts of misunderstandings. Frame would have been able to go to a history conference and learn from the non-Christian historians there, and then afterwards go to the coffee shop with them and show them how their brilliant historiographical ability cannot be accounted for within their own world-view. Muller would have felt the freedom to take Frame to a conference with him and not be afraid that Frame would stand up in the middle of a paper reading and shout, “Dr. So-and-so, you know you really have no epistemological basis for saying the things you are saying about Christopher Columbus and his sailing of the ocean blue in 1492!!!”

The transcendental argument is, in my opinion, truly unstoppable.  Unleashing it in every single civil interaction, however, just doesn’t seem to reflect wisdom nor does it do much to allow Christians to interact with non-Christians in the civil sphere. Try withdrawing some money at the bank sometime by whipping out the transcendental argument on your non-Christian bank teller. . . I’ll be curious to see how much money you get back after telling him that though you are asking him to withdraw funds, he really is unable to account for his ability to withdraw funds apart from the Christian world-view!

________________________
Andrew