Kuyperian: A High-Altitude Definition against Dualism

Maybe better than anyone else at seeing God’s love for the cosmos and how God ordered it for humans to use in honoring God was Abraham Kuyper. His quote about the Lordship of Christ is only the thumbnail of his entire body of work about the Bible’s revelation about all revelation.

Dapper. And no dualist!

In the last few posts we were starting to answer the question: What is a Kuyperian? Using the adjective as a description of those who see what God says about creation in the Bible a Kuyperian is a Calvinistic Christian who acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord over the wide, wide world. A Kuyperian is wide awake (different from the current fad of “wokeness”) with wide eyes to the wide range of Christ’s concerns.

A Kuyperian asks, What is salvation for? A Kuyperian recognizes that his body and his wife and his kids and his lawn and his job may not last forever but how he fulfills his responsibilities and is faithful in his relationships will last. A Kuyperian gets that nothing is neutral, that without Christ was not any thing good that was good (see John 1:3). A Kuyperian commits to avoid indifference to God’s creation, and repents of dualism that seeks to avoid, let alone abuse, God’s creation.

A Kuyperian worldview means that:

  • our vision of what God is interested in is increased. So our imaginations are fired up to ideate ways to reflect Him.
  • there is no guilt for enjoying or using the things of earth. Actually, there is guilt for not enjoying and using them. We ought to give thanks and recognize that we will give account as stewards of all His gifts.
  • the glory of man is weightier. To be created by God to reflect His likeness is to be stretched out and grown up, to be brought further up and further in, as we learn to walk well in our Father’s shoes.

The label “Kuyperian” is useful, if not vital, because there are many two-dimensional image-bearers in the church, whose worldview is as thin as a printed word, reading only what they think are the “spiritual” parts of the Bible. Many Christians have read the wisest man in the Scriptures—Solomon, have read the first chapter of the Bible—Genesis 1, have even embraced Paul’s inspired goal of ministry—Colossians 1:28, and still missed it. I did. It is a hermeneutic irony that Dispensationals, who pride themselves on reading the Bible, misread the Bible on this point. The “Kuyperian” adjective is important because we are supposed to love everything that God loves.

There is still more to see in the Bible’s teaching about God’s interests. Soon.

Losing as a weapon

All the posts so far at the KuyperDispy have been short articles; they’re the guts of the idea (and there are more guts to share). But we also wanted to have another category of posts that are quotes or links or shorter thoughts, and for now we’ll categorize those as gloss, as in, providing an explanation or paraphrase or annotation.

This quote is a great place to start, and it ought to be a great encouragement to the church:

“Losing does not disturb us; it does not unsettle our faith. This is something the Church generally does really well. Speaking frankly, we frequently lose successfully far more often than we succeed successfully. Losing is our secret weapon” (Douglas Wilson, Same Sex Mirage, pp. 258-259).

This was written by a passionate postmillennialist, thinking in terms of downward cycles in the flow of church history I’m sure. But doesn’t it do an even better job of explaining how a dispensational premillennialist can be optimistic about the progress of the gospel and the “success” of the church while still thinking the world is going to hell? We don’t think the church keeps losing and coming back again, we think the church will eventually “lose” and then Jesus comes back again.

Outside the Prayer Closet

There are many verses in the Bible that talk about God as Creator. Genesis reveals it, Israel depended on it, the Psalms celebrate it, the prophets expect it will be important in the future. In the New Testament we learn that Christ Himself, the Word of God, deserves credit for creation (see John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2-3).

Consider this early confession:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15–17, ESV)

Paul wrote his letter to the Christians in Colosse to deal with a few elements of false teaching in the church. One of them was the idea that Christ was just “one” among many divine beings. The list of principalities and powers that He created shows that He can’t be on their level, let alone on a lower level than them. He made them, He’s not one of them. There is in fact a hierarchy of creatures, but it’s not a rank of some creatures with higher percentages of spirit instead of flesh.

This was a seed of Gnostic thinking which, among other errors, included what we call dualism. Dualism is the idea that matter/flesh/visible/becoming are evil, or at least less valuable than spirit/invisible/being. But Jesus is fully God and fully man, and this didn’t ruin His deity.

It got me thinking: what is the point of Colossians 1:15-17? Why talk about Christ’s creative wisdom and power before talking about His redeeming work (verses 18-20)? What does the preeminence of Christ in the universe have to do with the goal of Christian ministry that Paul described near the end of the chapter?

Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. (Colossians 1:28, ESV)

For too long–and I should have paid better attention to the context–I thought verses 15-17 established Christ’s preeminence by brute force. “He made everything, so you better do what He says.” Being more like Christ is, therefore, mainly a moral issue. He obeyed perfectly, and He has the authority to demand similar obedience.

He certainly does have all authority, just as He told His disciples (Matthew 28:18). But His creative work establishes not only the extent of His authority but also the extent of His interests. Creation is not merely one big object lesson to motivate our obedience before His force. Creation is His playground and His love and His gift. Ironically, we behave immorally when we complain about, and when we try to avoid, all the things of earth that He calls good.

As image-bearers and as Christians, to reflect God and to reflect Christ means that we must be interested in what God in Christ is interested in. We must learn what He is like and that includes the kinds of things He likes. He likes what He made. He likes wine and wood and websites. He likes legs and breasts and muscles. He likes family trees and family names. He likes farms and good food and the semitrucks that deliver food to the store for us to purchase. So enjoy the process. Being complete in Christ is no less than a way of looking at the wide wide world.

Let’s return to Kuyper’s quote. Whoever translated it into English missed a great opportunity. The phrase “every square inch” is accessible, but a much more concrete and personal and more accurate translation is available. It should be:

“There is not one thumb’s width in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’”

The Dutch phrase is een duimbreed (pronounced un dime-brrrate) which refers to the distance between the sides of the thumb: “one thumb’s width.” Everything that can be touched or measured is claimed by Christ.

This is more than a declaration about the boundaries of His dominion, it is a declaration about the breadth of His interests, the abundance and assortment of His likes, the scope of His concerns. His domain extends everywhere, but it’s not as if He owns a 10,000 square foot house in order to impress on us that He only cares about what happens in the prayer closet. He wants us to get out more.

The First Chapter

When we finished studying Ecclesiastes I still wanted to stay in the Old Testament. I thought perhaps Genesis: starting at the beginning. Genesis is the foundation for the entire Bible. It reveals initial and crucial parts of redemptive history such as the Fall, the call of Abram, the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and some of our favorite stories of the faith. Plus I thought we could work through the creation account and pound on how a good reading of the text just doesn’t leave room for evolution, materialistic or theistic.

I was sure this would be great foundation building stuff. What I didn’t realize is how thin and puny my own foundation was. I didn’t realize that I would not make it out of the first chapter without a severely remade worldview and even more reasons to repent.

I was coming to Genesis as a Christian and even as a Calvinist. I was coming to Genesis as one who believed the Bible in the craziest-seeming parts, including six 24-hours-as-we-measure days of creation. I believed God was all-powerful, the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth. I did not come to Genesis as a doubter, but I soon realized that I had come to Genesis as a dualist. I came to it as a Christian, which is good, but I needed to come to it as a man, as a human being with flesh and bones and blood. I came as one eager for heaven and I had to repent for not appreciating the earth.

Maybe more than His potency, Genesis 1 reveals God’s gushing gladness to create. He spoke nothings into somethings, He separated some things into different things, and called it good. It was all up to Him at that point. He could have made whatever He wanted however He wanted for the sake of whatever He wanted. And He made time: seasons and days and years. He made dimensions: up and down and around. He made colors and shades and dimness settings. He made big and small, many and few.

Then He started talking to Himself, in the Persons of the Trinity (verse 26), about Their upcoming, unrivaled work. They were readying to make a creature who would mirror Themselves. This creature would be stamped with the divine image.

What would it be? Perhaps a vast library filled with the greatest poems and prose, exalting the all-wise and rational truth of God. Or maybe an intricate system of precise scales on which things could be measured and weighed, demonstrating the goodness of God. Perhaps an immense museum filled with paintings and sculptures, with harmonious music in the background, showing the beauty of God.

Instead, God invented toes and knees and hips and elbows and shoulders and vertebrae and teeth, all out of dust, and then breathed life into it. A little while later He made a complimentary creature out of chest-bone, giving that creature more curves and some different internal parts. God ordained their uniqueness and their covenantal oneness, celebrating their relationship as a pattern for all time.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
(Genesis 1:26–27)

When the Maker addressed Adam and Eve He gave them a mandate, recorded for us in Genesis 1:28.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)

God said: Have kids, who have kids, who move out of the house, and figure out how to build houses, and keep bugs out of your houses, and later make an online shop to buy things to furnish those houses. Here was a human task, to have and enjoy families, to invent and extend work.

This is what God thinks is good. He patterned weeks for us by His own work. He also patterned equal but different relationships for us.

So: the things of earth are not keeping us from what God thinks is good. Even verse 29 is as if God couldn’t wait to show Adam the goods. “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.’” (Genesis 1:29). He wanted to show Adam all the variety of veggies available for eating. Eating! It’s not a chore, it’s a grace, an undeserved gift given to men. All of it, from babies to bananas, dirt and dominion, generations and exploration, genders and astronomy and sleep, God says is good.

Do we say it is good? Yes, Genesis 3 happened, and work now requires a sweat when you have to restart your computer after the software crashes. Birth involves extra pains not present previously. There are conflicts in relationships that come because of sin. But sin is also what keeps us from seeing the good world and being thankful. God didn’t give up on the human body after the fall. He gave His Son one and promises all His people a glorified one. God didn’t give up on marriage after the fall, or the blessing of faithful grandparents and parents and cultural heritage. God didn’t limit us to grits without salt and butter after the fall, He even added beef and eventually pork to the menu. And note, Adam and Eve didn’t even have a Bible to read in paradise. They had work, fruits and veggies, walks, sex, rest, and fellowship with God. That’s all GOOD.

The Wide Wide World of Christ

At the beginning of 2005 I was finishing up preparation to teach about the Reformation at our youth ministry’s winter retreat. I had recently listened to a message by John Piper from the “Sex and the Supremacy of Christ” conference where he preached a rousing message on the preeminence of Christ. In his message he quoted a man I had never heard of before named Abraham Kuyper. The quote was:

“There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’”

It’s a fantastic quote, and I’ve heard it used or read it a number of times since then. I even used it in my message on Solus Christus at that retreat. Jesus reigns! As much as I believed it to be true, I didn’t realize how wide the truth of it applies.

Wisdom from the Wisest

The previous fall I had started teaching through Ecclesiastes with the students. I wanted to preach something other than an epistle, and I also thought that Ecclesiastes was perhaps the book most like an epistle in the Old Testament. Solomon wrote about life under the sun and, in particular, life’s heavy vanity. But as we studied through the book I noticed that every so often he described a buoy in the middle of the sea of vanity that a person could grab onto and pull their head out and get a breath.

Solomon's Judgment
I’m not sure that Solomon would have found much joy in this painting. You can make your own judgment.
What surprised me, though, as someone steeped in the epistles, is that joy for Solomon was not found somewhere other than on earth nor outside of normal, temporal activities. I don’t think it’s because in all his wisdom Solomon didn’t know about or believe in heaven, but rather because he believed that for those who fear God there is good to be had here, good in white garments and life with one’s wife and working with all your might (see Ecclesiastes 9:7-10). Here’s the money passage in the entire book as far as I’m concerned:

There is nothing better for a person than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God, for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment? For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy (Ecclesiastes 2:24–26a)

This joy returns a few times in the preacher’s wisdom. It isn’t found by getting away from people or duties or even off the planet. Joy is a gift from God for those rightly related to Him, a gift that He gives for those in the process of life on earth, not just those waiting for eternity.

Repentance dominated those days, that is, I was seeing my need to repent all over the place. Repentance was needed for complaining about repetitive, routine tasks. Repentance was needed both for seeking improper satisfaction from earthly things and also seeking improper liberation from earthly things. Repentance was required for avoiding God’s gifts, not just abusing them. According to the Scriptures, eating and drinking and toiling are places to find joy, not hindrances to joy.

To me, joy had been found in reading the Bible, in prayer, in studying theology, in writing sermons, in equipping others to disciple, in retreating for spiritual purposes. That was my work as a pastor, but I defined my work so narrowly that filling out paperwork, running errands, maintaining the car, or talking about budget spreadsheets seemed like lesser things. Was joy to be found even in that work?

If Solomon was right, how couldn’t it be? I knew that in studying the Bible one must always ask who the original audience was. Who were the people who first heard Solomon? They weren’t all philosophers or politicians, let alone theologians or pastors. They would have included farmers, soldiers, carpenters, musicians, cooks, and homemakers, the salt of the earth sort. Solomon couldn’t really be saying that God gives enjoyment in that kind of work, in itself, could he? Isn’t that kind of work the work to do to get to the work that matters? Yet my conclusion wasn’t in the text. The wisest man in the Bible had nothing for me about finding joy in longer hours of devotions and less in diaper changing. And he wasn’t the only one.

A View for the World

Even though I love theological nicknames, I don’t want to underestimate the threat some people feel when introduced to something they feel is “new,” even if all that’s new is a name. I remember taking apart and explaining our church’s Sunday morning liturgy after we’d already been following the same pattern for a year, and it caused dyspepsia for more than a few people. It’s like finding out about a surprise ingredient in your favorite dish. You thought you liked it, but knowing changed your taste.

You may already be more Kuyperian (whether you’d use that description or not), you may be more Dispensational (whether you admit that in Reformed circles or not), but there isn’t anyone else we’ve found trying to talk about them together.

Usually “new” theological things are dangerous things. Neither Kuyperian thought or Dispensational thought are new, what’s new is seeing how they necessarily fit together. The trellis and the vine image emphasizes life over structure, even if the structure provides space for growth. Peanut butter and chocolate taste great together but also taste fine apart, and a sword and a trowel could both be hooked on your belt but you’d probably only use one at a time. Oil and water do not mix at all.

But we think Kuyperianism and Dispensationalism are like the tongue-in-groove that keep the worldview floor from sliding around under you. Kuyperianism and Dispensationalism are like a door knob bolt and the latch in the frame that “click” into place. Kuyperianism and Dispensationalism are like the chain and the teeth on a gear that “catch” and crank the wheel forward. Kuyperianism lets the clutch out of Dispensationalism. Kuyperianism is the ink to Dispensationalism’s pen. Kuyperianism takes the lens off of Dispensationalism’s binoculars. Kuyperianism is the bow to Dispensationalism’s arrow.

Some might keep reading and say, “Oh, yeah! That’s exactly what I believe but never had a name for it!” Others might say, “Oh, no! I’ve been wrong! I need to repent!” Still others might say, “Oh, no! You guys are crazy and I don’t want anything to do with you!”

But this is no less than an attempt to fuse a Weltanschauung (German from Welt = world + Anschauung = perception), a new way to perceive the world. This is no less than an attempt to read the Bible from beginning to end, to account for every promise given, every promise fulfilled, and all the ones yet to be fulfilled. This is no less than an attempt to obey every command and commission given to humanity and to Christians, all together in and for Jesus. He is Lord. He claims it as His own, from before the foundation of the world through the last days. It is an explanation of history and an expectation for the future. This is not a worldview so that we can label the world and distance ourselves in order to complain about it, it is a worldview with marching orders for today. Kuyper himself called for:

“a central motive in the mental and emotional life of a people, which shall dominate the whole existence from within, and which consequently carries its effect from this spiritual center to its outermost circumference.” (Lectures on Calvinism, 150)

More than an abstract cause, it is a comfort and a catalyst centered on the Triune God.

The Kuyperian Dispensationalist: it’s not a new brand, but a way of reading the Bible and seeking to obey all of it. We need to define the terms, and then show how things fit. The question is, can Kuyperianism and Dispensationalism commingle, or must they contradict?

When He was with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” His Word created a new world of thought and connections. He “said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’” On the map, we are here.

Be patient. Be Bereans. Be Kuyperians. Be brothers and sisters. Be humble. Be ready. And may the Lord bless the work of our hands.

What’s In a Name

Soon we’ll start to consider more carefully what a Kuyperian Dispensationalist is. We need to answer questions such as, What makes someone Kuyperian? What is a Dispensationalist? Is it conceivable for them to go together?

But before dealing with those, a typical question, or even strong objection, is: Why use names at all? Abraham is a Bible name, but not Abraham Kuyper. Dispensations can be found in the Bible but never the word itself, even if you agree with the doctrine. Must we use extra-biblical descriptions? Don’t names cause divisions and upset stomachs? And especially, considering the history of using a name such as Calvinism, isn’t this elevating a man over Scripture? Like any system, won’t we be guilty of forcing an external pattern onto the Bible?

It absolutely could be any of those things, and much worse things. But when Adam named the animals God created it didn’t change what they were. Even more so, it was part of Adam’s calling by God to label and classify things. That was part of his image-bearing glory. Recognizing patterns is not making the patterns, like the golden ratio in nautilus shells or planetary orbits in astronomy, or theology. Doctrine about the One God in Three Persons, eternally co-equal, could require us to say the Athanasian Creed every time (though it isn’t inspired either). Or we could use the the one word summary, “Trinity,” that isn’t in the Bible.

As for systemizing things, Spurgeon once said that a truth isn’t contradicted because it can be organized.

“To affirm of any human production that it contained many great and instructive truths which it would be impossible to systematize without weakening each separate truth, and frustrating the design of the whole, would be a serious reflection upon the author’s wisdom and skill. How much more to affirm this of the Word of God! Systematic theology is to the Bible what science is to nature. To suppose that all the other works of God are orderly and systematic, and the greater the work the more perfect the system; and that the greatest of all His works, in which all His perfections are transcendently displayed, should have no plan or system, is altogether absurd. If faith in the Scriptures is to be positive, if consistent with itself, if operative, if abiding, it must have a fixed and well-defined creed. No one can say that the Bible is his creed, unless he can express it in words of his own. (Charles Spurgeon, The Sword and the Trowel, 1872, 141, quoted in The Forgotten Spurgeon by Ian Murray, 9.)

Names help diagnose and then treat diseases. Names help conceive and assemble buildings. Names can be misused, they can also help to communicate, to share the meaning of something in common. It doesn’t matter if someone says he is a Trinitarian as long as he believes the truth of it. It doesn’t matter if someone hates the word dualism as long as he actually hates dualism. It doesn’t matter if someone has ever heard of the “hypostatic union,” but he must believe that Jesus is both God and man. And if he does believe it, why not use the label?

So the Kuyperian Dispensationalist is shorthand, a nickname, a quirky code for sake of convenience in order to share an understanding about how things connect. If it happens to cause some provocation along the way, maybe that’s just what the doctor prescribed.

One More in the World

So what are we doing here? What is a Kuyperian Dispensationalist and who cares?

This website, and more specifically the series of posts in the queue, has been brewing for quite a while. The coffee in the pot hasn’t turned into sludge, though, not yet at least. It’s hot and fresh and on the front burner.

There have been a few stages of development, starting with a gnawing discontent with epistolary exclusivity, by which I mean a tendency in some church circles to focus on the New Testament epistles in such a way that causes the rest of the Bible to be functionally neglected. I have more to say later about the eyes—on-earth-opening effect of books such as Ecclesiastes, Genesis, and the Psalms, but there is more to the Old Testament than just historical background to or illustrations for the New Testament. The New Testament is great, inspired even (!), but the whole thing was written in one long generation. Sometimes in the Old Testament you can skip a couple hundred years between chapter breaks. The revelation in the first 39 books of the Bible has a breadth to it, and a breath in it, as it points to Israel’s Messiah, Jesus, the Savior of the Nations. As I started paying more attention to things outside of the apostolic letters I also started longing to answer some questions I didn’t even know I needed to ask.

Then I got asked a question for which there was no good answer. I was meeting for coffee one Saturday morning with one of the men in our church, probably about a year after our church started. He asked me what book he could read that would explain what we were all about. I think I laughed out loud, and am still laughing today, because there isn’t just one (except the Bible, of course, though who doesn’t say that?).

Our church is not a purebred anything. In terms of our theology and philosophy of ministry, we are not just a mix, we are a mutt. Some might actually call us a mess. We love the truth, but we also think that relationships and fellowship in love is the aim of the truth. We love the fundamentals, we even love the Fundamentalists, and we’d hug them if they hadn’t isolated themselves away from everyone. We believe that the greatest commandment is to love God, not be right about Him, but we also think that affections are supposed to be driven and directed by doctrine. We do not fall into the Bible-study-at-all-costs camp, nor would we pitch our tent in the doctrine-divides camp.

We have a high view of the pastoral office, so much so that we invite everyone have a close look at it. We asked all our men to read a book on eldership and talk through it together before we officially affirmed the first board. We are an elder-rule church, and we also expect every shepherd to remember that he is a sheep and to participate alongside—like, you know, even talk with—others in the flock.

We believe in the sovereignty of God, the Solas of the Reformation, and the Five Points of Calvinism so much so that we have a heart hernia; our Reformed organ is so large that it tries to protrude through the muscle wall. We also think that the Reformers didn’t go far enough, perhaps because many of them were just trying to get themselves not dead. We are Reformed and still reforming.

We believe something uniquely supernatural happens when the church assembles for worship, and that the whole assembly is worshipping the whole time we’re together. We believe that good liturgy should be more than singing a couple songs to get ready for the sermon, listening to the sermon, then singing a song to respond to the sermon. We also think that liturgy connects us to previous generations of saints, and yet we don’t parrot their words, we want to define what we mean by “saints,” and we would never include an icon to help us worship.

We usually have verse-by-verse preaching, but we don’t do verse-by-verse-Bible-study small groups. We use air war (public) and ground war (house by house) tactics in the battle of discipleship.

We think the rapture could happen at any moment and also that adultolescent men should get off their mom’s wifi and out of her basement and start families, businesses, and do stuff because of the rapture. We think kids can love the Lord when they are still quite young, yet we won’t baptize them until they can profess it.

We think wine is a gift from God but not because we demand to exercise our Christian liberty. We believe in feasting and fasting. We care about politics because we think Jesus is the King of kings. We believe in the Trinity, in the gospel of forgiveness, and that we really should get along with one another.

So we’re not close to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. We’re not Charismatics or Lutherans. Nor are we Presbyterian or Seeker Sensitive or Emergent or Post-Neo Anything. We are close-ish to being Baptists, and we will re-baptize, but that’s ironic since most Baptists/Anabaptists have been separatists and we’re trying to be engage-ists (without becoming inclusivists). The very first “missionary” we supported is a lawyer. We rent and meet in a Seventh-Day Adventist building. We are hopefully not heretics, but we are a mutt. What we believe can be pinned down, but it takes a lot of pins.

It’s not actually that convenient. What are we supposed to put on the church brochure? How should our members tell others what we’re about? “We’re like every other church except for the ways we’re not.”

Anyway, the book I settled on as a recommendation was The Trellis and the Vine, which I still think is a good choice. We like a lot of what it says about how to use the Word to make faithful men and give away grace-work. It’s good, but it’s not enough.

We are a peculiar people. We are not by any means the only faithful assembly of Christians, but when we read the Bible our hearts burn with a hot cup of joy as we see certain things fit together. In particular, we have started to see more about God’s created world and how He considers it good.

Our Calvinism had to pull up the other pant leg. God’s glad sovereignty works salvation and sustains the cosmos. This could be nicknamed a Kuyperian viewpoint, and more needs to be said about it.

But historically, the kinds of people who have thought in a Kuyperian way, whether or not they used (or even knew) his name, have been our Presby brothers, Covenantalists, Post- or A-mil Christians. They have a heritage of appreciating creation and the work of men on earth. We epistle-dominated-readers don’t have that rich inheritance.

But when we started learning about image-bearing in individual and cultural ways according to the beginning of all things in Genesis 1, not only did we realize that it all still applies, we who pride ourselves on Bible reading realized that we had been reading the Bible wrongly. To help course correct we read through The Things of Earth in our men’s and women’s meetings. Our ladies read The Supper of the Lamb and the men read Lectures on Calvinism and our small group leaders watched and talked about For the Life of the World together. We needed to repent from dualism.

At the same time we also think there is a way of looking at the end of things, a certain eschatology, rooted in good Bible reading. We’re jealous of the cultural heritage among Covanentalists, but we’re possessive about the distinction between Israel and the Church, a distinction that is usually better cared for by Dispensationalists. It’s our Dispy brothers, though, who historically haven’t built much but bookshelves for study Bibles (and rapture fiction) in their bomb shelters. Actually, they are also good at building walls between themselves and others.

Here we are, trusting God and joyfully working in the world, knowing that He says things are going to “go on from bad to worse” (2 Timothy 3:13, see also 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1), while we also trust that the power of the gospel is and will continue making things better in other ways. We are thankful for the Christian accomplishments in missions, and in medicine, technology, education, indoor plumbing, free markets, and Internet publishing. Christians have made many things better because they were here on earth rather than plucked to heaven when they said the sinner’s prayer. We are optimistic Pre-millennials. This is how we read the Bible. It’s what makes our hearts burn.

A few summers ago, my friend Jonathan was in Moscow, ID, with some of the teachers from our school, and he was talking with Douglas Wilson about our mutt-ness. Jonathan will be writing for this site as well, and sometime he’ll give a more detailed account of their discussion. But Doug, who is an ebullient Postmillennialist, had no ready category in which to put this juxtaposition. So he told Jonathan, “You know what you ought to do? You ought to start a blog and call it The Kuyperian Dispensationalist.” He, Doug, doesn’t think the two things go together, but he thought it might be fun to watch.

When Jonathan told me about the idea, my heart burned. Even the name: The Kuyperian Dispensationalist, rather than -ism, is so good, because there may only be one other Kuyperian Dispensationalist in the world. We’re on a mission to find that one! Actually, all the elders at our church would consider themselves to be such, while still trying to figure out what it means and what we should do about it. But we hope that there are more, more who think this way but don’t know how to describe it, more who are primed to join in the work. Some will need a lot of time to think about it, and that’s why we’re writing here. Others, of course, won’t agree until we’re raptured together in the air.

Making Our Hearts Burn

On the very first resurrection Sunday two Jews were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus and talking with each other about all the things that had happened over the previous days. While they conversed, the risen Jesus joined them and started asking them questions. They didn’t recognize Him as Jesus, and they were surprised that this stranger seemed not to know about all the events concerning “Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people” (Luke 24:19). They went on for a while explaining to Jesus about His death and sharing reports of His tomb being empty. But they themselves hadn’t come to any conclusions.

At some point “[Jesus] said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (verse 25). All these things were in the Bible.

They arrived in Emmaus and Jesus sat down to dinner with them. “When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed it and broke it and give it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight” (verse 30). We might imagine them saying, “Wait! Now we have more questions!” They hadn’t had a problem with their physical sight, but now they could finally see.

Not only could they see who they had been talking with, they could see how what He had said made sense. “They said to each other, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?’” (verse 32) Jesus had been clearing brush away from the signs and then showing how all the signs pointed in one direction.

Both because the Bible is a more-than-human book, and because sin is a blinding force, not seeing what is right in front of us, especially on the pages of Scripture, is a typical problem. We can be obtuse on a sentence level, we can be oblivious on the story level. But this is the beginning of a sign-clearing effort to see a way of explaining God’s plan, from beginning to end, that has been in the Bible all along but for whatever reason we haven’t recognized.

It is a Bible reading project, “beginning with Moses” and including “all the Prophets,” as well as the Gospels and the epistles of Christ’s apostles. This is a project to read and believe that “‘everything written about [Jesus] in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’” This is a project to describe the things that make our hearts burn within us.