The idea still holds up for me, although I haven't read the Van Drunen book (it's on my shelf). As I've thought more about work, it seems to me essentially vain and impermanent, whether you think of it as a response to God, an invocation of God into creation, or a sacrificial offering up of self. In each case, human work is secondary, at best a vessel which God fulfills. But in each case it's a part of the dialectic.
Interesting thoughts, nostr:nprofile1qqsf03c2gsmx5ef4c9zmxvlew04gdh7u94afnknp33qvv3c94kvwxgspr9mhxue69uhkscnj9e3k7unpvdkx2tnnda3kjctv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0g4rts7! Sorry, I barely saw this message today, and only when I used a different client.🙃 It also came during my 40-day Lenten hiatus from Nostr. I think nostr:nprofile1qqswm2tvhyawehtp4hsvr7wjhl0etfl8dncu4zvzpsuwdexw54wqcpgpzfmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuegpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9cc8scmgv96zucm0d5hfguqn handled it all rather eloquently with erudition. I'll just add that a former pastor of mine once said that in the New Earth he has dibs on Hawaii 😄 That would imply that Hawaii has to still be there even after the regeneration, after everything is burned up and then renovated.
Have you had any further developments in your thinking on this since you posted it over three months ago?
Discussion
This article may or may not be of interest in your thought processes (I really appreciated it): "[Decline of Christianity in the West? A Contrarian View](https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=44)" by T. David Gordon. TL;DR: more "2K" perspective.
I didn't read the whole thing, but IMO this is straight up loser talk. His identification of the outward decline of Christendom with the hidden advance of the gospel is gnostic bunk. To be fair, I think this position comes from a reaction against Christians who do exactly what he's condemning, i.e. trying to advance God's kingdom primarily or exclusively through human effort. This is doomed to fail because it's an explicit rejection of the empowerment and direction of the Spirit.
But to me, Constantine was very much the tail — Christianity didn't become established because it was adopted by the emperor; it was adopted by the emperor because it had become established. And having been adopted by the emperor, certain fruit necessarily ensued — the character of the empire changed as a result of its adoption of Christian values. See Leithart's "Defending Constantine" for more details.
When Gordon claims "What Christianity needs is competent ministers, not Christian judges, legislators, or executive officers," he's overstating his case. In one sense, I agree — Jesus is the vine from which the branches grow, and we know Him through the preaching of the gospel. But does this mean the branches don't have a role in producing fruit? Preaching is not a one-sided activity, the word is meant to go out and have an effect in the lives of the judges, legislators, and execs sitting in the congregation. This effect is not abstract or ephemeral, it takes shape in actual human action.
Christian workers produce Christian work, which is evidence of the advance of the gospel, not evidence against it.
Rev. Gordon is nowhere near a gnostic, for what it's worth. He's also using the word 'established' in a more technical sense (as in, the anti-establishment clause of our 1st Amendment). I'm familiar with Leithart and the 'Federal Vision' crew and find their rejection of the distinction between the invisible church (election) and the visible church (covenant) to be massively incorrect (mainly because of the implications on justification by faith alone) -- and based on a misunderstanding/misreading of recent Dutch Reformed (like Schilder) who had a slightly different understanding of covenant and election than we tend to. "Who says covenant says history, who says election says eternity." This all goes back to one's Covenant Theology, which is why I so appreciate Kline and VanDrunen. Get the beginning wrong and--like a pilot that starts off 1° off course--the further one goes, the further from the target desination one strays.
There is no such thing as "Christian work" unless you mean Word and Sacrament ministry. The gospel is _news_ it is not _action_. There is good work and there is poor work. That the work is good does not make it Christian--and often Christians produce work just as shoddy as the world (if not worse -- ever listened to CCM?). A pagan can deliver a just ruling. A pagan can fix my plumbing. A pagan can represent me well in court or give me an accurate diagnosis for a malady. This is due to common grace. A Christian who does good work does it 'as unto the Lord' but that doesn't make it "better work" per se. Being a Christian may give me a higher motivation to improve my working, a different motivation for pursuing excellence--but that doesn't make it 'Christian' work.
We are pilgrims here, not conquerors. That's not "loser" talk--it's the talk of the faithful (Heb. 11) whose affections are set on heaven (Col. 3). We do not overcome by capturing institutions and all of culture for Christ. He has already conquered all things (having accomplished the Covenant of Works for us, having already inaugurated the kingdom, yet we wait for its full consummation at his return). There is _nothing left to be done_ except what is provisional, earthly, and--dare I say--_secular_ (i.e., temporary) and of the common kingdom. Unless we're talking about Word and Sacrament ministry which is the work of the redemptive kingdom and stands alone as _sacred_ work.
I do hope you'll consider giving the three VanDrunen books a read, even if only to gain a full understanding of what (it seems) you're rejecting (2K).
Yep, definitely planning to read Living in God's Two Kingdoms when I have a chance.
Some of what you said is above my head (parsing Dutch Reformed terminology for one), some of it I think is equivocation downstream of our different views. But I don't see how being a Christian would fail to affect your work — either in its purpose or quality (which is what I mean by "Christian work" — still secular, but qualitatively different). I understand there is frequently a disconnect, but I see that as a failure of integrity, not a result of inherent decoupling between faith and works.
Playing devil's advocate, the dominion mandate was given to all mankind through Adam, not specifically to Christians, which makes sense of that fact that unbelievers are capable of doing good work. I also see how 1 Corinthians 3:12 is in the context of evangelistic work.
Appreciate the dialog, brother.
...is qualitatively excellent work solely achievable by Christians? (I don't mean _morally_ excellent--that is obvious, I mean work that is excellent _within its own discipline_.)
The 'dominion mandate' was given to Adam as a specification of the Covenant of Works, which he failed. Where he failed, Christ, the Last Adam, succeeded: "All authority in heaven and on the earth is given unto me." Whatever 'echo' of that mandate remains, it remains in a modified, provisional sense--and is non-redemptive. See Irons, "[Meredith Kline's View of the Cultural Mandate](https://www.upper-register.com/papers/kline-cultural-mandate.pdf)"
At no point are we, as Christians, placed back in the 'garden' and/or given some kind of renewed 'dominion mandate' in the sense it was given to either the First or the Last Adam. Christ's work is completed and it is sufficient. Our subsequent 'mandate' is to preach the gospel to all nations, making disciples, baptizing them, etc. Again, we are _pilgrims_ - in the world not of the world precisely because we are of the (inaugurated) kingdom but not yet in it (in its consummated state).