Skip to main content

God's Sovereignty in the Culture-War

In thinking a bit more on the tenuous state of the culture-war, and many Christian’s weariness in it, we should think on a comment by my old friend, Dr. John Frame [Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida] on the efficacy of God’s control over his creation. Frame notes,

"To say that God’s controlling power is efficacious is simply to say that it always accomplishes its purposes. God never fails to accomplish what he sets out to do. Creatures may oppose him, to be sure, but they cannot prevail. For his own reasons, he has chosen to delay the fulfillment of his intentions for the end of history, and to bring about those intentions through a complicated historical sequence of events. In that sequence, his purposes appear sometimes to suffer defeat, sometimes to achieve victory. But…each apparent defeat actually makes his eventual victory all the more glorious. The cross of Jesus is, of course, the chief example of this principle" [The Doctrine of God: a Theology of Lordship, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 2002. 47].

The word “makes” from the above quote is pregnant with meaning. It’s not the apparent defeat of God’s purposes in the creation which makes victory all the more glorious. It’s the sovereign God working in each apparent defeat which assures ultimate victory. To faithfully interpret Frame’s meaning we could say that all that happens on the stage of culture, whether good or bad, is eschatologically oriented toward a final goal – the ultimate victory of God at the consummation of time. Things are this way because God is at work in each event. So, though God’s children may suffer persecution and loss in this life; though it may appear that Satan and his evil minions are gaining the upper hand on the world-stage, God is in control, using all things together to serve His eternal ends. Despite the ups and downs of our cultural labor together, God’s sovereignty assures us that the Church is on the winning side of history.

That God uses “defeat” in his own purposes in history ought to encourage Christians not to live in isolationist occupation in the world, but as a community bent on obedience to the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate of the Bible. This obedience counters the popular model that would have us wringing our hands waiting for escape from this “vale of tears.” Ours is not a “polishing of the brass on the Titanic” but a living out of a tangible expression of the “conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). We are always about our Father’s work: on the side of justice; showing mercy to the sick of heart and body, teaching the eternal truths of knowing Him and making Him known at every level of culture, and humbly proclaiming the transforming message of reconciliation to all. Such a life is facilitated as we tarry in prayer and seek to model the life of Christ.

Finally, I take from Dr. Frame the amazing encouragement that we must interpret even our supposed failures at attempting to affect the culture for Christ as successes. In recent years, many Christians have abandoned efforts at direct cultural engagement out a deep sense that their work has produced few results. But if Frame is right, and indeed he is, that God is at work in our failures, then not only does this change our definition of “success” in the struggle for cultural renewal, but also it tells us that we must remain vigilant in the struggle, for how else will God be at work in our failures unless we are there to fail?


  1. Thanks for giving this biblical and balanced perspective. It is most helpful to keep this in mind at this hour in our land. Let us work with confidence, knowing, as Paul says, that "our work is not in vain."


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley and the “NEW Hermeneutic”

The problem of faith and reason is longstanding in the history of theology. Augustine held that faith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aids faith (intelligo un creadam). The church father is, however, inclined to stress the later over the former. It was with Thomas Aquinas, and his Summa Theologica, that the effort to reconcile faith and reason reached its apex. Rejecting the medieval doctrine of double truth, he placed natural reason prior to faith in effectively every area of the Christian life. The restrictions are the mysteries of the faith that reason cannot penetrate.
Thomas’ affirmation of the high role of native reason in Christian belief is linked to his stress on dialectical method in study, seminally set forth by Peter Abelard. The form of study is dependent largely on logic to argue both sides of a theological question. Christian belief is thus the proper result of process or synthesis. Faith then assents to the final proposition arrived at by reason.

Pat Robertson is Warned!

Pat Robertson is taking it on the chin again. Seems each time he opines on why bad things happen to us, there is someone to call him on it.
Most recently, Dr. Richard Mouw has taken up the challenge in response to Robertson's recent statement on the Las Vegas shooting, in which at least 59 people were killed and more than 500 were wounded in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
In a piece, titled, "You've Been Warned, PatRobertson!" Mouw, for whom I have deep respect, pens,

"It didn’t take long for some preachers to start telling us why God caused the horrible mass murder in Las Vegas to happen. Pat Robertson led the way, declaring that it was divine retribution for the widespread 'disrespect' for Donald Trump in America."
If Robertson had limited his rationale for the Vegas shooting to God punishing us for people dissing the President, I'd be smacking him on the chin myself. But he didn't.
Robertson's brief remarks f…

Is Our Knowledge of God Analogical of Univocal?

As a matter of first principles in apologetics, we can ask, “What does the unbeliever know about God?” However, the biblical apologetic is shaped not only by what Scripture says the unbeliever knows, but also by what it reveals he can know; is capable of knowing, as a believer. So we might also ask, “Is it our hope that the unbeliever can know God as God knows himself or that he can know God reflectively, in a creaturely way?” This is the univocal/analogical problem in Christian epistemology. 

The question arises in the context of the structure of human thought. It bears its own unique dilemma. If we stress too excessively that knowledge of God is univocal we run the risk of lowering the incomprehensible God to the level of the finite and make God as one of us. But if we stress too emphatically knowledge of God per analogiam we may very well deprive God of all likeness to the humanity he has created with the result that all we are left with is a barren, abstraction.

To a considerable…