Social Action and Common Grace

- introduced by Simon Vibert

Consulted works
Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology; Louis Berkhof Common Grace; Herman Bavinck
Calvin and Common Grace


English Evangelicals have been guilty of dividing the world into "The Redeemed - who enjoy God's blessing" and The Unredeemed -- who deserve God's wrath". The latter group needs to be contacted in order that we may share the Gospel. One consequence of this view is that our interaction and critique of culture and relationships with "the world" is purely in terms of their soteriological need.

Berkhof comments that "general blessings . God imparts to all men without any distinction as He sees fit".

Similarly Grudem: When we walk down a street and see houses and gardens and families dwelling in security, or when we do business in the marketplace and see the abundant results of technological progress, or when we walk through the woods and see the beauty of nature, or when we are protected by government, or when we are educated from the vast storehouse of human knowledge, we should realize not only that God in his sovereignty is ultimately responsible for all of these blessings, but also that God has granted them to sinners who are totally undeserving of any of them.

Scripture supports these conclusions:
1. In "Nature" (i.e. Creation) God pours out blessings on all without distinction - fresh air and water, family, weather, pleasure and creativity (Matt. 5:44f. Acts 14:17; Lk 6:33). Though this world is fallen and tainted we nevertheless enjoy God's benevolent provision.
 

2. In Morality and Ethics. God has given all men consciences (the law written on our hearts, Rom 2:15). Conscience is to mirror and be trained by the law of the Lord - but even in the non-believer it is not completely corrupted. General agreements about dishonesty, laziness, cruelty, infidelity and theft are found in every culture.

3. In Society (Gen 2) and Government (Romans 13). God has instituted marriage as a creation ordinance and delegated authority (exousia) to kings and princes.

4. In the influence believers make on the world through teaching, social action (emancipation and education movements) and through their prayers (e.g. Mtt. 5:13-6 et. al.).

Implications
a.. Common Grace will allow me to work with those who we may disagree with radically in some areas, but in other areas we may collude - whenever the good, true and right is being pursued. We are reminded that total depravity
is not utter depravity - bad pagans do good things!
b.. Common Grace urges me to realise that God's plans are broader than soteriology. Clearly we must be always concerned that people hear the Gospel, but good music, inspiring art, eloquent writing, glorious sunsets etc. should receive commendation and, for the believer, result in praise to God!
c.. Common Grace encourages me to be thankful and encouraging of giftedness in any area of life and; conversely, to work for the prospering of goodness where it is not seen. It also helps to prevent dualism – for there is no separation between "secular" actions and "spiritual" action.. God is the giver of both.
d.. Common Grace does not save people - indeed God's blessing may lead to pride and complacency - however Christians should be engaged in encouraging non-believers to see his kindness and come to repentance (Acts 14:17; Rom 2:4). However, having the kindness of God displayed before them, a non-believer may be more disposed to hear the Gospel.
 

Responses

FROM LEE GATISS –

That there are two ways to live, that unbelievers deserve God's wrath, and that their greatest need is to hear and believe the gospel - if thinking these things makes me "guilty" of something, then I am happy to be condemned. None of the positive points made about common grace in this paper seem to justify the dismissive judgement of the first paragraph.

To say that part of our mission is to praise good things pagans do, as if this was comparable to evangelism, seems seriously wrong to me. Ultimately, what is important is not (say) the Mona Lisa - beautiful though that painting is. What is important is whether Leonardo Da Vinci is redeemed by the blood of the lamb. Yes, I can praise God for the gifts of common grace he gave to that artist. But the artist's greatest need was the gospel, not my culturally engaged critique of his work or my praise.

Common grace disappears in hell. Common grace renders us without excuse on judgement day. Common grace cannot lead to works pleasing to God. As Anglican Article 13 affirms: "Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God inasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace... yea, rather, for that they are not done as God willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." Or think of Romans 8:7-8, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God." Those controlled by the sinful nature can do all sorts of praiseworthy things, but they cannot please God.

None of this means we shouldn't work to make the world a better, nicer, more pleasant place to live. As if ! But surely we must keep the soteriological need of "the world" always at the forefront of our minds? God's plan for this world is not to fill it with "good music, inspiring art, and eloquent writing," or even beautiful paintings, grand buildings, clean streets, good governments, and well-resourced schools. We're lucky if we have such things, and they're all down to God's grace. But his plan for the world is to bring all things together under Christ in a new creation where these hints of "common grace" will pale into insignificance.

Well, that's another way of looking at it anyway...

Lee Gatiss.

FROM SIMON VIBERT

OK
I make a concession:
In case there is any doubt, I am a Reformed Evangelical who believes that the damned will spend eternity in hell and even now live under the wrath of God. I am convinced that being saved from the wrath of God is the sinner’s greatest need. So, if that needed restatement then I am happy to do that.

But, Lee, I do not think that you have done justice to this topic of Common Grace. The goodness of God to all creation, even post-the fall - is clear and for that we should be grateful.

You are right: Common grace will disappear in hell. But the elect and unredeemed live side by side in this world which God has made. We aren't in hell! (or heaven). Again, I am very happy to affirm article 13 and Romans 8:7-8 .... but they have little to say to this issue. Good works never redeem. But good works are better than bad. And the good deeds of pagans should be appreciated even as we call them to repent of the pride that prevents them from grasping grace.

"that man's will hath some liberty to work a civil righteousness and to choose such things as reason can reach unto; but that it hath no power to work the righteousness of God" (Augsburg Confession)

But in the same way that a gorgeous sunset honours the creator God, the skilful artistry of Leonardo Da Vinci and the acting of Leonardo De Caprio remind us that we not utterly depraved.

The issue here, I guess, is: Should we engage in a fallen world in any other terms than sharing the Gospel with them? Should we be concerned about Social Reform? Should I show love to my non-Christian neighbour even though it may be years - or never - that I can share the Gospel with them?

I am not advocating the Social Gospel, of course, but I am asking that evangelicals consider the heritage which Calvin, Kuyper and Neighbor have bequeathed us.

My thoughts are only one side of A4 long so far .. so let's hear from others!
Simon
 

FROM MARK LUCAS

I think, Lee, your view owes more to pietism than reformed theology. The kind of 'utilitarian' worldview that you suggest is less than biblical in its denial of common grace. Of course there is a line that must not be crossed - our primary aim is to preach the gospel and our true home is the new Jerusalem - but we need to be very careful that we don't make this all there is to being part of God's wonderful creation. The 'imago dei' is still present in all humanity even if it is corrupted and depraved. Great music, great art, great wonders of science are all due to God's common grace to humanity and are there to be enjoyed. A great symphony by a godless composer has the ability to transport the believer to the heavenlies because it reflects God's glory!

Mark Lucas
 

FROM LEE GATISS

I am not denying "common grace", as my original contribution made very clear.

Simon's paper starts by saying, "English Evangelicals have been guilty of dividing the world into "The Redeemed - who enjoy God's blessing" and "The Unredeemed -- who deserve God's wrath". The latter group needs to be contacted in order that we may share the Gospel." To begin this way - implying that this view is wrong and that we should feel guilty for thinking it - is not calculated to win a sympathetic hearing from all Reformed evangelicals, I would humbly suggest.

What you are aiming to attack, Simon, is "one consequence of this view", that we should therefore interact with the world "purely in terms of their soteriological need." Yet that is certainly not an * inevitable * consequence of holding to "two ways to live" theology. I am able to hold to both "two ways to live" and the idea that I should be nice to my non-Christian neighbour, and enjoy his excellently maintained garden! The two are not mutually exclusive in the way that it seems to me you have set them up at the beginning of your paper.

It is important to get this right because the "implications" section of Simon's paper could lead in all sorts of directions. To say "we can work with those we fundamentally disagree with" may be OK, but it depends very much on the project we are working on. I am not, for instance, going to evangelise alongside a Muslim, however healthy his dose of "common grace." Neither are you of course (I trust!) but that would be one way of reading the paper. Perhaps you were thinking of how we as Christians can co-operate with local government to improve recycling facilities in our parishes, or something like that? Quite right! But the "summary implication" could be read in all sorts of other ways I think I would be unhappy with.

Your second implication "God's plans are broader than soteriology" is not quite what you have established earlier. God gives us all things richly to enjoy. No-one is denying that. But to summarise this as "God's plans are wider than soteriology" could be misunderstood quite dramatically. Praising God for good pagan decorators or for the skilful work of plumbers is good. Of course! We want better plumbers and better decorators, and better artists, and cleaner sources of power, etc etc - of course! But to say that this is "God's plan for the universe" in the same way that bringing all things together under Christ's lordship through gospel proclamation is part of God's plan - well, that appears to me to be getting things a little out of proportion.

Friends, brand me a "pietist" if you like. But please do engage with the actual points raised rather than imagining that I have denied the Reformed doctrine of common grace! That's not what my original response to Simon's paper actually did - have another look...

Lee (still learning).