R2K men stand for nothing, nowhere, and never...

Regular readers of Baylyblog know David and I have been warning souls against the R2K error for years, now. We are quite serious in saying that the men who promote this error pose one of the gravest threats to the Church of our time because their sales pitch is perfectly tuned to the sinful tendencies of postmodern Reformed church officers who feel shame at the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Worldling: "Are you really telling me I shouldn't love the man I love simply because he's a man, and not a woman? What gives you the right to diss my love life? Who do you think you are?"

R2K man: "No, you misunderstand me; I'm not telling you that you shouldn't love the man you love simply because he's a man, and not a woman. I'm telling you that I shouldn't love a man simply because he's a man, and not a woman. But I don't want to be triumphalist about it. I think you should have marriage rights just like everybody else! So now, dont' you think I'm a nice guy?"

Watch that word 'triumphalist'—it's key... R2K men are opposed to standing for God other than in the privacy of their own church and home. Out in the world, their only commitment is to oppose Christian commitments out in the world. They avoid any situation where they may appear to others as standing for the Word of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Proclaiming repentance and faith in Jesus Christ in the public square is strictly to be avoided. Someone ought to have gagged the Apostle Paul when he was preaching in the Areopagus. Preaching righteousness to those souls about to perish in the Flood is strictly to be avoided. Someone ought to have gagged Noah. The public condemnation of the adultery and incest of the civil magistrate is strictly to be avoided. Someone should have gagged John the Baptist.

Avoid triumphalism at all costs. Be meek and humble. Don't make waves. Don't appear political. Make it clear to everyone you're no culture warrior. Gag the Word of God. Put a straitjacket on the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Cede the earth to the demons. Avoid triumphalism at all costs.

This is the only principle of R2K men. More evidence of this comes from this exchange with Escondido teacher Dave VanDrunen reported by Doug Wilson, who writes:

This last weekend... I asked David VanDrunen ...what God would think of a nation whose magistrate and people had become overwhelmingly (and sincerely) Christian, and who decided to confess Christ in the common realm, in the formerly secular realm. I asked if God would be displeased with that, and VanDrunen said yes, he thought God would be displeased with that.

Hart and VanDrunnen are identical in their commitment to avoid the slightest appearance of triumphalism. You need know nothing more about the R2K error than that. And nothing more about true Christian faith than that, in the pursuit of the triumph of the Cross of Jesus Christ, millions of men and women of God across two millenia have been martyred for their public witness to the holiness of God, the conviction of sin and righteousness and judgment of the Holy Spirit, and the universal Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Starting with our beloved Deacon, Stephen.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


Did he go on to say why this would be so unpleasant to God?

Dear Jeff, you may want to ask that question over at Doug's post. Love,

Happy to answer it here. In the follow-up, he said that it was because he wanted minorities (in this case, non-believers) to not be mistreated. The assumption behind that is that the secular state is more to be trusted with treating people right than Christians would be. But of course, Christians were the ones who invented civil liberties for all.

That is so nonsensical it beggars belief. What sort of gospel does he believe in and preach?

Dear Jeff: I'm in the States briefly and staying at Tim and Mary Lee's house for a few days.

As Tim and I have discussed VanDrunen's comment, I've found it difficult to find the right words to describe my reaction to what he said. I like your  "nonsensical."

However, I'm glad he said it. Perhaps it will serve to warn people away from this system since it is so clearly wrong.

Warmly, David

I'm not sure which is worse, VanDrunen's comment or Hart's line: "The all-or-nothing logic inherent in appeals to the Lordship of Christ fails to do justice to the reduced character of Christ’s sovereignty in the Christian era." (A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State, pg. 230)

Hart's writing seems to be driven by a principle of remaining almost completely unfiltered. He's a very helpful place to start when highlighting R2K errors because he unabashedly proclaims the errors: 

"...the self has all the marks of a hyphenated existence, one in which the Christian leads a double life." (A Secular Faith, pg. 177)

With few exceptions, until VanDrunen's response to Pastor Wilson he maintained a sense of plausibility...like perhaps he isn't extreme, just sorely mistaken. Just goes to show you that when reading an academic making a positive case, you need to multiply the argument times 10 to get a feel for where the author actually stands.

I am curious to see how DVD would understand the book of Jonah in which God specifically commands Jonah to preach to the entire city of Ninevah. God was not displeased with Ninevah's repentance. 

Also, DVD has stated in the past that WSCAL is technically a common kingdom institution, since it is not part of any church. By DVD's logic, when WSCAL preaches Christ in the classroom and in chapel, God is displeased with this. 

Leaving the debate aside over whether seminaries should be under the church (which I think they should be), I do think that when seminaries do preach Christ faithfully in class and in chapel, God is pleased with this.

If we are to understand that a common kingdom institution is not bringing honor to Christ by confessing him as Lord, then, God is not pleased with WSCAL every day that it is teaching...

Does this really make sense? No it doesnt. But, that is the logic behind DVD's statement. This would seem to indicate that perhaps more thought needs to be placed in this NL2K theology.  

Add new comment