A primer on two-kingdom, spirituality of the church, redemptive-historical evasions...
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.... (2 Timothy 4:3).
(Tim) Darryl Hart is Director of Partnered Projects at the
Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) and an adjunct faculty member at Westminster Seminary in California (WSC). He wrote a helpful bio of J. Gresham Machen titled Defending the Faith. He's also done a short history of the OPC titled Fighting the Good Fight
Concerning the two books above, buy and read them, carefully. If you trace your spiritual or cultural lineage back to the popular evangelicalism of the twentieth century as many of Dr. Hart's admirers do, you need to know the history of men like J. Oliver Buswell, J. Gresham Machen, and the denomination Machen founded called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You need to know how real dispensationalism with its always-attendant moralism dogged fundamentalism and the early evangelicals; but also Machen's courageous stand against it. This history will go a long way toward explaining why many otherwise good reformed men today seem careless about cruelty and injustice, and indifferent to the sodomitic bondage and slaughtered babies at the headwaters of the river of blood we drive through each day in this Babylon that is our home.
Dr. Hart does a superb job documenting Machen's opposition to the binding together of the Church and the feminine anti-alcohol and tobacco crusade that, by way of Fundamentalism, sought to extend its reach into conservative presbyterianism. He said "no," and our R2K brothers think of themselves as the true keepers of Machen's flame. Sadly, though, what started out as opposition to teetotalers, prohibitionists, and other moralistic crusaders has morphed into what appears to be a lack of compassion and love for our neighbors and opposition to the Moral Law itself in our work of obedience to the Great Commission...
Where is the Law as tutor or crossing-guard to Christ in the reformed preaching of the Gospel, today? Where do we teach men to obey everything Jesus commanded?
David and I grew up in a church at the heart of evangelicalism
where our father was denied membership for close to twenty years because
he declined to sign a pledge required of all members, that they would
abstain from movies, dancing, belonging to secret
societies, and the two biggies--the consumption of alcohol and the use
of tobacco. (Thus the name of Dr. Hart's Nicotine Theological Journal.)
For decades, with Ken Hansen Dad team-taught the church's main adult Sunday school class--the inter-generational "Covenant Class" memorialized in Dad's little book, I Love to Tell the Story. Each Lord's Day Dad wasn't on the road, you'd find him with Mud out on the sidewalk in front of the church, encouraging the brethren long after the pastors and elders had left for home and Sunday dinner. If there was a shortage of elders to serve the Lord's Supper, Dad would be conscripted. But they wouldn't allow him to join until finally, near the end of his life, good brother Kent Hughes prevailed upon them and he was welcomed into the fold.
Which brings me to the observation that life is messy. Why didn't Dad leave College Church in Wheaton for some other congregation where the physical and spiritual reality were free to mesh? Where everything would be copacetic?
Happily, Dad wasn't in the habit of trading in justice and mercy and fellowship for the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds. And have you noticed how often the brightest minds are quite little?It's never right to trade in the holiness without which no man will see God for the self-righteousness without which no man may join College Church in Wheaton or matriculate at Wheaton College.
Each generation erects its own Pharisaical boundaries that serve nicely to displace the boundaries of God: true faith in the Blood and Righteousness of our Lord Jesus Christ marked by the Sacraments and the fruit of holiness by which all men are enabled to see with their eyes who is in and who is out of God's Covenant People. And as I see it, for many today, those Pharisaical boundaries allowing the reformed to escape the shame of the Gospel and the painful pursuit of holiness now are taking the shape of talk about R2K, 2K, the spirituality of the Church, or hiding behind a commitment to redemptive-historical preaching.
Sure, that's not the only way reformed men run from the Cross.
Regular readers of this blog know of David's and my grief over the PCA's trendy church-planting network so often marked by the silence of indifference or vocal unfaithfulness to the doctrines of Scripture under attack in our day. To take one of the better examples, we believe God's Creation Order of Sexuality is an evangelistic doctrine, a blessing from God perfectly suited for the proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of mankind in our time. Think of the rabid father-hunger of our nation. Then we come proclaiming the Gospel of the saving love of God the Father from Whom all fatherhood gets its name. This is our Athenian moment before the Areopagus!
Sadly, this doesn't seem to be Mission to North America's perspective. Rather, it often appears PCA/MNA church-planting hipsters would like to to bury God's Creation Order on the far side of the world--maybe out in Australia's back of beyond. Leaving behind the Gospel utility of this doctrine, any affirmation or obedience they give it is of the parsimonious sort, reminding us of a teenage girl at a Christian school tugging on her skirt trying to get it low enough for the principal marching toward her with a yardstick.
It's one of the supreme ironies of our reformed fellowship that, despite what any reasonable person would think, the R2K, 2K, spirituality of the church preppies, along with their brothers mute behind the redemptive-historical gag, are out there in the Aussies' back of beyond helping the PCA/MNA hiptsers dig. Both sides together, now.
The common denominator is hatred for the shame of the Gospel and a propensity to do the look-at-the-birdie routine, albeit they point in radically different directions.
What's certain is that no one has a heart to love the lost, to rescue the perishing, to break the jaw of the wicked snatching the widow and orphan from his mouth, or to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its earthshaking power and wisdom and holiness. Find me the hip church plant where former lesbians and pro-abort feminists have been converted to the Gospel and are now zealous for the conversion of their former sisters-in-crime, pitying their bondage and, from love, going out to seek and to save that which is lost to bring them under the preaching of the full Gospel and the teaching of everything Jesus commanded--particularly that so-pertinent part having to do with Adam being created first, and then Eve.
For that matter, find me the R2K, 2K, spirituality of the Church, redemptive-historical preaching church where the pastor or elders or deacons--anyone, for that matter--faithfully show up at the baby-slaughterhouse nearby to plead for the lives of those little ones about to die.
Amazing similarities between the most disparate things are all over the place, aren't they?
Men today hate distinctions, and both church planting hipsters and two kingdom preppies are equally adept at precisely fencing off those that appeal to them while studiously avoiding those that make our faces go red.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (21)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Denver Todd on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Denver Todd on Why move to Bloomington?
- Alex Costa on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Anavar on Prayer letters, truth-telling and missionary accountability...
- Jessica Woods on Why is there no ADHD in France...
Comments
Two slight corrections: ISI laid me off a year ago due to financial constraints.
Apparently, Machen wasn't sufficiently helpful for you.
It does seem that your proper warning about Pharisaical boundaries displacing God's is exactly what happened to Machen with the Prohibition business and what also happened to your father at College Church. I'd have thought you'd be wary about imposing your own litmus test on picketing abortion clinics.
I wonder if Jody K. will show up with warnings about idle words.
Dear Tim,
Thank you for this primer -- very helpful.
Although, as I look at how Prof. Hart has been foaming at the mouth since Jody K. quoted a warning from Christ about how we use our mouths, I think I'm getting a pretty telling inside look at the R2K movement apart from your explanation.
Adam, I was thinking the same thing. When we're at Planned Parenthood, many women come up to us yelling at Ginger saying that she is making women feel guilty about their abortions, she always says the same thing, "The Holy Spirit is convicting you, is there something you've done that make my words particularly hard for you to hear? I want to help - I'm here every Thursday" - by this time the women are running away as fast as possible.
>Although, as I look at how Prof. Hart has been foaming at the mouth since Jody K. quoted a warning from Christ about how we use our mouths
I would have to say as "foaming at the mouth" goes that is a remarkably mild version.
Sometimes it baffles me how such men who devote themselves so wholly to the study of Scripture and to holding out the Truth can at the same time be so haughty and biting.
>> I'd have thought you'd be wary about imposing your own litmus test on picketing abortion clinics.
No litmus test at all. Just a particularly good example of mercy shown to the least of these.
Right Tim, and temple of the Holy Ghost was how College Church defended abstinence from alcohol and tobacco. You dismiss other Christians for your prioritized sins, fundamentalists did the same for their own list. I myself make a big deal of Sabbath observance but that is not good enough to escape your humble and soothing (as opposed, according to Rebecca, my haughty and biting) critique.
Is it possible that other Christians oppose abortion in ways different from you, must as Machen opposed drunkenness in ways different from supporting Prohibition?
As an administrator of a college I'd have thought you'd see the inconsistency.
Is there an equivalent to Godwin's Law that every blog discussion will eventually devolve into who is being meaner to whom?
"...our father was denied membership for close to twenty years because he declined to sign a pledge required of all members, that they would abstain from movies, dancing, belonging to secret societies, and the two biggies--the consumption of alcohol and the use of tobacco. ...
For decades, with Ken Hansen Dad team-taught the church's main adult Sunday school class..."
This story thus illustrates a second point: a church which thought a man too much of an open sinner to be a member, but it was okay for him to be an official representative of the church and
teach other people. Amazing.
If they were that legalistic, it's surprising they didn't make him an elder; probably the fine print of the by-laws omitted the requirement that an elder be a member, so he could have qualified and taken over even more of the church workload.
Some of do actually need a primer-- but no more--- on this OPC Presbyterian two-kingdom paradigm. It doesn't sound like Luther's. Is it more Mennonite-- a notion that the church should distance itself from the wicked world rather than trying to help, admonish, or change it? (but unlike the Mennonites, church members are not discouraged from helping individually?)
"He's also done a short history of the OPC titled Fighting the Good Fight which made me want to go back to my roots there in that denomination--that is, until I remembered what the OPC actually was like."
What is the OPC like?
To help me understand this controversy better, I'd like to put some real meat to this 1K vs. 2K arguments.
Real Life: We have folks who stand near Planned Parenthood buildings, hoping and praying to discourage women (and men) from aborting their unborn babies.
1K'ers support these pro-life activists.
What do 2K'ers think of these pro-life activists? That's what I'd like to know.
>>an administrator of a college...
Dear Darryl,
If you mean I'm one of the teachers of the men of ClearNote Pastors College, you're right. But what point were you making calling a teacher "an administrator?" I don't see how it did anything other than confuse our readers. And for twenty-seven years, I've been a shepherd of God's flock.
But I'm sure Bob's told you all that...
Concerning your sniffing at Christians doing something, anything, to help the babies escape the slaughter: as I've said, there are many ways to obey the command of God to stand against cruelty and oppression and the shedding of the blood of innocents. What we must not do is come up with a Pharisaical explanation for why this command no longer applies to God's Covenant People.
And to many of us, that's what two-covenant doctrine does. Sometimes, I even wonder if that's not its main purpose?
The first Christians were known for picking the exposed babies up off the hillsides, rescuing them from slavery or death. I'm just making a modest proposal we do the same. We have a child in our church living because we were outside the slaughterhouse and the mother heard us and took pity on her, but now our, child.
>>What do 2K'ers think of these pro-life activists? That's what I'd like to know.
Dear TUAD,
I'd rather know whether they would show up, ever.
With love,
>What is the OPC like?
It is a fine denomination which has its failings but also does not suffer from some of the failings of the PCA. And it is not just hardcore 2K folk.
Hi All,
I've done pro-life picketing. The hospital security people at North Kansas City (MO) hospital have photographic evidence. I've raised funds for a home for unwed mothers and I'm committed to the 2 kingdoms distinction.
This blog post is a gross caricature of the 2 kingdoms view. Please take a moment to read David VanDrunen's 2 books on this topic and his book on bioethics. They're all available at The Bookstore at WSC. There he explains that it's perfectly appropriate for a Christian to work for and advocate for the life of the unborn. The question is not whether Christians can and should work for the preservation of the lives of the unborn but under what rubric and to what end?
The basic point that those of us who are showing renewed interest in the historic Reformed doctrine of the 2 kingdoms are making is that the business of the visible, institutional church is to preach the law (all three uses) and the gospel (as defined by the Reformed confessions and not by the Federal Vision), to administer the signs/seals of the kingdom, and to administer the keys of the kingdom (discipline). By so doing, the visible church equips God's people to fulfill their vocations in the world, which includes speaking up for and acting on behalf of other image bearers who aren't yet born.
That doesn't mean that there will not be disagreements among advocates of a 2K ethic over how that should be done, but there are disagreements between those who reject the 2K over how it ought to be done.
Here is are some interviews with Dave about this:
http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/01.06.10DVDnl2k.mp3
http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/12.07.09DVD.mp3
http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeHours/10.15.09DVDBioethics.mp3
You can also see the videos (free) of the recent WSC conference, Christ, Kingdom, and Culture here:
http://www.wscal.edu/resources/video/index.php
See also:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/vandrunen-natural-law-two-kingdoms-office-hours/
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/christ-and-culture-reading-list/
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/once-more-resources-on-the-two-kingdoms/
I think these materials will provide a more complete picture of what the 2K ethic really is and says.
>>And it is not just hardcore 2K folk.
Part of the explanation for my take on the OPC is that Meredith Kline Sr. was in our congregation. Loved the man as a father and prof, but...
>Part of the explanation for my take on the OPC is that Meredith Kline Sr. was in our congregation.
That might make a difference... :)
You can also hear an interview with Darryl here:
http://reformedforum.org/he1/
and here:
http://media.9marks.org/2009/08/01/being-faithful-in-a-secular-word-with-darryl-hart
We have an interview with Darryl coming up on Office Hours from WSC
http://www.wscal.edu/officehours
http://www.wscal.edu/resources/audio/officehours/index.php
Dr. Clark,
With all due respect, I think what you are sensing here is that your work, and that of some of your colleagues in critiquing Confessional Reformed men is what is at issue.
Do you really sense that your fellow confessionalists have sold out the Reformed store and are legalists because they hold to a "Christ transforms culture" view? I am not talking about theonomists or federal visionists, but good earthy a mill Tony Hoekema types, or (gasp) historic pre-mill types.
I am talking about some of the founders of your own denominational heritage. And, having grown up Dutch, I know the extant tension between the Afescheiden and the Doleantie versions of Christian Reformedom.
It seemeth that you good folks on the LEft Coast think that so very many of us are just Jim Kennedy redivivus.
Or, and I surely hope this is the case, I am completely mistaken about the nature of your enterprise.
That's my real issue. I have good two kingdoms friends --balanced, thoughtful, concerned men. We probably make different applications from texts. But, we respect one another and probably balance one another well.
I think Christless Christianity (for which obviously you cannot be held accountable) is being used like a club to hammer guys who preach very much like Calvin did. It lacks nuance and balance. Similarly David Gordon's Why Johnny Can't Preach (for which I don't hold you accountable either).
I for one am very blessed that you are here and continue to interact, quite respectfully, and thank you for that.
I will read your book, and hopefully find more nuance and balance there.
I am obviously not asking you to critique your colleague and friend. That would not be fair.
I simply want you to understand that incautious words can cause harm in the church to faithful men. And maybe you can talk to Mike and get him to calm down a bit? Please? He's hurting some of us out here.
Instead of sniping at Banner of Truth types, for instance, why don't we again link arms, and together fight some of the real battles? I am all with you on the FV.
But, how often, when a battle is won (and that one is far from won), do the victors turn the guns on each other?
>Instead of sniping at Banner of Truth types, for instance, why don't we again link arms, and together fight some of the real battles? I am all with you on the FV.
How about you take on serious problems like feminists, egalitarians and other liberals?
DAvid,
Not mutually exclusive,, at all.
Dr. Clark,
I guess, in brief, I am trying to figure out who your (WSC's) targets are in the recent flurry of 2 kingdoms publications, specifically calling out Reformed churches...
>Not mutually exclusive,, at all.
If memory serves the OPC report on FV called out a variety of errors and Doug Wilson said he agreed with all of them except paedo-communion, a subject where the FV is clearly (and they admit it) off the confessional reservation.
I am a little late to the conversation, but I'll toss in my two cents anyhow. I don't know much about the OPC or R2K folks, but I do know a little bit about the MNA/hipster/redemptive-historical crowd, as you call them. And I have to say, I object to the caricatures.
Undoubtedly, there is some truth to the accusations that you make about those in that circle (which is, more or less, my circle). But, to be fair, my own experience has shown that the overwhelming majority of people in the MNA/hipster/redemptive-historical crowd do what they do because they have a deep and abiding love for Jesus and his Word and his Gospel and they want desperately to make that Name and that Gospel known. I think its unfair to imply that they are afraid of the shame of the Gospel when many of them have made incredible personal sacrifice in order to have the privilege to preach that Gospel. I think its unfair to imply that they don't care for the lost when they plant churches precisely because they want deeply for the lost to come to know Jesus. I think its unfair to imply that none of them care for the sexually broken or mothers of aborted children when PCA church plants in my city have spawned entire ministries dedicated to these groups of people. I could go on...
Not only are your accusations unfair, they are slanderous and wrong. Your language is incendiary and will do nothing but cause those who already agree with you to despise some of their brothers and sisters even more. These churches love Jesus and his Word and his Good News as much as you do. Just because their expression of the Reformed faith is different than yours does not mean it is less legitimate or valuable to the Kingdom.
Teacher Tim (and Truth Unites): I think that folks who picket abortion facilities are courageous, acting on their consciences, in many cases admirable, in some cases engaging in a form of civil disobedience that my conscience will not allow.
What bothers me, bro Tim, is that you don't know me, my congregation, my session, or whether I have written anything about abortion (or even the answer that I just wrote). And yet you say I "sniff" at pro-lifers. It does seem that a measure of sanctinomy accounts for your willingness to condemn people or matters about which you are ignorant. It also seems that your peformance is delightful to your fans, while anyone who questions your condemning words (in self-defense, mind you), your fans characterize as mean and unrighteous.
Dude, that's not a healthy brew. But rock on in your slashing and burning.
I don't recall mentioning Doug. I have a hard time pinning Doug down, and apparently I am not the only one.
I think there are problems at least with some of the FV folks but I find the emphasis grotesquely disproportionate whereas much more dire threats leave the likes of Pastor Duncan smiling and happy.
So it all comes back to slamming Ligon Duncan? Please. If you only knew...
>>It also seems that your peformance is delightful to your fans
Dear Darryl,
I just put up a post commending two of your performances, and then presenting a sympathetic view of some of your (and others') concerns. Meanwhile, are you reading the comments? David and I didn't decide to speak critically of 2K or the spirituality of the church movement, not to mention the redemptive historical histers, becuase we thought it would make us popular with our readers.
It won't.
Rather, we've spoken because we are concerned at what we've seen for years, now. And in speaking, we've been careful to note that all those in these movements are not defective in the things we've addressed.
But generally, this is our judgment, dear brother. And I'm hopeful that will mean something to you as it most certainly does mean something to me that one of my brothers in the Lord has just called this post "slanderous."
Need I say I think he's wrong, and that's why I wrote what I did. Why I made those generalizations which I've found, for years now, generally true.
Love,
>So it all comes back to slamming Ligon Duncan? Please. If you only knew...
No but he's a good example. And I have more personal insight on him than most in that camp. And we've seen that he is very collegial with those who are moving forward the egalitarian cause. I doubt you see him engage in one of those buddy sessions he has had with Tim Keller with any FV proponent.
David,
It would be unprofitable and silly to engage in a "I know Ligon better than you do" war, but I do know him fairly well. I did work for him for 2.5 years, and have been friends for about 15. I also happen to minister at a church just 5 miles from his.
Suffice it to say, it is the historic evangelical view that you can be more collegial with those you believe are wrong on matters not essential to salvation (witness the friendship of Whitefield and Wesley (who was incidentally wrong on the women's issue)), but not with those who are.
And you do not know that Ligon would not do that, do you?
And, let's remember, collegiality was tried, was it not, at the Knox Symposium?
I would be happy, however, to have a friendly chat, or panel discussion, or whatever with Doug Wilson or John Barach. They may eat my lunch --but they would still be wrong :-)
>It would be unprofitable and silly to engage in a "I know Ligon better than you do" war, but I do know him fairly well. I did work for him for 2.5 years, and have been friends for about 15. I also happen to minister at a church just 5 miles from his.
I don't want to and would lose. What I merely said was I do have more personal insight on him than any others in that movement of comparable status.
>Suffice it to say, it is the historic evangelical view that you can be more collegial with those you believe are wrong on matters not essential to salvation (witness the friendship of Whitefield and Wesley (who was incidentally wrong on the women's issue)), but not with those who are.
And that is what I think he has wrong. The egalitarians are a greater threat to the church than the FV by several scores of magnitude. And the PCA is not only indifferent to this error but ensconces it in places of power like By Faith magazine.
BTW, just curious, what part of the country are you located in?
Jackson MS. In it but not of it.
And I guess we just have to agree to disagree. My own opinion that the FV (which I think essentially misses the core of the gospel, and ends up semi-Pelagian) is more egregious than egalitarianism.
Which is not to say anything about my opinion on egalitarianism.
It seems to me that we don't have to pick just one thing to oppose, do we?
I know I am chewing up the comments, but I keep thinking of important things to say!
Please don't equate all of us in the PCA with By Faith. As Morty Seinfeld said of the Boca Breeze, "pinko commie rag..." ;-p
>It seems to me that we don't have to pick just one thing to oppose, do we?
No, that is fair enough. As an ex-PCAer I'm just frustrated with the unwillingness to act against egalitarianism contrasted with other events.
>Please don't equate all of us in the PCA with By Faith.
I know a PCUSA minister who thought it too liberal for his tastes.
Professor R. Scott Clark: "I've done pro-life picketing. ... The question is not whether Christians can and should work for the preservation of the lives of the unborn but under what rubric and to what end?"
Dear Professor Clark,
I appreciate you doing pro-life picketing. That's terrific.
With regards to your question... I have a question:
What "rubric" and what "end" would you object to for Christians working for the preservation of the lives of the unborn?
I'm not clear. And I'm hoping that you're not reacting to a fictitious strawman. Hence, my question.
Ken,
We hear the WHI and read Mike very differently. As I read/hear him what I perceive is a concern that the visible church be and do what it is called to be and do. Christians are to fulfill their vocation in the world ad gloriam Dei.
Yes, he and others have expressed serious concern about the loose talk about "Christian softball" (Mouw) and other such abominations. No, Jesus didn't die to "transform" the culture or if he did there is precious little explanation of it in the NT.
As to following Calvin in a post-theocratic age, well, mutatis mutandis I think it's happening. If you're saying that we ought to speak like theocrats then I can only say that most all the confessional churches disagree since they've all revised the confessions to eliminate the theocratic language.
But I wager you will hear a fair bit of Calvin-esque preaching in confessionalist pulpits.
I hope that as you read the books and listen to the audio or watch the video you'll get a more complete and accurate picture of what is being said.
Peace
"My argument is that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless for resolving America’s political disputes, thus significantly reducing, if not eliminating, the dilemma of how to relate Christianity and American politics"
&
“just as human investigation into the arts and sciences may be a human activity distinct from forms of religious devotion and in no way dependent on faith, so too political endeavor may not relate directly to piety”
both quotes come from Darryl Hart, "A Secular Faith"
"Not that anecdotes prove arguments, but an encounter with a young mother in a conservative Presbyterian congregation does illustrate the point. This woman said that she and her husband had decided to join this denomination because she knew it was Pro-Life. Did she understand the church's beliefs about preaching, the sacraments, or polity? Probably not. But she knew exactly where it stood (even though the church had issued no formal declaration) about abortion. And that was a good enough reason to join that particular congregation.
This is just one example of the way questions concerning church and state have not only been muddied but have also begun to be answered in political rather than theological ways. Evangelicals are remarkably certain about the things of Caesar and surprisingly timid about articles of the Christian religion." Darryl Hart http://web.archive.org/web/20001016075116/www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr94/1994.05.SepOct/mr9405.dgh.GreatCom.html
This over-simplified duality is destructive...not merely intellectually, but practically. It's also short-sighted because Darryl Hart fails to appreciate that the gospel speaks to "political issues" such as abortion...the very fact he would concede something like abortion as belonging to the realm of Caesar demonstrates he's conceded part of the Kingdom of our Christ to the realm of man...something that is supposed to be the epitome of true religion (according to the NT, no less).
Far from avoiding the co-mingling of kingdoms, it strips God's "No!" away from His Gospel to the world and places supremacy upon the shoulders of the "kingdom of man"...and as Andrew Dionne pointed out, ultimately denies the sovereignty of God.
I find it a happy disjunction when 2kers oppose abortion and speak God's Word to that issue...I just wish more in that camp were as inconsistent.
TUAD,
The rubric would not be the visible, institutional church. Christians, however, may set up private (i.e., non-ecclesiastical) pro-life societies (organizations) as they see fit. That's a matter of Christian liberty.
Tthe 2K ethic is a way of analyzing problems not necessarily prescribing a course of action. The action may vary.
You might listen to the interviews with Dave VanDrunen.
My picketing was a while ago. I would not do so today as a minister. I think my vocation as a minister, in the visible church, is to prepare God's people to fulfill their vocations (which may include picketing). Since I'm ordained my activities are somewhat limited. Others will disagree of course, but I think a minister cannot run for office as a minister. If he wants to do that he can resign his ministerial office and then run for office.
The Christian may and must engage the culture. The question is under what rubric and to what end?
Dear Daryl,
You and Scott Clark don't seem to grasp that the criticisms you're facing here and elsewhere aren’t materializing out of thin air. They’re blowback from criticisms you've been airing for years--criticisms of Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, Whitefield, even former colleagues.
I may be slow on the uptake, but it's coming to me that your problem isn't so much with these men as it is with the form of Christianity they practiced: you know, heart religion, the call to repentance, preaching the Law for its first, second and third uses, the pursuit of piety.
I can live with you disliking Edwards. I can accept criticism of Lloyd-Jones. You can call me benighted intellectually personally all you want. It’s probably true. What I can't accept is a Chauncyite definition of the boundaries of the Reformed faith. You asked me to provide a scholarly response to your criticisms of Edwards. I ask you to drop the sociological/historical attacks on these men and mount a convincing Biblical argument for why we should embrace your arid precepts over the fruitful lives of men whose wells you still draw from even as you disdain their memory.
Sincerely in Christ,
David Bayly
"he question is not whether Christians can and should work for the preservation of the lives of the unborn but under what rubric and to what end?"
I've wondered this myself several times. Let's use this as an example, what sort of rubric do you use and to what end?
I feel like I'm back on the infamous Sarah Palin blog.
Dr. Clark,
Quite obviously, a self-described Kuyperian Tony Hoekema amillennialist is not a theocrat. I think you know that.
And, quite obviously, you have targets, and you and Dr. Horton (and Dr. Hart) have each directed your target at experiential, Kuyperian Reformed pulpits. Dr. Horton actually accused confessional Reformed pulpits of being at least sometimes Christless in his recent CT interview.
Now, I am critical of pulpits too. I am critical of them for many of the reasons that you are: horizontal focus, dumbed down, anti-doctrine, etc etc.
It is when the aim is turned on confessionalists that I get a bit concerned. Not because we are above critique --but "Christless" is a damning critique. Hence my exhortation to be careful with words. To be experiential and Kuyperian, and occasionally exemplary is not to be Christless. Not at all.
These words damage real churches,I can assure you. I have talked to faithful men who have been damaged by them. I know of at least one case where an alternate 2K, R-H church was established because the co-pastors accused a faithful Reformed brother of "not preaching the gospel." Well, it is theoretically possible he wasn't (though in actuality he does). Wouldn't the right thing, ecclesiastically speaking, be to bring charges, not start another church? I won't mention with what seminary the alternate church pastor had been affiliated.
So, you cannot have it both ways. If you are just saying what the Reformed have always said, then there would be no critique to offer of confessional brethren (who are, after all confessional and brethren). If you are issuing a helpful corrective, put it in the language of helpful corrective for consideration, not the vaunted Galatian denunciations you and Dr. Horton have.
If you are saying something new, then it needs to be vetted by the church. But, it is disingenuous then, to pass it off as historic Reformed orthodoxy.
I think this is what concerns some, and some of the founders of WSC among them, about what is happening out there.
And it makes me sad because I, like many others, have looked to you all for so long as a paragon of Christian and Reformed scholarship, and for your able scholarship and strong stand against the FV.
It grieves me to see that you cannot grant the same courtesy to your experiential, transformationalist brethren, but that you have decided that we, too, are legalists.
"My picketing was a while ago. I would not do so today as a minister. I think my vocation as a minister, in the visible church, is to prepare God's people to fulfill their vocations (which may include picketing). Since I'm ordained my activities are somewhat limited."
Are you saying that your activities are limited by your time or by your calling? If the latter, it seems to me that you've missed one of the more powerful elements of the pastoral ministry, to serve as a faithful example; to show as well as to tell. What of Paul's attitude? "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us" (Philippians 3:17).
Andrew,
Poor Elijah. If only he had gone to WSC. He would have known better than to go throw the gauntlet down to kings.
John the Baptist, too. If only he had stuck to the text!!
ROFL.
Craig French,
You have criticized Hart because he “fails to appreciate that the gospel speaks to ‘political issues’ such as abortion.” One of the many problems with your assumptions is that if “the gospel speaks to political issues” then one is hard-pressed to know where to draw the line, since the world is simply fraught with all sorts of political issues. Add to that the fact that there is also the question of how to respond to any given issue. It doesn’t take much time at all, if we’re being at all consistent, to break the back of the church by loading onto her missions she was never called to. What exactly is the difference between your assumptions and those of the 20th century Liberals? To my lights, you both seem to agree on principle that the “world sets the church’s agenda,” even if you disagree with specifically how that principle gets applied (you say the church should be in the business of saving babies, the liberals said she should be making sure children are literate).
But let me ask you this. Since you seem to think the gospel has a political answer to the political question of abortion, does that mean you think the answer is a return to state’s rights instead of federal mandates? Those are my politics on abortion. I’d like to believe Jesus agrees with me that the Borkian notion of states’ rights is superior to lifers and choicers alike who want either federal criminalization or legalization. But he said his kingdom is not of this world, which means nobody’s temporal politics may enjoy eternal sanction. And no matter how strongly anyone feels about his politics, be they fetus- femme- or states-rights, he simply mayn’t press true religion into their service.
ZRIM,
How about this. We can differ on the how best to acheive.
We cannot differ on the fact that state-sanctioned murder of innocents is eternally damnable.
Yes, it is an eternal issue. It has heaven's sanction.
And it will bring the nation under severe judgment.
Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
And you don't have to be a theocrat to believe that.
BTW, most of us put our reputations at stake by using our real names. Seems cowardly not to.
Just sayin'
>We cannot differ on the fact that state-sanctioned murder of innocents is eternally danmanble.
Amen!
Amen Rev. Pierce.
Ken,
“On how best to achieve”…what? Sorry, your sentence seems fragmented. My guess is achieve moral righteousness through mighty globalized politics. Again, how’s that different from good ol’ liberalism?
But I’m satisfied with local magistrates regulating themselves, which is the point of a states’ rights view. The question isn’t “may she or mayn’t she” but “who get to decide.” I think once the right question is answered (“the state”) then the next answer is “she mayn’t.” If the state over wants to legalize what I think should be criminalized, so be it. Heck, even if my state wants to make laws contrary to my conclusions I have to patiently live with that, come back another to day to see if I can win, happens all the time. What I think is irresponsible (and desperate) is to lay on thick the religio-guilt when I don’t get my political way.
Re the name, it has nothing to do with cowardly anonymity. It’s just a nickname for those disinclined to struggle through my surname (Zrimec, first name Steve). Besides, if you want familiarity you can just follow my linked-handle name to my blog and get what you need.
Pages
Add new comment