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 (18)
- 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
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
- David Gray on Teach daughters not to be brash and sons not to be effeminate...
- Tamara on Teach daughters not to be brash and sons not to be effeminate...
- Craig French on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
“I oppose abortion. But an amazing number of people thought that I would outlaw abortion. They didn’t understand that not only did I have no desire to do that, but I had no power to do it. If you overrule Roe v. Wade, abortion does not become illegal. State legislatures take on the subject. The abortion issue has produced divisions and bitterness in our politics that countries don’t have where abortion is decided by legislatures. And both sides go home, after a compromise, and attempt to try again next year. And as a result, it’s not nearly the explosive issue as it is here where the court has grabbed it and taken it away from the voters.”
Judge Robert Bork in Newsweek, Jun 20, 2009 (from the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009).
I would suggest that those conservative Christians who have lost the day, and, as a result, are inclined to invoke all manner of religious invectives have contributed significantly to making abortion the impossibly “explosive issue” Bork indicates. Bork seems to have a better handle on what it means to be conservative on this score.
Even so, the more important point here is how the American church has confused the kingdoms to such an extent that it has actually linked up the gospel to the traditions of men. That’s far, far worse than stripping states, women or children of any rights.
>But I’m satisfied with local magistrates regulating themselves
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82:2-5
Well, it looks like they're not likely to answer.
"if we’re being at all consistent, to break the back of the church by loading onto her missions she was never called to."
Our Pro-Life mom, Carole, uses Prov 24 - read that.
I don't think many social gospel churches fight abortion.
So what do we fight for? At CGS the men are memorizing Jude - when we hear "contend earnestly for the faith" do we say, "Oh, but Jesus who is my neighbor - what is my faith how do I contend?" We know how Jesus answered on Samaritans.
Is your question of what to take on a desire to avoid the cross of Christ? If you deny Him, he will deny you to the Father.
I'm not trying to paint some tragic figure, but we take no resources from the local church. Many hours my wife is the only one who is out in front of our local Planned Parenthood (before this Carole). All I ask is that pastors don't denigrate the sacrifice those women make in Christ's name. It's hard on my wife.
Thankfully we have our church's support. What about those who would love the lost in your church?
In the words of King, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Et tu Brute?
-Clint
Zrim,
I would have agreed with you in previous years. I've heard this argument often.
So the Gospel divides also, it is inherently polarizing. So should we give up on it?
If we are lukewarm it's not just God who will spit us out, the world does too.
The world is thirsty for water that is wet, for salt that is salty and for Christians who love Christ.
Let's give it to them as God commands.
-Clint
Clint Mahoney: "I don't think many social gospel churches fight abortion."
Is there a Liberal Protestant church of denomination that officially fights abortion?
Clint Mahoney: "All I ask is that pastors don't denigrate the sacrifice those women make in Christ's name. It's hard on my wife."
I agree with you 100%.
Ken,
You seem to have a specific example in mind of "confessional" pulpits being attacked. I don't know when or where this was so I'm confused a bit on this.
I think most of my criticism has been of neo-Kuyperians both of the pietist inclination (e.g., those who want turn every common, cultural activity into a religious or sacred act) and of the theocratic/theonomic inclination who want to turn every religious act into a social, common action. Against both I want to distinguish that which is cultural or common from that which is sacred.
If you're referring to Mike's criticism of preachers who use their pulpits not to announce the in-breaking of the eschatological kingdom into history but to advance some common socio-political agenda, then I'm with Mike. If a minister substitutes his social agenda for Christ's he's abdicated his duty as a minister of the gospel. I'm guilty of it. I've done it and I understand how and why I was wrong to do it.
Thus, I would not say, as someone above has done, that the "gospel" speaks to abortion. The moral law of God speaks to abortion. That moral law is revealed in creation and it is universally binding and obligatory. The magistrate has a responsibility to defend the life of image bearers and Christians have a right to speak as citizens on the basis of that creational law to the magistrate to call him to act justly.
The gospel is the announcement of the saving work of Christ in history and the consequent salvation that comes to all who believe. We don't want the magistrate enforcing the gospel, but we do want him enforcing the law. That's his divinely given mandate (Rom 13).
As to my office as minister, yes, I'm limited because of my office. I can instruct, teach, preach, exhort, pray but I doubt that I'm called as a minister to act in my office in the advancement of a social cause, whether it's to free the slaves or save the unborn. I understand that some (perhaps many) will disagree. We're there a way for me to divorce myself from my office somehow perhaps i could do it. In that respect, it's a little like a cop having a private life. They don't really have one. They always carry a weapon and they always carry a badge. I'm always a minister, even when I'm not wearing the genevan robe or expositing Scripture so I have to be careful with what causes I let people associate the ministry.
The only cause I with which I want the ministry to be associated is the kingdom of God manifested in the visible church. Christians who are not ordained to special office (i.e., pastoral ministry) are not so restricted and may be more active in a broader range of social causes.
I'm sure it seem inefficient and counter-intuitive and counter-cultural but I think that's a good thing because I think the kingdom that I represent as a minister has all the same qualities.
> even when I'm not wearing the genevan robe
Bob Mattes says that's a sign of being FV...
>>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).
No, the world doesn't set the church's agenda--ever. It's the Devil who sets the world's agenda, and the church, being the pillar and foundation of the truth, the salty salt, the lighty light; the church goes beyond having nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, also exposing them.
Imagine asking our Lord where we should be salty and where gracey? Where lighty and where redemptive historically. Draw the line for us so we can know not to step over it. Make it clear. Then we'll obey...
Concerning abortion, the things written above by some lead me to the conviction a few of us have not begun to think about abortion as Christians with a heart for Christ's little ones. As an indicator of why I would say this, let me put it this way: the nation that judicially, legislatively, executively, and militarily protects the slaughter of fifty million of its unborn children has no rule of law.
It's not a political issue at all. We have no rule of law when it's open season on the most weak and vulnerable and innocent among us.
No rule of law. At all.
A lot of churches helped out with the Haiti crisis and the Katrina crisis, sending money, supplies, and people, including clergy.
Why can't or why shouldn't churches do the same thing with the abortion crisis?
Tim,
No, one of the major points of the 2K ethic is precisely the opposite, the Word of God (!) sets the agenda for the visible, institutional church and for particular Christians.
The 2K ethic distinguishes between the roles played by the church, considered as the visible institution established by Christ, and Christians as they fulfill their vocations during the week.
I agree that Christians ought to speak against sin and seek to uphold God's moral/creational law in society. The question is not whether but how.
I've argued for the abiding validity of the creational law in exhaustive detail:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-abiding-validity-of-the-creational-law-in-exhaustive-detail/
I've also argued from creational law against homosexuality.
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/natural-law-the-two-kingdoms-and-homosexual-marriage/
Again, it's not whether but how.
Yes, all of God's image bearers who are innocent before civil law (e.g., unborn infants) ought to receive the protection of civil law and Christians ought to call the magistrate to do that.
The visible church, however, should be careful to observe the sorts of distinctions that the apostles observed. There were great social evils and injustices prevalent in the 1st century but we don't see the apostles speaking to them, at least not in a culture-transforming way. The culture they sought to create was in the visible church. That will, as many have observed, have indirect effect on the broader culture but that's a by-product of the faithfulness of the visible church to its primary vocation.
Dr. Clark,
I really am not trying to be snide, and I owe you the courtesy of reading your book, but a few things serve to illustrate the overall point.
That you put "confessional" in quotes illustrates a measure of contempt, I fear. By confessional, I mean nothing other than Old School, subscriptionist, doctrines of grace proclaiming Calvinism.
That you cite "neo-Kuyperians and pietists" as an object of derision I find quite interesting. I am not quite sure I have ever met such a beast, but, like the Yeti, they may in fact exist. I thought it was a standard of scholarly discourse to name one's targets of criticism, cite their words, and then state where they are wrong.
AS far as those who admit of no sacred-secular distinction, again, they may exist, but I doubt among the serious confessionally Reformed. I do, however, remember a much younger Mike Horton making precisely that argument I believe in Where in the World Is the Church. I guess he changed his mind. I imagine he is not still selling that book. He was wrong. He said that fishing was as holy as worship. Wrong.
It seems like you are arguing this debate admits of no degrees. One either preaches Christ or his own social agenda. What about Christ's social agenda?
I agree with you that abortion is not a part of the gospel. It is, however, a part of the whole counsel of God, you know, that thing that Paul declared to the Ephesians, that made him innocent of their blood?
One is not either a two kingdoms quietist or a rabid theocrat or theonomist. There are degrees here. That you want to force people to an extreme does not ease my concerns, or those of others far more influential than I, about WSC.
I will read your book. But, from your comments here, it looks to me that you are radically redifining the Reformed heritage, not guarding it.
And it grieves me. Not a year ago I thought WSC had the best thing going, academically, in the Reformed world. I am sad to be mistaken.
Tim,
You said of abortion, “It's not a political issue at all. We have no rule of law when it's open season on the most weak and vulnerable and innocent among us.”
It seems to me quite disingenuous to try and de-politicize abortion, especially for those who seem to have a specially vested interest in federally outlawing it. Outlawing something relies on a political premise. Abortion in 21st century America is, in point of fact, one of the most political issues going, even if the conversation is virtually doomed.
But it seems to me that this de-politicizing tactic is one employed by those who know abortion is a political issue but want to avoid charges of confusing church and state and sneak politics into the church. So they resort to moralizing it. The two problems here are 1) moralizing something doesn’t really help those who need political (read: real) protection, and 2) the church still isn’t commissioned to tackle pressing issues that have been craftily downgraded from political to moral in the wider world. She’s only commissioned to address spiritual issues. All in a confusing day’s work in an age that moralizes politics and politicizes faith, I suppose.
I'd be curious to know if Dr. Hart could, in good conscience, echo what Zrim has been saying or if Zrim is something of a 2K crazy man, not representative of mainstream 2K thinking.
Dear Zrim,
Are you the blogger who slandered me by saying that I called for insurrection and violence in my sermon to the President of last spring? I seem to recall seeing your name attached to that statement months ago...
If so, please remove yourself from this forum. The bar here may be low, but it's not so low that such ungentlemanly conduct will go unchecked.
If not, forgive me for linking you to such behaviour.
Sincerely in Christ,
David Bayly
I'm trying to get a handle on this 2K viewpoint. Am I right in thinking that a 2K advocate would believe the following?
1. A pastor should not participate in an abortion protest.
2. A pastor should not comment on whether a law prohibiting abortion (or pornography, or divorce) would be a good idea.
3. A church building and phones should not be used for helping to organize a protest against a porn theatre.
Am I right on this? Specific examples are helpful in seeing what is at stake.
Ken,
I only put "confessional" in quotation marks because I wanted to ascertain and not assume that we mean the same things by that adjective. From your usage I couldn't tell. E.g., Some people use it as a synonym for "conservative."
I'm trying the best I can to hear you and to explain things as I see them. I can't account for everything Mike has written. I'm sure his views have changed -- he's been writing books since he was 15 or so! My views have changed over the last 25 years.
I'm quite sure Mike does believe in a sacred/secular distinction.
I wasn't being derisive but I do dissent strongly from Pietism and from most forms of neo-Kuuyperianism, I've discussed that at length on the Heidelblog.
I agree that there are degrees. I'm just trying establish some boundaries within which to have this discussion. I have a lot of theocrats who seem to visit the HB and so that movement is alive and well, even in the URCs. I've been accused of antinomianism for not being theocratic.
I don't know exactly what Jesus' social agenda is, at least as I think about "social agenda" (i.e., things to be done in the common realm). I know what the law requires of all humans. That's Jesus' social agenda, since he gave the law.
I think I know what his agenda is for the visible church and for Christians but I don't what his views are on myriad of social policy questions. I'm not being snide here. I really don't know. I guess we would have to define "social policy" or "social agenda."
I don't see why you associate the 2K analysis with quietism. Here I've given you links to lengthy articles calling for Christian engagement with the culture on homosexuality and other issues. How is that quietism? How is VanDrunen's book on bioethics quietism or his two books on natural law and 2K ethics "quietism."
I think I've said repeatedly that Christians must engage the culture.
We may disagree on how they ought to do that but I can't see how what I'm advocating can be fairly called quietism.
Eric,
I've given a whole series of links above where these questions are addressed more fully than I can do in combox. That's the best I can do here.
I'm hopping mad right now.
Men,
abortion is a religious issue, and the *gospel* speaks to this issue...yes *the* Gospel.
Stop plugging your ears, stop making excuses, quit marginalizing God's Word and creating a moralized crusade against "moralizers":
Luke 2:10-11
10 But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.
If you can't see Gospel in child birth, you are ignorant of promise, you're ignorant of covenant, and *you* offer no good news to women who are confused, pregnant out of wedlock and being pressured all around into having an abortion. You'll nod your head "yep, you're pregnant...that's bad news".
You de-moralize the abominable, and walk lock-step with Molech...but you keep the Sabbath, right?
Rabid 2kers may not do church like Rob Bell, but they would add their voices in shouting down blowhorn guy on the way to Starbucks (not on Sunday, of course). Practically-speaking, I don't see much of a difference. Welcome to Velvet Calvinism.
Zrim is the epitome of the worst of the 2K approach...
>Zrim:Sometimes I get accused of not caring enough about “life issues,” which I am fairly confident is code for not getting in line with the pro-life movement. I guess I don’t show enough patriotism of affirmation and too much dissent when it comes to this strange ideological litmus test of theological orthodoxy. I must admit, I never thought I’d be so interested in the topic. But when even confessional Protestants who are more conversant with Operation Rescue than they are with the Spirituality of the Church...http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/some-doth-cheer%E2%80%94whilst-others-protest%E2%80%94too-much-2/
Or there's this:
>part of Hart’s response was to point out the crucial matter of jurisdiction. He made reference to his own OPC’s efforts in issuing statements on abortion. The church may and should really only make certain stipulations for those over whom she is ordained. The upshot here is that if a member of the church either has or performs such a procedure the idea would be that she or he could be subject to discipline, which got me thinking in another direction not necessarily intended by the discussion but one I have wondered about before.
The point of jurisdiction is absolutely crucial to any two-kingdom theology and is thus well taken. But while there is place for the matter of jurisdiction, ***I still have my own set of hesitations as to the wisdom of such official statements as those against abortion***. Is what is going on in these formulations really about jurisdiction or a clever way to join in the fray of cultural influence? http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/kingdoms-cows/
Congratulations, you guys are guarding the church from un-named enemies while letting worldliness, her thinking, and idols in through the back...but no, you're not mingling the two...you're keeping them distinct, right? Shrines to Molech dot the landscape and his faith thrives...but you're silent...except when you're telling us to be silent.
They claim they want a spiritual church with power...that they're opposed to consumerism...yet their churches are stripped of any meaningful shepherd's rod while grace is mediated through a preached word that doesn't connect with their being while receiving bread and wine which can't condemn. It's consumerism re-packaged.
Amen Pastors Pierce and Bayly.
Zrim,
I couldn't sleep because your comment on this blog kept floating around in my head mingled with all the voices of the young men and women I met at my local killing place today. I, like Craig French, am hopping mad right now.
You said:
"the church still isn’t commissioned to tackle pressing issues that have been craftily downgraded from political to moral in the wider world. She’s only commissioned to address spiritual issues."
I want you to go down to the killing place in your community, most communities have one these days you know. I want you to go there on the killing days and see what is actually happening. Look into the eyes of the men and women who have come to the point in their life where they are willing to pay someone to take the life of their unborn children, mostly for the sake of convenience. Talk to those men and women and hear that they are desperately hanging on to the lies told them by a guilty society that has so much blood on our hands that we can not tell the truth about this anymore. Offer them help and hope and life-physical life for their child and eternal life for themselves. Cry with them, pray with them, love them and lead them away from the killing place. Hear the stories of their pain and rejoice as they repent over thier sin. Here in the past couple of months at our killing place three babies lives were spared and hundreds of others were not so fortunate. One woman who killed her second child repented and turned to the Lord. Her faith may make all the difference in the life of her almost 2 year old son. So, after you do this, Zrim, then come back and tell me it's a political issue and not a spiritual one. Until you do then how dare you talk about this so lightly. I have never gotten THIS angry about any "political" issue in my life.
-Ginger
Zrim,
Please forgive my wife's outburst. After all she's a rabid political activist who knows nothing about the gospel and cares nothing about Christ.
You know, my wife and I never considered politics when we murdered our child. We were just selfish, desperate people who, though I'm not trying to excuse it, didn't know God. Most people had never offered us any other "choice" but afterward we knew we'd done a horrible thing and God saved us in our brokenness. Every week, the hardest question we ask is, "why wasn't anyone there to help us" since there were no "protestors" at the hospital in Nashville where we had our abortion, and the realization that we may not have listened. We have to try, it's an entry point for the gospel that's not as fun as coffee house evangelism, but I never liked coffee anyway.
I assume you're bringing up Operation Rescue implying that George Tiller's killer was one of them.
We get tons of people condemning what pro-life protestors do, I ask what I've asked several times in these two blogs that no one answers, What do you do regarding Pro-Life (or any "political" issue) - how do you live your life, or is tying your shoes a political issue too?
I mean, what does Christianity mean to you?
My wife and I don't shout, "You're going to burn in hell baby killer" yet somehow everyone, including Christians in our own town who've never been down there, assumes we're doing.
A young friend of mine who we'd known for the past five years, who was an east-coast, hip political moderate, had always resisted getting into "political" discussions with us on Pro-Life. Finally he even came to Planned Parenthood with us. He said, "I don't know what I expected ..." wait I'll look up the email:
"Took me forever to figure out what PP was. Its one thing I meant to talk to ya'll about, but I think the women talk was a lot more important. I was glad I got a chance to see what you do, though it was fairly surreal to me. What hit me most is it really isn't protesting, it was more of pleading. I wasn't sure what I expected as we were driving in, but that wasn't it."
Until you've been involved in this, don't purposefully misunderstand it so that you can assuage your conscience. Please, it hurts so many people not the least of all the unborn.
Please men, let's not dull our hearts even more to evil, if you're like me, you've done it enough in your life, to horrible effect. Let the Spirit soften our hearts and the hearts of others with the Gospel of Christ, wherever it is needed. (Thanks Craig.)
When God asks you why you didn't help the lost, I'm sure it'll cut a lot with Him when you say, "Oh, it was a political issue."
In loving earnest,
Clint
Thank you in every shape and form Clint and Ginger.
Your courage speaks volumes.
Blessings,
Dr. Clark,
I appreciate the amount of time you have devoted to the interaction. I have ordered your book, and hope to read it next week.
After that, I will email you privately.
Thanks again for the time you have spent trying to clarify and explain.
Dr. Clark,
I think ZRIM would be an example of the possibility of quietism among 2K advocates.
I certainly wouldn't equate you with him.
Because by his standard, Paul was a legalist, because he actually issued imperatives to God's people.
> "Thank you in every shape and form Clint and Ginger. Your courage speaks volumes."
Thank you, but rather thank God. My wife is amazing but I do a horrible job, that's why I wish so much that there were more men doing it. Here at our church there are several dedicated men, but overall Pro-Life is yet another war our women must fight because we men won't.
It's a little easier for me because my wife and I committed this evil together. There are several of women who come down to PP to protest with us for a day a week etc, whose husbands don't approve because their abortions were with other men.
How many of our wives are hiding abortions from previous relationships. We don't want to think about it, so they knowing this don't tell us.
How many of us men, know we may have been the father of a child killed. But since we don't know we are happy in our ignorance-based innocence.
One man I really admire, came down with us a few times at PP and told me that he suspects this.
How many of us share this guilt and hide it so we must say, "it's a political issue" when we mean, "please, God, please make it a political issue, I can't bear to face my guilt - give me an out!"
Before I confessed my own guilt, I thought of abortion as a political issue. It was convenient.
-Clint
Dr. Clark,
You wrote...
"I'm trying the best I can to hear you and to explain things as I see them."
and
"I've given a whole series of links above where these questions are addressed more fully than I can do in combox. That's the best I can do here."
I find these ironic given that you have constantly berated the FV adherents for pleading that they're (the FV) not being understood, and here you find yourself in the same situation. Many on this site are somewhat familiar with 2k theology and they don't like it. You seem to be arguing that if we just bought and read your books we'd understand and be convinced - which sounds like an FV defense to me. Using your own modus operandi with the FV, how long do we give you to make your case before we start a movement within NAPARC to condemn it?
David Bayly,
I don't recall trafficing in any slander of you, no. I've never commented here except for now. I may have been critical somewhere about the inappropriety of certain sermonizing. I don't know if you count honest dissention as slander.
All, I appreciate your strong convictions about a particular issue. But I think what you may be missing here is that politics is the way we order our public lives, and that there are different ways to address any question about how to do that. Moreover, politics are imperfect and can only help us maintain some proximate semblance of public order and decency. In case any of you have missed it, I oppose abortion morally and politically. I would characterize my own views as anti-abortion instead of pro-life. I disagree that one segment of the human population has the right, at will or whim, to decide the life and death of another segment simply because the former house the latter. I am unclear on how such strong views can be characterized as "quietist," unless you are assuming there are only two choices: raving activist or apathetic quietist.
But even more than I oppose abortion politically and morally, I oppose the confusion of the kindoms because I understand it to be a variant of confusing law and gospel. As persuaded as I am on this particular temporal issue called abortion, I am saying that confusing law and gospel is a far graver matter. How is any of this "quietist"? Aren't quietists supposed to be...quiet?
ZRIM:
It is not a confusion of law and gospel to preach both law and gospel, for the church to proclaim the law in its first, second, and third use and clearly distinguish between the three.
The church is not just given the message of the law's first use. It is not just the agent of redemption, but the witness to the truth, and the whole counsel of God.
That is not at all to denigrate the primacy of the gospel, or the primacy of the new birth, or the primacy of justification.
Why do we tie ourselves in these sorts of hermeneutical knots? Just say what it says, already.
Dear Zrim,
I thought I recognized your name so I looked on Google and found it. You wrote a post on July 4, 2009 slighting John Piper for preaching on "Sanctity of Life" and slandering me by calling my sermon a "thinly veiled affirmation of violence and insurrection."
Slander is not honest discussion and slanderers are not welcome on this blog. An apology would have been the manly response rather than the mincing "I may have been critical somewhere about the inappropriety of certain sermonizing" you came up with.
We're thick-skinned here and our bar is low. But it's not so low that obvious, objective sin gets a pass. Please refrain from posting here in the future unless you're led to do the manly thing and own up to your failure in this area.
Sincerely,
David Bayly
Dear ZRIM,
David's question is quite simple, really. To remind you, he asked: "Are you the blogger who slandered me by saying that I called for insurrection and violence in my sermon to the President of last spring?"
Please answer yes or no. To act confused and disingenuously imply that David's concern is people who disagree with him is disgusting. Be a man and answer the question.
Now I'm guessing the answer is no because I can't imagine you being so dishonest as to feign confusion had you actually written that slanderous content. So, a couple other comments.
>>All, I appreciate your strong convictions about a particular issue.
What you're seeing on abortion here is no strong convictions about a particular political issue, but love for the lost, repentance of sin, love for the oppressed, snatching the victims from the jaws of the wicked, and hatred of the bloodshed of the innocent. You may think my rewording is a quibble, but I think not.
>>politics is the way we order our public lives...
You gave up the game, here, dear brother. Finally it comes out. The true meaning of the spirituality of the Church/two kingdom bifurcation is to foment a public/private truce with the principalities and powers we wrestle with. We'll leave you alone in the public sphere if you'll leave us alone in our private churches and homes. No, you didn't say this; but why the slipping in of that distinction.
Truth is, the Evil One always promises things he never delivers, and nowhere is this more clear than this public/private bifurcation. Satan has never, nor will he ever, leave the Church alone in families' or corporate worship. He's right there gagging the father through Child Protective Services; the preacher through the Internal Revenue Service. I never quote Lewis, but he's right when he says that they'll tell you that you can have your religion in private, then they'll make sure you're never alone. Our right to privacy stops with birth control, sodomy, and the murder of our children. It has never, nor will it ever extend to preaching and prayer. Why?
Nothing is more political than a man proclaiming the Cross and Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Coming Judgment; and a man on his knees.
Two kingdom stipulations are a truce without peace and privacy without freedom.
>>I would characterize my own views as anti-abortion instead of pro-life.
David and I are completely with you, here.
>>I oppose the confusion of the kingdoms because I understand it to be a variant of confusing law and gospel.
So really, it's not a matter of two kingdom stipulations, but rather a question of precisely where and when it's okay to mention God's Moral Law. As in not yet. Not there. Not quite. Wait a minute. Hold it. Carefully now. Almost. Get ready.
Now! NOW! NOW! Do the Gospel NOW!
That's enough. Stop. Not now. Not yet. Wait a minute...
Of course, if it really were a question of you wanting to reign in what you call "the Gospel," David and I wouldn't have criticized this aberrant stipulation in this way. But of course, it's the Law you want to reign in for the exactly and ever-so-precisely correct time and place.
For myself, I like Luther's statement in his commentary on Galatians: that for believers, the Law's for our flesh and the Gospel's for our conscience. This two kingdom stuff is, shall we say, less helpful?
Love,
Dr. Clark wrote, "I'm always a minister, even when I'm not wearing the genevan robe or expositing Scripture so I have to be careful with what causes I let people associate the ministry.
"The only cause I with which I want the ministry to be associated is the kingdom of God manifested in the visible church. Christians who are not ordained to special office (i.e., pastoral ministry) are not so restricted and may be more active in a broader range of social causes."
This clarifies things a great deal for me. Good thing you got some time on the field before you became an ordained minister. I'm afraid the young men who graduate from WSC are going to be generals who have no field time, academics without real world experience...unless they hurry up and do some dirty ministry before they start setting up their book-shelves in their offices. Imagine: "Go, ye un-ordained, and speak prophetically to the homosexual co-worker, to the university administrator who supports sexual anarchy, to the young woman stepping through the doors of the abortion clinic to murder her child, to the representative who wants to call what is evil, good and good, evil...I'll be here in my office seeking to keep the ministry associated with the kingdom of God manifested in the visible church."
Out of genuine curiousity, when did this 1K vs. 2K controversy start? What is the historical genesis of this conflict?
Did it start back with the Early Church Fathers? Medieval times? The Reformation? The 1800's? The 1900's?
It just seems like this arguing about 1K vs. 2k can be profitably exploited by the Enemy.
P.S. I asked before about whether there's a "Via Media" between 1K and 2K. Like a 1.5K. Is there a moderating position, taking the best of both arguments and eliminating the worst?
P.P.S. FWIW, I lean toward 1K.
Zrim,
"unless you are assuming there are only two choices: raving activist or apathetic quietist."
So, what's the other choice? Opposing abortion in your heart, but doing nothing about it? What is a raving activist in your mind? Anyone who actively opposes abortion? What do you make of Leviticus 20:1-5? God's word makes it clear we are not only not to participate in the killing of children in any way, but that we are also responsible for not trying to stop it-actively-like an "activist". Proverbs 24:11 uses active words-"deliver" and "hold back".
I guess I'm still confused at how anyone can think that murder is a political and not a spiritual issue??? Does breaking God's commands to us suddenly become political just because it is legal to break them. There are no public/religious spheres, just a lie from Satan to get us all to feel comfortable by pretending one day a week that we love God while all the while hating Him as we go out into the world with our mouths shut tight and our heads held high.
Look, there are only two paths-apathy and activism. I'm not saying that everyone is called to be at the killing places every day or anything like that, but you'd better be willing to be there if God calls you to be there. God gifts us all in different ways and there are many ways to actively hold people back from slaughter, but if you think that God doesn't call some to be "anti-abortion activist" who regularly go to the places the killing is happening because that too "politicized" or "moralized" then you had better think hard about Leviticus 20 and which side of that you want to be on.
-Ginger
>”Out of genuine curiousity, when did this 1K vs. 2K controversy start? What is the historical genesis of this conflict?”
The debate is not 1K vs. 2K per se. The main question is whether the WSC-inspired, neo-2K view is in keeping with the historic Reformed tradition, and whether these modern proponents have correctly read and accurately articulate the historic evidence regarding the 2K position. Many doubt this to be the case, e.g., the issue of the enforcement of the 1st tablet of the moral law/Ten Commandments by the civil magistrate seems to be questioned by the neo-2Kers.
Zrim,
I have told you not to frequent this forum if you're not willing to deal with your public lies. Do not return. Your comments will be removed.
David Bayly
Zrim: "I guess I don't see the wisdom in throwing tantrums when one loses."
#1. I don't think Ginger is throwing a tantrum.
#2. By and large, I don't think pro-lifers are throwing tantrums when they pursue the many multi-faceted ways to save unborn babies.
Lastly, IMHO I think it's a far better witness for the Gospel and to the Gospel when Christians protect innocent unborn life.
If I was an unbeliever, and I saw Christians who didn't try everything they reasonably could to save unborn babies, I'd really and truly wonder what good is their Gospel.
If a Christian just goes to church, then an unbeliever is usually going to be unimpressed. That's what the Buddhists do, the Muslims do, big deal if the Christian goes to church.
But if the Christian sacrificially suffers to make a difference (in this case, unborn life), then that's a powerful witness to the Gospel!!
Speaking only for myself, I'm more encouraged by the witness of Clint and Ginger Mahoney than I am with you, Zrim. (Qualification: At least what I know, so far).
Tom Albrecht: "The main question is whether the WSC-inspired, neo-2K view is in keeping with the historic Reformed tradition, and whether these modern proponents have correctly read and accurately articulate the historic evidence regarding the 2K position."
Is there a link that articulates the differences between the WSC-inspired, neo-2K view and the historic Reformed tradition?
>I guess I don't see the wisdom in throwing tantrums when one loses.
Does anyone believe these words, in the face of mass murder, reflect the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
Psalm 41:1-3
How blessed is he who considers the helpless; The LORD will deliver him in a day of trouble. The LORD will protect him and keep him alive, And he shall be called blessed upon the earth; And do not give him over to the desire of his enemies. The LORD will sustain him upon his sickbed; In his illness, You restore him to health.
Psalm 82:1-8
God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.
James 1:22-27
But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
Proverbs 24:10-12
If you are slack in the day of distress, Your strength is limited. Deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. If you say, “See, we did not know this,” Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?
Job 29:7-17
When I went out to the gate of the city, When I took my seat in the square, The young men saw me and hid themselves, And the old men arose and stood. The princes stopped talking And put their hands on their mouths; The voice of the nobles was hushed, And their tongue stuck to their palate. For when the ear heard, it called me blessed, And when the eye saw, it gave witness of me, Because I delivered the poor who cried for help, And the orphan who had no helper. The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me, And I made the widow’s heart sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; My justice was like a robe and a turban. I was eyes to the blind And feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, And I investigated the case which I did not know. I broke the jaws of the wicked And snatched the prey from his teeth.
Isaiah 1:10-20
Hear the word of the LORD, You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the instruction of our God, You people of Gomorrah. “What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats. When you come to appear before Me, Who requires of you this trampling of My courts? Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies--I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them. So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
>Psalm 82:1-8
Hey, I already used that one!
Yes, you did--sorry!
>Yes, you did--sorry!
It was worth hearing again... :)
Well, this is a fine how do you do. What started out as a ding against Clark (by ricochet of Frame) for an idea of Reformed Protestantism that gives grief to experimental pietists (like Edwards and Lloyd-Jones) has become a kvetch-fest about where 2k stands on abortion. David Bayly wrote above to me: "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."
That was what started this off the other day. But Tim's primer here on 2k went right in the direction of good for nothing 2k, BT, hipster churches who have no courage to picket abortion clinics. I'm sorry, but I didn't realize Edwards and Lloyd-Jones were co-founders of Operation Rescue.
A couple of people above asked how it was conceivable that 2k people would oppose abortion. I am truly curious why anyone would ask that. 2k people have morality. What they don't have is a clear warrant for the church as institutional church (and Kuyper also made this point) to engage in many of the reforms that people think the church needs to do because the church has biblical morality on its side. This is another instance of New School vs. Old School Presbyterianism on the nature and mission of the church and whether the church should engage in political and social reforms.
As I wrote above, clearly my book on Machen was not sufficient help to Tim. Machen opposed Prohibition on 2k grounds (though I prefer the language of the spirituality of the church). Liberals and fundamentalists couldn't understand how he could oppose Prohibition and believe in biblical morality. But Machen did oppose drunkenness and making a profit from it. That's not the same thing as giving the federal govt. the power to tell states what legislation they should enact, nor is the question of state or federal power one on which the church may speak (because the Bible is silent about that).
The point is that someone may be 2k, oppose the church taking a stand on the very issue upon which a Christian person does take a stand.
Another example is that of education. 2kers think that families, not churches, are responsible for the education of children, and so oppose churches establishing schools. Many think this means that 2kers oppose Christian education. They do not. What they don't support is one particular way of delivering Christian education and being told that this is the biblical way to educate.
Someone above asked about using church phones and church resources to organize an abortion protest. I guess if no one else in the congregation had phones or if Christians were incapable of forming an assocation of common endeavor -- if it was the only way that such a protest could be organized -- I could see it. But the question that 2k people are asking is whether this is what the church as institution is called to do. The Confession of Faith says that the church has been given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world. . . [25.3]. The question is how wide or narrow to construe the churches mandate. Because the church has morality as part of what she teaches, does that mean she can speak to or do everything? Why not roads (which protect private property and facilitate the distribution of wholesome literature)? Why not guns (which elimiate from the earth wicked rulers)? Why not farms (which provide food to keep people from stealing)? If you want to cast the net wide, I guess you can. But how do you know where to draw the line before the local congregation become the U.N.?
Mr. Hart,
Of course, no one is suggesting the church become the U.N.
How about simply taking this seriously: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Of course, Jesus did not command us to teach literacy courses. But he does command this, for example: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 18:10).
Does this particular command have no bearing on the "Institutional Church," as you put it? Does it have no application to the slaughter of millions of children in their mothers' wombs?
The reason this discussion turned toward abortion is obvious. It is--in fact--a moral issue. To equate saving the lives of human beings with literacy training? or prohibition? or roads?
Surely you can understand our alarm.
I was walking to college today and when I passed by the Kansenshi shops, some of the orphan kids who (used to beg but now) sell bananas and mangos and peanuts approached me and asked if I wanted to buy some.
I'm allergic to mangos and bananas just turn to sugar, but I like peanuts and I knew buying some would help out the kids, but then I remembered I was a minister of the gospel and that this kind of thing would be inappropriate for me to do. The institutional church may have Biblical morality on its side, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Now the kids used to badger me when I said "no thanks," so I would have have to pass by on the other side of the road, but now they're more polite, so I can continue on and urge them to be warmed and be filled.
When I got to the college, I was reminded about how several of us were going to help out a student with her school fees.
Unfortunately, there was a little voice in the back of my mind that this was conduct inappropriate for a gospel minister, and while it might be okay for others, I knew that sooner or later I was going to have to stand up for true doctrine and sovereign grace and so I decided to tell them, "no," I really couldn't help, that it wasn't my calling to do that, and I used the occasion to drive home a few points about the attacks that were coming against the doctrine of propitiation in today's church and, oh, the tragedy of it, and how it made me almost to weep.
As I walked away I sensed my friends were looking down on me and judging me, but those feelings of being dismissed were a small price to pay for sharing in the sufferings of Christ.
Stephen Baker, but why stop at picketing abortion clinics? The implications of Christ's instruction about care for little ones could also be a warrant for child care centers, or hospitals. So if I were convinced that the faithful way of carrying out Christ's Great Commission was to establish hospitals that do not perform abortions, and if you did not support such a measure, and I then questioned your fidelity and courage because you won't support hospitals, what would you think?
The language of litmus test seems to apply.
Pages
Add new comment