Escondido theology

Pastor Doug Wilson recently did a helpful post exploring the ethics of tactical deception on the part of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). He got me thinking about what constitutes a moral obligation of full disclosure and whether parameters for godly deception can be marked out.

I have had discussions with Christians who are very pleased by CMP’s work, but are conflicted regarding tactical deception. They wonder if they’re giving into saying “the ends justify the means.” In addition to this, there are R2K proponents criticizing CMP for their “unethical” methods for infiltrating PP. The former are understandably conflicted, the latter are selectively squeamish—dare I say pietistic—about operating within the “common” kingdom.

Adding to the mess is the media’s selectivity in reporting on CMP's videos while also reporting names linked to a website dedicated to facilitating adulterous liaisons...

Pastors are called to warn their sheep. This is the reason the Apostle Paul declares his innocence of the blood of those he pastored, saying he never failed to warn them. His warnings were both public and private and he gave them every last warning God commanded him to give. (See Acts 20.)

This is not true of Reformed pastors, today. There is a great absence of pastoral care among us and the pastor whose ministry is characterized by warnings must justify those warnings while the lethargic and conflict-avoiding Reformed pastors around him who trade in flattery and presumption are viewed as paragons of clerical virtue.

Think of the spiritual destruction of their sheep caused by such careless pastors and we tremble. Let's keep in mind, though, that people choose their own churches and pastors, and thus a certain measure of blame belongs on the congregants themselves. They have a chaplain rather than a pastor because they prefer a chaplain to a pastor. They prefer a man who can keep a good religious shine on their Reformed veneer providing religious cover for friendship with the world.

If this were as far as it went, it would be bad enough. Remember how our Lord took pity on the crowds because "they were sheep without a shepherd?" This is the condition of all those souls who have chosen churches and pastors who are committed never to warn their sheep. But it goes further. The damage caused by faithless shepherds extends beyond their own parish to sheep tended by faithful shepherds, also. Richard Baxter describes the process by recording the irritation sheep have with

If you tired of the discussion under Craig French's post Tullian's therapeutic grace..., bear with me and read my comment just made at the bottom of that post's comments, on October 23 at 3:50 PM. And in that connection...

[Note from TB: Brian Lee is an R2K pastor in the United Reformed Church who serves a congregation in Washington D.C. Recently, Pastor Lee was invited to be guest chaplain to the House of Representatives—an honor he shares with Lloyd John Ogilvie, Michael Jackson, Earl Palmer, Hassan Qazwini, Ben Haden, Alisa Lasater-Wailoo, Bloomington's own Tom Ellsworth, Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala, Joel Osteen, and Jerry Falwell's son Jonathan Falwell.

The invitation put Pastor Lee in an awkward position. How could he, a minister of the Gospel called to serve the Church, move over into the house of the civil magistrate and lead him in prayer? Pastor Lee announced publicly that, after receiving the invitation, he was "torn, and proceeded to have a lively debate with myself." Of course he went ahead.]

In defending his recent prayer before the nation’s legislature, Pastor Brian Lee calls the United States Congress an “anti-creedal body.” I couldn’t decide whether that sounded more like an astronomical object or a microbiological organism. Either thing is about as relevant as “anti-creedal body” to the U.S. Constitution's Religious Test Clause, which the pastor used to justify the form and content of his prayer.

Here’s the relevant constitutional text, in full, from the third and final paragraph in Article VI:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The first thing you’ll note from the plain text is that the ban on religious tests has no special application to Congress as a body or to its members individually.