“Readers who do not assume that there is a distinctively “Christian” cultural-political task, or that the kingdom of God is the measure for all earthly kingdoms, or that the present social order is supposed to be transformed, or that Reformed Christianity is a Calvinism consisting of a “life-principle” or worldview, will probably come away having eaten much but not finally satisfied. The book that we still need is one that critically challenges rather than promotes the Kuyperian captivity of the church.”

~ David Van Drunen

If the Reformed Church is being stirred up by controversy it is being stirred up by the R2K club. This quote, which served as a kind of public commencement of R2k hostilities against Kuyperian theology dates back to at least to 2002. If there exists rancor in the Reformed Church it is rancor created by the innovation called R2K. R2K had an agenda to throw off basic Biblical Christianity in favor of this nouveau experiment in fashion designer “theology.”

So, don’t be fooled when you hear R2K champions like R. Scott Clark say things like, “”Carl Trueman has waded into the swamp that is the current discussion of transformationalismism.” No, what Carl Trueman waded into was the swamp that is R2K’s incessant attack on basic vanilla orthodox Christianity…. and he waded into it with both guns blazing in support of R2K.

You can hardly accuse the party who is merely defending themselves as being the aggressors.

Hat Tip — MVDM

In discussions I’ve been privy to lately there is some contention that R2K, unlike Federal Vision, does no harm to the flock. As such, I thought I’d list 10 harmful effects of R2K upon God’s flock. In the end I think that R2K is every bit as harmful to the flock as Federal Vision.

1.) R2K teaches the flock to read God’s word in a dichotomous fashion with the result that the flock begins itself to think in a gnostic fashion as it approaches every issue with the question, “Does my behavior on this issue require me to behave as in the spiritual realm or as if I am in the common realm.”

2.) R2K teaches the flock personal and individual moral cowardice. The way it does so is by the flocks observing that their minister refuses to take a stand against the wickedness of this present wicked age simply because that wickedness is located in the common realm. If the minister refuses to take a stand the flock is likely going to follow suit. If the minister refuses to take up his cross and follow Jesus, why should the flock? the only courage the minister is showing is the courage to stand against those who insist he is a coward.

3.) By separating and dividing the common realm from the church realm R2K guarantees the flock will be harmed because the flock is guaranteed to live in a culture that is overtaken and animated by ideologies that are opposed to Christ. In living in such a culture the flock will find it increasingly difficult at every turn to live out their Christian lives in the calling wherein that God has called them.

4.) R2K harms the flock by playing word games so that meaning largely become relative to every individual. Take for example this gem from an R2K advocate that so wonderfully manifests these types of word games,

… there (is) a difference between politics and morality, such that while a political petition (circulated in Church on a Sunday) is inappropriate because it can deflect sheep and is a fault of the church, preaching the moral evil of abortion from the pulpit is appropriate and any offense that gives is the hearer’s problem.

Here we see that not only has politics been sundered from Theology, but also now in the R2K word games world, morality has been sundered from politics. Further, it is acceptable for morality from the pulpit to offend the hearer but it is not acceptable for morality in action (petition against abortion) to come to the fore.

If anybody has been following Matthew Tuininga’s blog on Jesus and the law one can easily note the many word games surrounding “Ten Commandments,” “Moral Law,” “Decalogue,” and the “Law of Christ.” One needs a venn diagram to keep track of the different ways Tuininga keeps shifting the meanings of words.

Such word games does serious damage to the language and has the effect of largely relativizing truth. This can be see in how within a week Tuininga goes from confusion on the law to writing a piece championing a well known Marxist.

5.) Because R2K abandons the Ten Commandments as God’s law word for today, R2K ends up supporting Humanist law for today. There is no neutrality. As the Ten Commandments recede from the public square as God’s standard, the public square become nasty, brutish, and ugly. This, of course, harms the flock.

6.) R2K harms the flock because it, or some version of it, owns, exceptions notwithstanding, the Reformed Seminaries, Denominations, and Pulpits in the West. In that ownership R2K, or its over the counter retail versions, are silencing the voices of Biblical Christians in the Reformed world. What those people did to Dr. Greg Bahnsen they are now doing to everyone who refuses to think dualistically.

7.) R2K damages the flock because it teaches abstractionism, allowing almost no concrete expression of Christianity in the public square.

8.) R2K damages the flock because it sneers at those very people (“Middle Class Chatterati”) who pay the way of those who embrace R2K.

9.) The militant amillennialism of R2K harms the flock of Christ because it predicts woe and despair and the impossibility of transformation and then turns around and guarantees that its predictions come to pass by not allowing the Theology of transformation to be preached in pulpits or taught in Seminaries. It bids the gelding be fruitful (demands transformation) but only after castrating the gelding. So, R2K creates the conditions of failure and then once failure finally arrives (as a result of self-fulfilling prophesy) it then points the finger at Biblical Christianity and taunts and mocks it for believing in transformation.

10.) R2K harms the flock because it is not Biblical. Anything taught as Biblical that is not Biblical cannot but harm the flock of Jesus Christ.

“Human institutions are really to be molded, not by Christian principles accepted by the unsaved, but by Christian men; the true transformation of society will come by the influence of those who have themselves been redeemed … [I]t is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race.”

J. Gresham Machen
Christianity & Liberalism — pg. 158-159

Carl Trueman looks to be attempting to walk back, somewhat, his latest adventure in letting his ideological slip show in this piece,

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2013/08/i-hope-to-be-proved-wrong-real.php

CT writes,

First, a clarification: I have no problem with the term ‘worldview’. I do have a problem with the term ‘Christian worldview’ because it is vague to the point of being philosophically useless even as it has proved rhetorically and politically useful. For example, it is surely the case that if you believe the bread and wine actually become the real body and real blood of Christ at communion, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe God elects based on foreseen merits rather than by mere grace, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe that believers’ children are part of the visible church, that profoundly affects your view of the world. If you believe that disco music is a little taste of heaven on earth, that will affect (possibly profoundly) your view of the world. The list could go on but the point is clear: professing Christians disagree on all of these things and yet convictions on all of these things shape our view of the world. In short, there is really no such thing as ‘the Christian worldview’ in the singular; there is rather a variety of Christian worldviews. There may be a small core of beliefs that bind all Christians together; but that core is surely too small to provide anything approaching a comprehensive view of the world; and none of those few beliefs stand in ultimate isolation from the bigger doctrinal complex that is Christianity as we are taught it and believe it as individuals and as members of specific communions.

Bret inquires,

The term ‘Christian worldview’ is vague to the point of being philosophically useless? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian Worldviews posit the Creator – Creature distinction? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews talk about man’s depravity and God’s Sovereignty? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews insist that man only knows via revelation and not via tradition, intuition, or reason? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews adhere to a supernatural ontology? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews posit that man exists to glorify God and not himself? Is it philosophically useless to say that all Christian worldviews see history as linear and so embrace that this world has a teleology and a purpose?

Really, Dr. Trueman’s statement above gets as close as I’d like to get, as a Christian, to Pilate’s skepticism that asked, “What is Truth.”

Does it prove that there is no such thing as a Christian worldview all because Christians disagree on matters? Are we soon to doubt that there is no such thing as a Christian worldview position on sodomy all because many Christians deem sodomy as acceptable? I’ll readily agree that no one person has God’s Worldview but all because I agree with that, that doesn’t mean I will agree that we can cease talking about a Christian Worldview. Where there are differences then it is a matter of “to the law and to the Testimonies,” in order to hash out the matter.

In point of fact Dr. Trueman’s Christian Worldview is indeed singular it seems. For Dr. Trueman the singular Christian Worldview is one of skepticism regarding other Christians understanding of a singular Christian worldview.

Dr. Trueman writes,

Second, the basic point in my post was, of course, not that Christianity has never made a difference to society. Kuyper did make a difference (which I never denied) as did others — e.g., Thomas Chalmers, William Wilberforce, George Muller, Thomas Guthrie; but even acknowledging that, the lack of proportion between the rhetoric of some of today’s transformationalists compared to what they are actually achieving is really rather embarrassing.

Bret responds,

In this paragraph Carl obfuscates what he said from his initial offering. In his initial offering he said,

“And Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society. Just visit Amsterdam today, if you can bear the pornographic filth even in those areas where the lights are not all red.”

Carl used that statement to suggest that the thinking that Transformation is an inevitable consequence of Reformation thinking is misguided.

Second, the point isn’t our success. One plants, another waters, but God gives the increase. It is not to us who are planters and waterers to dictate to God how he gives or does not give “actual achievement.”

Third, is “actual achievement” really the standard here, as if it is the case that if Transformers are not a Chalmers, Kuyper, or Calvin that somehow therefore they are an embarrassment? Look, I’m all for blowhards being cut down to size but the lack of “actual achievement” can hardly be counted as embarrassment. If the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church then we have to allow that “actual achievement” is not always the gold standard of Transformation.

Carl writes,

The best way to prove me wrong, of course, is… to transform society. I would indeed love to be not only proved wrong but to be proved so wrong that I am shamed into never writing another word of cultural commentary (and I am sure many readers will join me in saying ‘Amen!’ to that). Living in a world where the worst that happens is that I receive critical pushback on a blog post is one thing; living in a world where Christians cannot rent space in order to worship on a Sunday, where millions of abortions take place every year, andmolesworth_reasonably_small.jpg where every ethical value I hold dear is routinely mocked or ignored or characterised as ‘hate’ is quite another. I know in which world I would rather live; thus, I look forward to the transformation of the latter into the former by my critics and truly wish them well in their endeavour.

Bret responds,

Once again Carl takes us on an adventure of missing the point. Carl is again confusing “is” with “ought.” He’s confusing God’s providence with our calling as Christians. It is not in my bailiwick that culture is actually transformed. That is God’s bailiwick. My bailiwick is being faithful to the task to being salt and light regardless of what God providentially ordains for the times and seasons of my life. I absolutely pray that God would be pleased to give Reformation, and so Transformation, but I can’t manipulate it into existence. However, if God would prefer the Church to be persecuted because of it’s faithful stand as opposed to preferring the Church to see Reformation that persecution does not deny that Transformation is the effect of the Gospel eventually where the Gospel takes root.

_________________

Sidenote — Here is a link to a piece that examines how Carl’s worldview has been shaped. I found it most helpful in understanding why the man writes what he writes.

http://www.unashamedofthegospel.org/reflections_carl_trueman.cfm