The Angst Of The West

All the revelation remains spoken
But as recipients we are broken
We are barely West anymore
“It stands written” yet remains
But can not crack our studied disdains
We are barely West anymore

All the tales have been spun
Of Battles fought and won
Still, we are hardly West anymore
All the glory and the gain
All the triumph over pain
Still, we are hardly West anymore

All the book and parchment ink
Have failed to connect and link
Us to the West anymore
All the Music and the Scores
No longer cause our souls to soar
For there remains little West anymore

A few Holy Men still proclaim
A few Poets and Musicians still call
A few Historians and Bards still tell our lays
But the mist begins to cover our days
And the new story seems to tell of the fall
Of old Narnia’s dwindling fame

And yet some memory embers warm the chill
Of Western faith and blood that courses still
Our Father’s faith is not finished yet
As determination will not forget
Nor allow the sum of our regret
To rob our courage or steal our will

The West is attacked by Devil hordes
Her fortunes on the wane
Now is the time to sing Battle chords
As we sharpen our disdain
Now is the time when reason like swords
Must increase the Devil’s pain

I Object

Over at the “No Life” blog of Dr. Darryl Gnostic Hart we find my name being invoked. Darryl just can’t seem to get enough of me. Dr. Hart insists that two quotes he gives from Dr. David Van Drunnen could, in no way, elicit objection from myself or others who are opposed to Radical Two Kingdom Theology (R2K).

Unfortunately, I do object. I strenuously object. Why, even my Objections Object.

Let us consider why,

Here are the quotes Darryl offers from R2K Kingpin Van Drunen

“I like to describe the two kingdoms doctrine briefly as the conviction that God through his Son rules the whole world, but rules it in two distinct ways. As creator and sustainer, God rules the natural order and the ordinary institutions and structures of human society, and does so through his common grace, for purposes of preserving the ongoing life of this world. As redeemer, God also rules an eschatological kingdom that is already manifest in the life and ministry of the church, and he rules this kingdom through saving grace as he calls a special people to himself through the proclamation of the Scriptures. As Christians, we participate in both kingdoms but should not confuse the purposes of one with those of the other. As a Reformed theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it helpful to see these two kingdoms in the light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promised to preserve the natural order and human society (not to redeem them!), and this included all human beings and all living creatures. But God also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Abraham, with Israel through Moses, and now with the church under the new covenant. We Christians participate in both the Noahic and new covenants (remember that the covenant with Noah was put in place for as long as the earth endures), and through them in this twofold rule of God—or, God’s two kingdoms.

The “transformationist” approach to Christ and culture is embraced by so many people and used in so many different ways that I often wonder how useful a category it is. If by “transformation” we simply mean that we, as Christians, should strive for excellence in all areas of life and try to make a healthy impact on our workplace, neighborhood, etc., I am a transformationist. But what people often mean by “transformationist” is that the structures and institutions of human society are being redeemed here and now, that is, that we should work to transform them according to the pattern of the redemptive kingdom of Christ. I believe the two kingdoms doctrine offers an approach that is clearly different from this. Following the two kingdoms doctrine, a Christian politician, for example, would reject working for the redemption of the state (whatever that means) but recognize that God preserves the state for good purposes and strive to help the state operate the best it can for those temporary and provisional purposes.”

Your Honor I strenuously object for the following reasons,

1.) VanDrunen has Christ ruling the common realm according to a common grace by a common revelation (Natural law). The upshot of this is that VanDrunen (and his chief disciple Hart) does not allow God’s revealed word to norm this common realm.

2.) VanDrunen’s two Kingdoms does not account for a third Kingdom that needs accounting for.

VanDrunen’s two Kingdoms are

a.) The Redemptive realm
b.) The Common realm

But what about “this present wicked age?” Where is the Devil’s Kingdom at in all of this R2K “theology?” Certainly Christ’s Kingdom in the Church is not the Devil’s Kingdom. And certainly neither Dr. VanDrunen or his main disciple Dr. Hart would posit that the Devil’s Kingdom equals the common realm for that would be classic Anabaptist doctrine. So where exactly do our twin spin Doctors put the Devil’s Kingdom? Non R2K minds want to know.

3.) VanDrunen asserts without proving that the Kingdom of Christ is restricted in its identification to the Church. That is a tenuous supposition that has been debated for centuries in the Church.

4.) God’s ultimate purpose in Scripture is save both the common realm and the redemptive realm. God’s purpose is to “save the world” (Psalm 2, Romans 8:22, I Corinthians 5:19, I John 2:2,), thus gaining great glory for Himself. Because this is true, Dr. VanDrunen’s statement that God has different purposes for different realms is just not true.

5.) Is Dr. VanDrunen saying that the Christian’s purpose in the common realm should not be to Glorify God? I mean, if God has a different purpose for each of the Kingdoms then it would seemingly stand to reason that we should only seek to glorify God in the Kingdom that was created for that purpose. If both the common realm and the redemptive realm exist for the purpose of glorifying God then it would stand to reason that we should live in terms of His unique revelation so as to glorify Him in those respective distinct but related realms.

6.) God promises Noah that he would preserve the cosmos so that the elect may be drawn into the Church. God’s preserving of nature is bound up with His collecting and preserving of the Church, and as such we dare not form the Gnostic type dualism that R2K always does.

7.) Revelation 21:24 suggests that there is a relationship between VanDrunen’s (and his chief disciple, Hart’s) two Kingdoms that is so impermeable that the glory of Kings from the putative common realm is brought into the eschatological Kingdom. John the Revelator was not being very R2K with that inspired Scripture.

8.) As a Reformed Pastor and Theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it is helpful to see these two kingdoms in light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promises to preserve the natural order and human society with the purpose that out of that natural order and human society He would redeem a people who were called to be a light to the nations and who were envied for having God’s law — a law that covered every area of life. God then also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Israel through Moses and now with the Church but that God intended that special, redemptive covenant relationship to have ramifications beyond the cult was seen in the ministry of Jonah who demanded repentance from the Assyrians for their sins committed in the common realm. Notice also that God judged the Canaanites for their sins in the common realm by sending His redemptive people to exterminate them. All this suggests that God has the same purpose of submission to His revealed law-word among all Nations in the common realm. Hence, we can see a distinction between two Kingdoms perhaps but not a Gnostic separation of them.

9.) Dr. Van Drunen says that the “state is preserved for good purposes.” By what standard are we judging “good purposes.” I would say that State’s good purpose is to provide justice and I would say that justice can only be defined by God’s revealed word. But, Dr. Van Drunen will have none of this.

10.) If Redeemed people are creating and manning social order institutions how can it not be the case that those institutions will themselves be Redeemed. Keep in mind that by Dr. VanDrunen’s reasoning there can be no such thing as a Christian family, Christian Education, Christian law, Christian culture etc. because those are not redeemable institutions.

The second:

“I don’t think the church has any different responsibilities in an election year from what it has at any other time. The church should proclaim the whole counsel of God in Scripture (which includes, of course, teaching about the state, the value of human life, marriage, treatment of the poor, etc.). But Scripture does not set forth a political policy agenda or embrace a particular political party, and so the church ought to be silent here where it has no authorization from Christ to speak. When it comes to supporting a particular party, or candidate, or platform, or strategy—individual believers have the liberty to utilize the wisdom God gives them to make decisions they believe will be of most good to society at large. Politics constantly demands compromise, choosing between the lesser of evils, and refusing to let the better be the enemy of the good. Christians will make different judgments about these things, and the church shouldn’t try to step in and bind believers’ consciences on matters of prudence. It might be helpful to think of it this way: during times when Christians are bombarded with political advertisements, slogans, and billboards, how refreshing it should be, on the Lord’s Day, to step out of that obsession with politics and gather with God’s redeemed people to celebrate their heavenly citizenship and their bond in Christ that transcends all national, ethnic, and political divisions.”

1.) The Scripture does speak to areas in which the State, aspiring to be God, aspire to overthrow. For example, the Scripture teaches “Thou Shalt Not Murder,” and yet the State pursues policies where Murder is legitimated (i.e. — Abortion, Death Panels, Euthanasia, etc.) and so the Church must speak against the State or Party Politics that support these matters. However, according to R2K Dr. VanDruen the Church must be silent on these subjects. Indeed, Dr. VanDrunen is teaching us that it would be unbiblical to speak to these matters.

2.) Dr. VanDrunen tells us that the individual Christian may advocate for what they believe is a Biblical position but what Dr. VanDrunen doesn’t tell us is that such a anarchistic approach leaves us with the possibility of individual Christians insisting that God supports Abortion, or that God supports Bestiality, or that God supports Cultural Marxism and there is no way that these people could be disciplined since it is not the Church’s business to speak to these matters. The Church must be silent. Each Christian is left to do what is right in His own eyes and the Church must countenance that.

3.) Dr. VanDrunen writes, “Politics constantly demands compromise.”

So does this mean that a Christian who is a politician may compromise on issues that God has clearly spoken to? Must he compromise when God says, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” and advocate for laws that will countenance adultery?

In the end Dr. Van Drunen repeating his assertions does not just settle the matter:

1. Civil kingdom ruled by common grace

2. Civil kingdom not to be transformed according the pattern of the redemptive kingdom

3. Redemptive kingdom is essentially equivalent to the church.

3. The civil kingdom’s standard is one of “excellence”.

The objections still stand:

1. Civil kingdom is normed by principles of the Word of God.

2. Civil kingdom transformed more and more according the pattern of redemption, i.e, submission to God

3. Kingdom of God is more than just the church.

4. “Excellence” is defined by what? Natural law? Common grace? What about the standard of righteousness defined by the Law?

I’m sorry that Darryl finds my objections so objectionable.

God & His Name — The Third Word

Text — Exodus 20:7
Subject — God
Theme — Prohibition against taking God’s name in vain
Proposition — The prohibition against taking God’s name in vain will remind us again of the seriousness of our undoubted Catholic Christian faith.

Purpose — Therefore having considered the prohibition against taking God’s name in vain let us, out of gratitude that Christ has forgiven us for our unseemly and sinful taking of God’s name in vain, live in such a way that God’s name is found to have a weightiness that the pagans marvel at.

Introduction

We have been laboring in our Introductions to show that God’s law as a guide to the whole of the Christian’s living, both in his private and public life, has been the constant position of the Reformed Church.

Take, for example, the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 99

Question 99: What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?

Answer: For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. That: What God forbids, is at no time to be done;: What he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. That: What is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. That in: What is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in: What is forbidden them.

“Although Christianity does not end with the broken heart, it does begin with a broken heart; it begins with the consciousness of sin. Without consciousness of sin, the whole gospel will seem to be an idle tale…. But if the consciousness of sin is to be produced, the law of God must be proclaimed in the lives of Christian people as well as in word. It is quite useless for the preacher to breathe out fire and brimstone from the pulpit, if at the same time the occupants of the pews go on taking sin very lightly and being content with the moral standards of the world. The rank and file of the Church must do their part in so proclaiming the law of God with their lives….

J. Gresham Machen
Christianity and Liberalism

“Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the Gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the Gospel. For making it subservient, religious emotion is not enough, intellectual labor is also necessary. And that labor is being neglected. The Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her life.”

J. Gresham Machen
1912 centennial commemorative lecture at Princeton Seminary

“It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the Kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, “He that is not with me is against me.” If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.

A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, p. 283-84

“Bodies-politic or corporations are to be regarded as large moral subjects. To suppose that men, as individuals, are under the moral government of the Almighty, and bound to regulate their conduct by His law, but that, as societies, they are exempted from all such control, is to maintain what involves the most absurd and pernicious consequences.”

William Symington

The French Confession – John Calvin

XXXIX. We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates,[1] so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors,[2] but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.

1. Exod. 18:20-21; Matt. 17:24-27; Rom. ch. 13
2. I Peter 2:13-14; I Tim. 2:2

We must understand that all Reformed men have always believed that our righteousness is found in Christ alone and yet having been clothed in Christ’s righteousness they believed that they were duty bound to live in light of God’s standard, both in their private lives and in their public lives.

Today we are taking up the third commandment

“Thou Shalt Not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold Him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”

The third commandment finds us still dealing with the vertical aspect of the table where man is called to esteem God directly. In the second table we are to esteem God horizontally and so we might say, indirectly. We are mindful though that if we do not take seriously the first table of the Law (Love & our responsibility to God) we will never take seriously the second table of the law (love and our responsibility to man).

We must get this right in our thinking. If we do not love God we will never love man. If we do not take seriously the first table we will not be able to get even close to the second table. If we do love God consonant with the first table then the second table will be like water flowing downhill for us.

God’s name is His identity so that to take His name lightly is to take Him lightly.

The prohibition of the third commandment involves not only how we speak about God but also how we live in light of the fact that we are identified with God’s name. We are God’s people and we should speak and live like God’s joyful, mirthful, Holy, just, and awesome name.

Name, in the Bible, often refers not to what beings were called, but to what they were (1 Kings 4:31; 1 Sam.18: 30; 2 Sam.19: 21). A name is not merely a handle but says something specific about the person who wears the name. We are to honor God’s name.

The opposite of honoring a name is cursing it. To curse, in Hebrew, is to declare someone a nonentity and despicable. The above example of Shimei demonstrates this.

As humans there is no in between. We will be either those who honor God’s gloriously weighty name or we will curse it by not honoring it.

We now understand God’s name to be His revelation in the works of creation and redemption (Ps.8: 1,9; Prov.17: 5). God is Creator and Redeemer and that is what His name signifies. He has made Himself known by the name YHWH. These four letters mean, “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:14) — that is, I exist as Saviour and Liberator, I make real what I say, I do what I have promised. This is demonstrated by the entirety of salvation (Ps.106: 8).

On this basis, the Lord may demand that people reverence His name. We are to give it glory, kabod, weight. The opposite would be to minimize the name of the Lord, to underestimate, despise and scorn that name. Lev.24: 10-23 unveils a story in which an Egyptian father blasphemes God’s name — not by merely saying it, but by dragging it through the mud. Whoever blasphemes shall be put to death (Lev.24: 16). God’s own people could blaspheme. The Israelites scorned God in the wilderness (Num.14: 11) and when they enjoyed plenty, they turned to other gods (Deut.31: 20). When this happens, the pagans have reason to blaspheme the God of Israel (2 Sam.12: 14; Ezek.36: 20-32). What constitutes the essence of cursing/blasphemy is when someone thinks, speaks & acts disparagingly in regard to God.

When we consider the aspect of the speaking of God’s name we must realize that the prohibition of the third commandment means that we are not invoke His name thoughtlessly, or as if it is meaningless or to use it deceitfully in order to advance our cause as opposed to His cause under His the authority of His name.

There are several ways in which God’s name can be spoken in vain

1. The name is misused as a talisman to in order to put God into the service of our own selfish ends. We see this constantly in the Christian world. I am reminded of something I read about an traveling Evangelist who upon his arrival to speak at a “Crusade” could ask the promoters of the Crusade, “So, what’s the gate, and what’s the take?” God’s name was being used in that context just to advance the wealth and prosperity of the traveling Evangelist. He was being a kind of Sorcerer seeking to manipulate God to his ends. This was Simon the Sorcerers sin (Acts 8:14) and it might have been what was behind the account of the Seven sons of Sceva ( Acts 19:13-17).

2. The name is misused in false prophecy. False prophecy involves predictions which do not come in the name of the Lord, but pretend to (*Deut.18: 22; 1 Kings 22:11; Jer.14: 15). (Illustration — Pentecostals — “I have a ‘Word from the Lord for you.”)

3.) The name is misused in false teaching (forth-telling). Whenever false teaching or false doctrine is married to God’s name, God’s name is taken in vain. In such situations God’s name is being invoked to support something that is contrary to God’s person and Character and so is a taking of God’s name vainly.

We can tell how coldly and casually we take our Sovereign Benevolent Just God’s name by how little false doctrine troubles us.

Another example of taking God’s name falsely, that is related to false teaching is to falsely or rashly interpret God’s providence. For example I once had someone tell me that he had a dream where he was told to break up w/ his fiance and to marry a girl he did not particularly get along with. The dream, of course was providentially sent by God, the interpretation of it was a taking in vain His name.

4. The name is misused in false oaths. False oaths involve using the name of God to pass off a lie as if it were true (Lev.19: 12). (Illustration — Perjury was penalized so harshly in part because it was a taking of God’s name in vain.)

5.) To use it unconsciously. “Oh My God.” “Jesus,”

Modern profanity is not usually intended to be blasphemous. Most people who take God’s name in vain by cursing do so out of habit and don’t realize what they are doing. It is doesn’t excuse it but it does somewhat explain it. And, curiously enough, this kind of cursing might suggest, in a residual manner that God’s name is still esteemed. It is because God and Jesus is still characteristic of us as a people that His name is taken in vain. I mean, you don’t hear anybody say, “Oh my Allah,” or “Mohammed the Prophet.” And the reason you don’t is that those names are not taken seriously enough to bother to be taken in vain.

Yet this kind of casual cursing is still an echo of biblical cursing. Cursing is not a self-conscious demonstration of unbelief, so much as it is a symptom of unbelief. It is only natural that they use God’s name without thinking.

As Christians we should not take God’s name in such a trivial fashion. It drives me more than a bit batty to hear Christians, so washed in the culture, that they don’t even realize they are saying, “Oh my God.” Just as you wear an expensive article of clothing only for special occasions and you take care to keep it in good condition, in the same way we must use the name of God and of Christ.

6.) Attributing false laws on God and saying he either commands or forbids what He does not. To make sins and duties which God never made and to say He made them is to father falsehood on Him and corrupt His government.

7.) Hypocrisy — To be identified w/ God’s name and to live in such a way that is inconsistent w/ that name is taking His name in vain.

Now if we really begin to think about this, we do, if we are sensitive, begin to realize our sin in this matter. The third commandment has always been the one that has troubled me the most. Here it is that I am identified with the name of God and how often it is the case that I do not esteem His name as I ought? How often it is the case that I do not represent Him well. And when I begin to dwell on this, I realize how important it is that my Lord Christ is to me my third commandment keeping righteousness. And when I begin to recall again that Christ’s death, resurrection and Ascension is my third commandment keeping righteousness it fills me with such joy that I am once again drawn to esteeming His name anew and to once again be mindful of the honor that is owed to His name from me as His servant.

8.) Worship apart from reverence and awe. Worship apart from joy and gratitude. Whenever we worship so that it is about our felt needs to be entertained, or amused then we violate the third command. Whenever God is really secondary to our agenda in worship we violate the third command. Whenever our hymns / music are focused on us as opposed to focused on God, whenever our sermons are self-help seminars as opposed to how God helps the helpless and instructs His people, whenever our liturgy focuses on who is up in front as opposed to who is in Heaven and nearer to us than our next breath at that point we have violated the third commandment.

Well, we could list others, and we might yet do so in successive weeks but this gives us an idea of how all encompassing this third commandment is. And of course when you add the “Thou Shalt” to the “Thou shalt not,” it becomes ever more all encompassing.

(Thou Shalt do all that one can to exalt the name of God. To fail to do so is to violate the third commandment.)

Conclusion

The Church today needs to hear again about the marvel’s of God’s name so that they might once again know and feel the weightiness of that name. God’s name lies so lightly upon us.

It shows.

We are such a light, frivolous, non-weighty people precisely because we serve a no God we call God who is light, frivolous, and non-weighty. We have no meaning because the no God we call God has no meaning.

If we aspire to be a great people once again who do great exploits that can only happen by returning to the great God of the Bible. Great individuals / peoples are made by the name of the God they wear and the fact that we rise so little in greatness, as God counts greatness, is found in the fact that the God of the Bible weighs so lightly upon us.

Only by taking His name seriously again might that change.

Sharpening What We Have Become

What does it mean that a nation founded on the sacred ideas of personal liberty and individual responsibility and where the Government, as a controlling agency, was severely restricted in what it could control, has now become a nation where the citizenry is forced, by the Government, to fund pharmaceutical abortifacients for licentious, irresponsible but sacred whoredom, where the Government, by way of policy, holds minorities as sacred to the point where they can only be the victims of White oppression and never the victims of their own desultory and self-immolating behavior, and where the Government worships at the shrine of perversion, forcing the citizenry to embrace, as a culture, the embrace of sacred sodomy?

What does it mean when a Nation, who once believed that Justice was blind — thus suggesting that Lady Justice was sacred precisely because she saw neither status, condition, or skin, when applying the law, — is now a nation which has advanced a woman to the Supreme Court who could defy the founding sentiment of a blind Lady Justice with the words, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life?” What does it mean when a Nation who ruled that Dred Scott had no rights as a citizen is now a nation where a son of Dred Scott’s people will not prosecute the New Black Panthers for denying citizens the right to vote? What does it mean when a Nation, which once extended sympathy to Khazars because of oppression against them is now a nation that can not criticize the Kahazars because of their oppression of us?

What does it mean when a Nation was so literate that its farmers could easily follow “The Federalists Papers” as they came out as a series of Newspaper articles but now is so illiterate that newspapers are written for a 7th grade reading level? What does it meant when rural America could listen to the Lincoln vs. Douglas debates go for hours and follow every nuance of freewheeling unmediated debate yet today has a hard time understanding sound bite campaign tripe? What does it mean that we have gone from Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies and Archibald Alexander to Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and Tim Keller?

ARTICLE REVIEW OF D. G. HART’S “CHURCH NOT STATE” PART II

We continue to consider Dr. Darryl Hart’s article in “The American Conservative,” where he insists that a naked public square, bereft of the religious impulse, is true conservatism. And of course his insistence on this is made quite apart from any religious impulse arising within him in the way of influence.

Hart’s essays seems to suggest that since different competing religions in the public square results in “a political urge is to blend religions together.” On this score I quite agree with Dr. Hart. The impulse is always towards religious syncretism in public square when you open it up to all religions (public square polytheism). However, Dr. Hart’s solution to strip the public square of religion (public square atheism) leaves us in a place that is just as bad. Dr. Hart has not reckoned with the reality of what happens when one attempts to have a religion-less public square. What happens is not the disappearance of religion in the public square but rather what happens is that a vacuum is created in which, at least in our setting, the Idol-State fills and becomes the defacto established religion. This is what we have today in spades. The Government schools, putatively stripped of religion, are now factories producing humanist citizens to work in our humanist social order. Dr. Hart’s ideas for a naked public square would yield the same results that have been produced in our “naked public square” government schools. This is not a conservative view.

It is interesting to note that it appears that one aspect in which Hart’s essay can find application, is in finding a way to eliminate the balkanization of America’s public square. Is there belief by “Augustinian Christians” that if we extracted religion (an impossible task as we have already noted) from the public square then the citizenry (or at least Christians) would be far less inclined to be divided over sectarian lines as those sectarian positions express themselves in the public square? At the very least they would certainly be less divided in Church as such public square issue would never come up in Augustinian Churches since, according to Radical Two Kingdom advocates, the Church is not the place to speak on what is happening in the public square. Dr. Hart’s “Conservative views” have the felicitous effect of silencing the Church’s voice in a public square that is wrestling over issues like “abortion,” “Homosexual marriage,” and state sanctioned theft.

It is of note that Dr. Hart, as a Augustinian Christian, is advocating for the public square the putative Augustinian Christian position that he lays out in his article. Apparently Hart finds no contradiction or irony in trying to bring his Augustinian Christian influence to bear on the issue of the public square, all the while insisting that Christians should not influence the public square.

Hart continues his article by comparing and contrasting “Republican Christianity” (Hart’s villain in his write up) with Augustinian Christianity (Hart’s champion in his piece). Dr. Hart suggests that “Augustinian Christianity” is more virtuous because it spoke up least in the public square for King Christ and did not try to have a relevant or influential impact on Dr. Hart’s “common realm.” Hart even tells us, “don’t let appearances deceive: the Americans who are the most devout may be the ones least likely to talk about their faith openly.” We learn here that those who are most mute in the public square for the cause of Christ are the ones who are the most pious.

There is another matter here that we must turn to, and that is Dr. Hart’s appeal to the “secular.” Dr. Hart seems to believe that there is some realm or sphere that is not normed by faith convictions. For Hart, as for most R2K advocates, the common realm is a realm that is, by definition, not shaped nor having the capacity of being shaped, by Christianity. It is a secular (neutral) realm that exists and moves by impulses that are not faith defined or faith conditioned. According to Hart, because this is so, we must not try to introduce faith into this common realm. Hart speaks of the problem of Protestantism being “secularized,” or of “secularization,” and yet Protestantism wasn’t secularized, but rather it became syncretistic — which is to say that it imbibed the presuppositions of other non-Christian faith systems and so incrementally surrendered the faith. Similarly the problem has never been secularization — as if the Christian faith moved from Christianity to neutrality — but rather the problem has been “paganization,” where the Christian faith moved from Christianity to humanism. Dr. Hart’s analysis is weak because Dr. Hart’s categories are fallacious.

Dr. Hart then turns to a historical treatise that describes, in his opinion, where America went wrong by embracing Republican Christianity vs. Augustinian Christianity. In Part III we will take up Dr. Hart’s historical analysis.