“If you sincerely try to stand against the slide into the cesspool of wickedness in our state, and in our culture by looking for a consistent biblical position by which you can witness against the disgrace all around us, (as many of us have found), you’ll lose your job within the Seminary community. You’ll lose your standing in the Church establishment. You’ll virtually become unemployable — even if your orthodox. You’ll become ostracized. You’ll be called ‘dangerous.’
What’s wrong with us that theonomists are dangerous when we have to lock our windows at night? It’s crazy isn’t it?
How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?
Of all the wicked heresies and threatening movements facing the Church in our day, when Westminster Seminary finally organized their faculty to write something in unison they gave their determined political efforts not to fight Socialism, not to fight homosexuality, not abortion, not crime and mayhem in our society, not subjectivism in theology, not Dispensationalism, not cultural relativism, not licentiousness, not defection from the New Testament, not defection from the Westminster Confession of Faith, — all of which are out there and they could give their legitimate efforts to. Boy the thing they had to write about was ‘Theonomy.’
How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he doesn’t see?
We are living in the cesspool of relativism and the Church doesn’t have an answer. Well, I praise God … that the truth that the early Church knew and is found in the Bible and is available to us and there are people like he who were willing to pay the price and say, ‘it’s worth it.'”
Why stand against the slide into the cesspool of wickedness when you can write articles suggesting that perhaps Christian could reach an entente with homosexuals on homosexual marriage? Why stand against Dispensationalism when your own theology is but a variant of Dispensationalism? (Some have even taken to calling R2K “Reformed Dispensationalism.”) Why stand against Socialism when your agenda is defined by Enlightenment and Liberal categories? Why stand against cultural relativism when your theology insists that your theology has nothing to say to the public square culture?
Look, long ago J. I. Packer noted that “bad theology hurts people.” R2K, doubtless is a theology that makes for nice sentimental people who get all teary eyed when they sing, “Trust & Obey,” but it is a theology that hurts people because it is escapist and retreatist when it comes to the public square. As an escape religion R2K is the perfect oppositional religion to the Cultural Marxists who practice power religion. It is the perfect oppositional religion for the cultural Marxists because it offers no opposition. If the cultural Marxist want to build an Idol out of the God State R2K says … “we’ll help you with those nasty reconstructionists by pointing them out to you and by making sure they are unemployable. We will blacken their names. We will misrepresent their positions. We’ll do all we can to cast them out of the Church. We will spit on the memories of Rushdoony (Why, we’ll even call him ‘Rushlooney’ in our private get togethers), and Bahnsen (Psst … We will call him ‘Rabbi Greg’ — ha ha ha).”
The White Hat Reformed Church is now riven by those who have two completely different worldviews and all the wishing and hoping in the world is not going to reconcile these antithetical worldviews.
