Moral Cowardice Under A Theological R2K Fig Leaf

“I think is is appropriate to distinguish Lutheran 2K from this recent R2K, but an important point is often missed, and that is that some influential R2K proponents really don’t seem to take natural law seriously. Natural law theory (as historically affirmed by RCs, Lutherans, and Reformed) unequivocally affirms that heterosexual marriage is a teaching of natural law. In fact, the Magdeburg Confession of 1550 that DGH (Darryl G. Hart) loves to cite says,

“But if a ruler is so demented as to attack God, then he is the very devil who employs mighty potentates in Church and State. When, for example, a prince or an emperor tampers with marriage against the dictates of natural law, then in the name of natural law and Scripture he may be resisted.”

So why is it that the big topic in R2K discussions right now is that the church has nothing to say in the public square about SSM (Sodomite Marriage)? I can only conclude that they really are not very serious about their affirmations of natural law, and that R2K is really, as I’ve said elsewhere, a “theological fig-leaf for culture war fatigue” and an excuse to remain silent.”

Dr. William B. Evans
Younts Professor of Bible and Religion, Erskine College
Chair, Dept. of Bible, Religion, and Philosophy
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

Natural law is a shield against getting involved in the public square until it might force us to take a concrete stand against wickedness in the public square. Then Natural law is up for debate, just like Scripture has been made to be up for debate.

The Church really is at a crossroads. We can either follow the equivalent of the WW II ghetto Judenrat and work with the enemy or we can draw a line, plant our banners, and unfurl our bold colors.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

3 thoughts on “Moral Cowardice Under A Theological R2K Fig Leaf”

  1. I’ve always thought R2K was simply sophistry used to mask and disguise the moral cowardice of Zrim and Dark Heart.

  2. Those Eastern Orthodox peoples who lived under Muslim tyranny believed or at least lived according to the R2K theology. They had to show humble thankfulness to their infidel masters for the privilege of being allowed to be alive, and not being forced to convert Islam.

    Conservative Christians are living today under “Liberal dhimmitude” in modern Western countries:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/orthodoxeasternc00fort#page/240/mode/2up

    “And so the Patriarch reached the highest point of his career. When we first met him he was not a patriarch at all, nor even a metropolitan, but only a local bishop under Thrace. Now he has an enormous patriarchate covering all Russia, Turkey in Europe, and Asia Minor; in ecclesiastical affairs he has precedence and something very like jurisdiction over the other Eastern patriarchs, and in civil affairs he has authority over them and all Orthodox Christians.

    Only he must humble himself before the Sultan, and to make this degradation quite complete he is invested with the signs of his spiritual jurisdiction by the unbaptized tyrant who is his lord. The patriarchs, although they held so great a place over Christians, have always been made to feel that they are nothing before the Turk. They represent the enormous majority of subjects of the Porte in Europe, but they have never been given even the smallest place in the Diwan, that is, the Sultan’s advising council. And the Sultans have deposed them, reappointed them, even killed them, just as they liked.

    The last and worst result of the subjection of the Church to the Moslem tyrant was Simony. Each patriarch had to make the Sultan an enormous present of money in return for his appointment; to raise this money they then sold all benefices to their bishops and priests, and so the taint of Simony, the buying and selling of the things of God, has been for centuries one of the characteristic marks of the Orthodox Church.”

    The 16th century Protestant classic Foxe’s Book of Martyrs explains what this practically meant:

    http://www.exclassics.com/foxe/foxe135.htm

    “As touching such towns and provinces which are won by the Turk, and wherein the Christians are suffered to live under tribute; First, all the nobility there they kill and make away, the churchmen and clergy hardly they spare. The churches, with the bells and all the furniture thereof, either they cast down, or else they convert to the use of their own blasphemous religion, leaving to the Christians certain old and blind chapels, which when they decay, it is permitted to our men to repair them again for a great sum of money given to the Turk. Neither be they permitted to use any open preaching or ministration, but only in silence and by stealth to frequent together. Neither is it lawful for any Christian to bear office within the city or province, nor to bear weapon; nor to wear any garment like to the Turks. And if any contumely or blasphemy, be it never so great, be spoken against them, or against Christ, yet must thou bear it, and hold thy peace. Or if thou speak one word against their religion, thou shalt be compelled (whether thou wilt or no) to be circumeised; and then if thou speak one word against Mahomet, thy punishment is fire and burning. And if it chance a Christian being on horseback to meet or pass by a Mussulman, that is, a Turkish priest, he must light from his horse, and with a lowly look devoutly reverence and adore the Mussulman; or if he do not, he is beaten down from his horse with clubs and staves.”

  3. Excellent post Pastor Bret. Thank you.

    NOW AND THEN

    I’m sensing no antithesis

    No hatred for what’s wrong

    A willingness to compromise

    To go and get along

    A sentimental modern love

    That loves God same as men

    A joy in serving Jesus

    Who’s God just now and then

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *