I’m reading a longish paper by Rev. Bordow that is an apologetic for R2K. I started reading it in light of an article I came across recently,
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/inside-the-sick-secret-world-of-online-bestiality-forums/
The reason a bestiality article reminded me of Rev. Bordow is a statement he once made.
““Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality (sic) is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality (sic) laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions,(sic) that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”
It is easy to see why the article would remind me of Rev. Bordow’s quote. This prompted to look at his defense of R2K and I thought I would post some of that defense here and interact with it. After all, as Rev. Bordow quoted me in the paper in question it is the least I can do to interact with the paper.
Rev. Bordow writes,
“I will begin with the accusation that my position allows believers to sit by quietly allowing the state and culture to perpetuate evil. The SOTC position is not escapist. The Bible is clear that Christians are to do good to all (Gal 6:10) and be good neighbors to those in need, whether locally or nationally. So Christians are not commanded to withdraw from culture and politics, but to do what they can to help others, according to their consciences and abilities. That may mean getting involved in a Crisis Pregnancy Center, it may mean becoming a political supporter of a candidate they think will do the most good, or it may mean simply helping his neighbor when he is sick.But that calling for individual Christians to seek temporary good for others must be distinguished from the mandate Jesus gave his church as an institution, summarized in Luke 24:46&47: “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” There is no other mandate in the New Testament given to the visible church concerning unbelievers besides preaching the gospel to them.”
You see, in Rev. Bordow’s worldview the Church has no role to speak into believers lives as to what they support or do not support in the common square. That is entirely up to their consciences and abilities. So, while Rev. Bordow does allow for Christians to be involved in the common square for the help of others he allows “help” to be defined by any standard. So you see, the R2K position of Rev. Bordow does have all the potential to perpetuate evil.
2.) Note also that in his last sentence Rev. Bordow has largely dispensationalized the Old Testament. The Old Testament is gone away because of the R2K “Intrusion Ethic.” Jesus died so that we would not apply God’s Law to the Nations.
3.) It’s just not true that the only mandate the NT gives the Church for unbelievers is to preach the Gospel to them. To say such a thing is to suggest that the Church does not have a mandate to champion the politicus usus of God’s law.
This is a logical end for R2K. It’s scary, but, Rev Bordow and others who follow that path will have to avoid the logical implications of their theology (anything goes) & that Christ rules nothing. Just the opposite of Ps 2.
Bret,
I actually don’t mind your critique here because it is fairly accurate, and I think your position against plurialism is the only consistent one to my 2k, in other words, if the OT law was intended for all nations beyond OT Israel, then away with pluralism completely, none of this theonomic libertarian silliness which claims that if they ran things there would be more freedom for everyone. The context on my original quote had to do with a question I received on church discipline. I was asked why the churches presently do not discipline those who may not vote against certain sexual sins being illegal. My response was that in pluralism there is a difference between sins and crimes, and one may not trust the state to enforce against certain sins and thus vote against such enforcement, even if they were clear such activity was sinful before God. As for the Stalin question, the answer of course is limits, all general principles have limits that can be violated. If a member of my church were championing something politically that purposely sought to sin against others, we would confront and deal with it.
Todd,
So you put limits on someone in the Church campaigning for Stalin but you don’t put limits on someone in the church campaigning for overturning Bestiality laws? By R2K principles how does that work? On what authority would you speak to a member who was a Christian Marxist serving as Stalin’s campaign chief trying to help his fellow Christians by getting Stalin elected?
Second, you’re not embracing pluralism Todd. Nice try. You are insisting (as you accuse me of insisting) that your pluralism was intended for all nations. You think that your are pluralistic when in point of fact you are advocating for an across the board monoculture which requires pluralism and inveighs against anybody who does not advocate for pluralism. You are every bit as theonomic as I am except the god you are advocating for is polytheistic.
Third, God’s law itself teaches that it is “the perfect law of liberty.” And here you are insisting that the embrace of God’s law would be less liberty for everyone. Go figure.
I agree there is a difference between sins and crimes. God’s word says bestiality is a crime.
Bret,
Actually, when I wrote campaigning for bestiality laws I meant to enforce against, laws to outlaw, but nevertheless, given I don’t consider the civil laws of Israel binding on nations today why would I even distinguish between sins and crimes using the Mosaic code? As to your question on what authority, I would answer the same concerning porn. You might ask, if I allow members to watch television, by what authority can I confront them for watching late night skin flicks on Cinemax or whatever? Well, even though there is no definite place in the Bible that defines what pornography is I can still confront manifestations of unrepentant lust where I see it. That is the authority given to sessions. The same with involvement in politics. And while God’s law is the perfectly law of liberty for the Christian, we are speaking of a society of many or mostly unbelievers. For them it would not be bring the same freedom apart from faith in Christ. As for plurality, if I am not advocating for religious pluralism the word no longer has any meaning. Unlike you, I do not define everything that is not Christianity as a religion. Thanks for keeping it civil, I think.
Todd,
You asked,
why would I even distinguish between sins and crimes using the Mosaic code?
Well, if you will not use the Mosaic code to determine that distinction then what code shall we use? The Sharia Code? The Talmudic code? The humanist code? By what standard shall we determine how we distinguish between sins and crimes?
On the authority issues it looks to me as if you are saying that Scripture is the standard. So, when it comes to a member being Stalin’s campaign manager you can go to them and speak that what they are doing in the common realm is unbiblical? But if you can do that for porn and for being Stalin’s campaign manager why can’t that be done for issues across the board that occur in the common realm?
You speak of the unbelievers and the law and yet we find God’s law being the standard for the unbelieving Nations in the Scriptures. Because those Nations violated that law God cast them out. God held the Ninevahites in the days of Jonah accountable to God’s law. Are you suggesting that Christ died so that His law word could not longer be pressed upon the unbelieving consistent with the politcus usus of the law?
Finally, it doesn’t really matter if you refuse to call ducks “ducks.” Your refusal to call a duck a “duck” doesn’t mean it is not a duck. Same goes for religion. You insist that laws can be reflective or derivative of no God or religion and yet that very position is defied by the reality that every law must have standing behind it a LAWGIVER. Whoever the Lawgiver is, is the God and his religion is the ruling religion.
And pluralism has no meaning. Thank you for picking up my point there. Pluralism is a deception that has been pawned on us for quite some time. Pluralism is a political theory in pursuit of a monoculture.
Kind regards,
Wrote too quickly, forgive the grammatical mistakes
“On the authority issues it looks to me as if you are saying that Scripture is the standard. So, when it comes to a member being Stalin’s campaign manager you can go to them and speak that what they are doing in the common realm is unbiblical? But if you can do that for porn and for being Stalin’s campaign manager why can’t that be done for issues across the board that occur in the common realm?”
That’s a good question. I can confront on issues that occur in the common realm. Sin is sin anywhere it is committed. But if I do not believe Scripture provides a civil law then I cannot enforce the political question on my members. If a man was Stalin’s campaign manager, assuming he knew of Stalin’s evil plans, then I would certainly begin the process of church discipline. Yet Daniel was a high ranking officer in the Babylonian government, a government which enforced idolatry and invaded nations, so each person must be considered at an individual level, what they are actually doing and why. Surely as a pastor you see how church discipline issues are not always cut and dry.
We could go on and on, but I think our differences are so obviously and abundantly clear on these issues that there is little value in debating. I do think our side needs to be a bit more realistic in admitting that our reformed forefathers in Europe were simply wrong in their church-state formulations. And what I always appreciated about you is that you share my same assessment of each other’s side. In other words, when you say, I don’t recognize their 2k as biblical christianity, and want nothing to do with it, that is how I feel about your side. Always finding middle ground where there really is not any can be futile, and boring. Who wants to always be safe?
But if I do not believe Scripture provides a civil law then I cannot enforce the political question on my members. If a man was Stalin’s campaign manager, assuming he knew of Stalin’s evil plans, then I would certainly begin the process of church discipline.
What Scripture text provides a *civil law* against the political question of being Stalin’s campaign manager?
Rev. McAtee wrote:
The Old Testament is gone away because of the R2K “Intrusion Ethic.” Jesus died so that we would not apply God’s Law to the Nations.
This is a great summary of the position.
No N.T. text defines bestiality as a crime, so Bordow would not discipline a member who advocated for the repeal of bestiality laws.
Since no N.T. text defines being Stalin’s campaign manager as a crime, Bordow cannot provide a *consistent* basis to discipline Stalin’s campaign manager.
The qualification that discipline could be applied if the manager knew of Stalin’s evil plans simply underscores the arbitrary incoherence of R2k.
Mark,
As to your first question, Gal. 6:10 comes to mind, as do many others. As to your charge of arbitrary, it is only arbitrary for those who have accepted certain paradigms, such as civil law is a matter of special revelation instead of general revelation, and if the Christian God is not the god/religion of the public square that means another god/religion is. As to application of your paradigm, if Democrats have been the pro-choice party, why don’t the reformed churches discipline members of that party? Membership and voting is a form of advocacy. And if the public schools really are not public, but anti-Christian, why don’t the reformed churches (besides some micro-denoms) discipline parents who send their children there? In practice you are the odd man out here. Now if you say the Reformed churches as a whole are compromising and yours is the minority voice proclaiming faithfulness, that would at least be consistent, but don’t act like me not disciplining members with certain political views shocking or incoherent when almost none of the churches or denominations do this, unless you provide examples I am not aware of.
Todd,
1.) Civil law comes from some lawgiver. The lawgiver is obviously the god of the law. This is NOT rocket science friend. If the public square has civil law than it has a law giver. Voila … the god of the public square.
2.) Reformed Churches, if they know that members are voting for explicitly pro murder candidates should be disciplined.
105. Q. What does God require in the sixth commandment?
A. I am not to dishonour, hate, injure, or kill my neighbour by thoughts, words, or gestures, and much less by deeds,
whether personally or through another; 1
3.) What an incredibly weak defense to say that because other Churches don’t inveigh against sin therefore I am not inconsistent by not inveighing against sin.
Forgot to add, you have already granted that there is no Bible verse that explains what porn is, that we know exactly from the Bible when a line is crossed from watching movies in general to watching porn, so there is an arbitrariness, as you call it, to dealing with this in the life of our people. In my theology the same applies to politics, in your theology special revelation reveals what we should and should not advocate for politically. But not all accept your church/state theology. But what you call arbitrary most pastors call pastoral sensitivity.
I don’t usually respond to theonomists anymore online because it doesn’t go anywhere, but for some strange reason I like Bret, even though his views are usually repugnant to me as mine are to him. Maybe because he actually deals with substantive differences between us, or maybe because when I saw his picture he reminds my of my father.
As to your first question, Gal. 6:10 comes to mind, as do many others.
Would like to hear how you interpret that N.T command to “do good” as providing a civil law against being Stalin’s campaign manager but doesn’t provide a civil law against bestiality.
Mark,
You have to answer my questions before asking new ones. That’s how debates work.
Todd, one’s party affiliation and voting record typically is secret in the ballot booth. If on the other hand a church member publicly declared his advocacy for a candidate (Repub or Dem) in order that abortion laws be made more permissive, I could envision discipline of that member. That is the more apt analogy to the question posed to you about church member advocacy of the repeal of anti-bestiality laws.
I don’t accept the moral equivalence between sending a kid to public school to advocating freedom to have sex with animals. There are occasions where services of the public school may be necessary for Christian parents, due to the condition of the child or circumstance of the parent. There are no occasions in which advocating the legal freedom to engage in sex with your pet would be morally acceptable.
Mark,
As you are aware, advocating for the freedom legally to do something is not the same as encouraging the sin. Most of us advocate for freedom of religion, yet we are not encouraging people to embrace Mormonism or JW in doing so, unless we adopt your view of pluralism, which we do not. I honestly cannot imagine a member actually advocating for no beastiality laws, unless as a libertarian he wanted no laws on any sexual matters where another human being is not harmed, which certainly a Christian can hold. But no matter how many fine distinctions you try to make, your enforcement of biblical principles in the political arena are just as arbitrary as mine. You would disciple those who sought legality for sex acts such as homosexuality, but not for advocating for the freedom to worship other gods or anti-blasephey laws. Where is that distinction spelled out in the Bible, or are you the only one allowed to use opinion and wisdom in these matters? I could also envision discipline of that same member seeking to make abortions more permissive, but that would depend on a number of factors, such as why, what context, etc…And one’s party affiliation and voting record is rarely secret anymore- most Christians involved in politics are very vocal about what party they support and how they vote, that all people tend to talk about after church these days, assuming they are not afraid to admit these things in front of their church leaders.
As to your question, “Would like to hear how you interpret that N.T command to “do good” as providing a civil law against being Stalin’s campaign manager but doesn’t provide a civil law against bestiality” I’m not sure your point. We were addressing church discipline, not a rational for certain laws. My point was that if someone in my church was using politics to deliberately hurt others, I would address it. The same applies to headship in marriage, sports, business, etc., though you may be asking something different.
I’m not sure your point. We were addressing church discipline, not a rational for certain laws.
Todd, your rationale for not church- disciplining the bestiality advocate was this:
But if I do not believe Scripture provides a civil law then I cannot enforce the political question on my members.
You have yet to produce a N.T. text that would qualify as providing a civil law against bestiality.
You may not imagine anyone advocating for freedom to conjugate with animals. I’m not sure if this is lack of imagination or naivete. It was only a couple of years ago Reformed luminaries were compromising on human same-sex relations based on the R2k dualistic ethic. That the move to repeal bestiality laws is already underway must have escaped your notice. You use the term “Scripture”, but your system insists you look away from the O.T. for authoritative guidance.
I could also envision discipline of that same member seeking to make abortions more permissive, but that would depend on a number of factors, such as why, what context, etc…
Again, by your own terms, you need to supply a N.T. text that provides a civil law to enforce this “political” question on your members. Under your hermeneutical system, there is none. Hence, your possible discipline on this political matter would transgress your fundamental commitments to avoid reference to OT law and to ground discipline on N.T. law.
Mark
R2K practices a vastly different faith. Thank you Todd for demonstrating that yet again. We both agree that each of us are Reformed ministers who have precious little common ground.
“You have yet to produce a N.T. text that would qualify as providing a civil law against bestiality.”
Why would I need to do this? I already said the Bible does not provide us with civil laws.
“That the move to repeal bestiality laws is already underway must have escaped your notice. ‘
I have never heard of Christians advocating for this. Pretty weird if they were.
“You use the term “Scripture”, but your system insists you look away from the O.T. for authoritative guidance.”
If it is an illegitimate use of the OT, then it is not looking away, but using it as intended.
“Again, by your own terms, you need to supply a N.T. text that provides a civil law to enforce this “political” question on your members.”
If you read again, my point was that people can use any system or aspect of culture to sin, whether politics, sports, movies, etc… remember the porn example – the Bible speaks of the danger of lust – it does not prescribe all the forms in which the lust is forbidden to manifest itself. I can still confront watching porn without specific Biblical references to the outward forms. Same with politics. Again, it comes down to a different understanding of the purpose of the OT Law, and the NT church.
“Thank you Todd for demonstrating that yet again. We both agree that each of us are Reformed ministers who have precious little common ground.”
True dat!
If the Bible does not provide us with civil laws then laws against Bestiality do not violate any code that Christians as Christians need to have concern. If the Bible does not provide us with civil laws then it does serve as a guide. It is a guide telling us to do what is right in our own eyes.
Mark observed: “You have yet to produce a N.T. text that would qualify as providing a civil law against bestiality.”
Todd asked: “Why would I need to do this? I already said the Bible does not provide us with civil laws.
Because your stated standard is:
“..if I do not believe Scripture provides a civil law then I cannot enforce the political question on my members”.
So you say Scripture provides NO civil laws.
No civil laws = no discipline on the political question.
So you must admit having no ground to discipline one’s advocacy for more permissive laws for bestiality, abortion, pedophilia, necrophilia—or for serving as Stalin’s campaign manager.
“No civil laws = no discipline on the political question.”
With this reasoning if you admit there is no cure for cancer in special revelation then you could not consistently discipline a member for hurting others in the medical profession for giving shoddy and dangerous medical care to a cancer patient. Of course you can. The political certainty you seek from scripture is unnecessary, just like those using the Bible for diets, medical cures, business success, etc., Bahnsen’s “by what standard” argument you keep using on me doesn’t convince, because it is not in my view a purpose of Scripture to provide political standards. That’s a fundamental difference that cannot be resolved by asking about specific and often absurd political examples. And Bret, your criticism that I call it the Law of Moses instead of the Law of God may be the strangest critique I have seen. Throughout the NT it is almost always called the Law of Moses, rarely the Law of God, though obviously it was from the hand of God.
My point Todd was that you’re not really saying that God’s law is no longer applicable because your NT God is a different God. Of course if you have a different God the previous God’s law is not applicable.
” it is not in my view a purpose of Scripture to provide political standards. ”
And the basis for this is simply your opinion as contrived into a system that has virtually no support from Scripture.
“No civil laws = no discipline on the political question.”
“With this reasoning..”
You seriously can’t be that thick to see that this is YOUR reasoning I keep citing back to you.