“One thing that can be encouraging for us today is that the New Testament prepares us for living in the kind of world we find ourselves. The New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living in Christendom. The New Testament addresses a world in which believers are a small minority. It addresses a world in which Christians don’t have any illusions about being in charge of things. Christians are trying to do their best to live at peace with all men as far at it lies with them and yet also to recognize the legitimate authority of civil government and I think as we try to do a Biblical political theology there are all sorts of resources for us to live in the kind of world in which we find ourselves….
Does God wish us to strive for a unified Christian society in which civil government and economic institutions and everything else are united by a common confession of Christ? Now of course we all agree I hope in the proclamation of the Gospel we want as many people as the Spirit is pleased to convert to turn to Christ — of course that is not the question. I think the question is, do we believe that God has called our political communities as such to be those which are confessionally Christian. My argument is ‘no.’ A big part of my argument is to say, ‘actually our political communities are covenantally grounded’ and that is something that should resonate with Reformed people because we pay a lot of attention to the Biblical covenants in Scripture. My argument specifically is that our political communities are grounded in the covenant with Noah after the great flood. There God covenanted with the entire world — including all human beings — so not just with believers, not just with those who profess the name of Christ but with all human beings and God called all human beings to live together in a common community in which they are called to do justice You remember in the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:6), ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed,’ that’s a general call for justice and that is given to the entire human race and that Noahic covenant is still in effect today. That covenant is in effect til Christ comes again … My basic argument is that because God has ordained political communities to grow out of this covenant with Noah that we are to respect the commonality of our political communities. In other words, that these are communities that are supposed to bring together in some kind of common life — both those who profess Christ and those who don’t.”
Dr. David Van Drunnen (DVD)
Politics after Christendom
Interview w/ Dr. R. Scott Clark
Office Hours program
1.) Three times in the first three sentences DVD makes reference to the New Testament. In his constant return to this phrase it seems the expectation that DVD is pushing for is that Christians today would be “New Testament” Christians. Now, that phraseology, and DVD’s usage of “New Testament” in the first three sentences above has a distinctly Dispensational flavor to it. This type of thing is just one reason for why many have observed that R2K is Reformed Dispensationalism.
2.) DVD’s constant complaint is against the idea of repristinating Christendom and yet we hear DVD seemingly desiring to repristinate the conditions of the New Testament when the Scripture was written. Yet, there is not one word in the New Testament that we are required to maintain their level of paganism as it existed during the 1st century AD. The fact that God’s New Testament Revelation and inscripturation came into a pagan culture and climate is no argument that God desires Christians to live in pagan cultures and climate. It is not even an argument that we should expect, as Christians to live in political communities that are not decidedly Christian.
3.) All because the New Testament addresses “a world in which believers are a small minority” doesn’t mean God’s intent was that the world would forever find believers being a small minority in political communities.
4.) DVD offers that the New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living in Christendom thus suggesting that therefore living in Christendom is not intended by the New Testament. By this reasoning we could just as easily say that “the New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living in the 21st century therefore living in the 21st century is not intended by the New Testament,” or “the New Testament doesn’t prepare us for living anywhere except the Mediterranean world therefore living elsewhere but the Mediterranean world is not intended by the New Testament.” It is a significant non-sequitur on DVD’s part.
5.) Living at peace with all men does not mean compromising on Biblical Christianity so that the pagans who hate Biblical Christianity will be satisfied with our presence. It is easy to live at peace with all men if we just jettison the core of Biblical Christianity in our political communities. In my estimation DVD is doing with this passage (Romans 12:18) what he does with so much Scripture; he is making it walk on all fours.
6.) As Christians we are certainly to “to recognize the legitimate authority of civil government,” while at same time insisting that if civil authority desires to be taken as legitimate then it has the requirement laid on it to rule consistent with God’s definition of justice. Here, in these united States, if any civil Government wants to be recognized as having legitimate authority they must rule consistent with their political covenant documents (Federal and State Constitutions). If they fail in that as characterized by a long train of abuses they have surrendered all expectation from both Christian or non-Christian to be recognized as having legitimate authority. The authority of civil-government is not absolute and is not to be recognized as legitimate when it becomes illegitimate.
7.) If we believe that there is no such thing as neutrality, then it is inescapable that if we are not striving for a unified Christian society bonded by a common confession of Christ then all that is left is striving for a society that is unified by some other God and Faith reflecting a common confession of some pagan deity. After all, “he who does not gather with Christ, scatters.”
As I noted in part 1 it is not possible to live in a political community that is not unified by one particular God and one particular faith. Pluralism is a myth. Multiculturalism likewise is a myth. They are both concocted so as to blind us from the reality that one God and one Faith is animating and controlling the political community. If we won’t strive for a unified Christian society we will, even if only by default, strive for a unified non-Christian political community and society. We cannot serve two Masters. We cannot serve Christ in our private individual lives and our Church lives and not serve Christ in the public square (common realm).
8.) Also at this point in the interview DVD returns to a central theme in his “theology” and that is his insistence that the Noahic covenant provides the cornerstone to his political-theology R2K project. This position has, in the past, been challenged repeatedly. DVD however can not give this position up because it is the lynch pin of his innovative system. The Noahic covenant was not a redemptive covenant and so must be common. This position allows DVD to pivot to say that the Noahic covenant is the covenant that all mankind operates and functions in during their lifetime when those who are believers are not operating and functioning within the Church. One implication of this for DVD and R2K is that the Church and the Kingdom are identified as exact synonyms. There is nothing outside the Church realm as existing in the public square that is an expression of the Kingdom of God. Everything outside the church realm as existing in the public square is a common realm relating back to the common Noahic covenant. The common Noahic covenant teaches us that there is no such thing as Christian politics, Christian economics, Christian Education, Christian family, etc. since all these function within the common Noahic covenant and not as ancillaries to the Kingdom of God.
That DVD is in error regarding his assertion that the Noahic covenant “doesn’t make any promises of Redemption,” can be seen inasmuch as the Noahic covenant is in point of fact highly redemptive, both in looking back to creation and looking forward to Christ.
First one finds the flood being presented in similar terms as the chaos of Gen. 1:2, and the ark’s landing on dry land and Noah’s commission by God to be fruitful and multiply both echo the original creation narrative. The rescue of Noah was a Redemptive rescue and this is hinted at when Noah offers sacrifice to God upon being released from the Ark. If the Noahic covenant was truly common would we see a blood sacrifice associated with it?
Second, the Noahic is Redemptive if only because it ends in a “new creation — restoration.” The Noahic covenant is a proleptic and typological event that portrays the final and ultimate redemption to be found in Christ. The Noahic covenant is thus, contrary to DVD’s assertion, Redemptive.
The fact that the Noahic covenant is Redemptive is pointed to in I Peter in such explicit terms it is difficult to believe that anybody could hold the Noahic covenant as common. The flood water symbolizes Baptism which is the sign and seal of Redemption by Jesus Christ.
I Peter 1:20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Eight were saved (Redeemed). The flood water symbolizes Baptism which is the sign and seal of Redemption by Jesus Christ.
Now, no one would argue that the Noahic covenant didn’t have implications for what R2K calls the “common realm,” but clearly the Noahic covenant is a Redemptive covenant. Noah points us back to creation and speaks of its renewal, but points us forward to the ultimate renewal in Christ. It is thoroughly redemptive, not merely “common.”
If the Noahic covenant made promises of Redemption, contrary to DVD, then his whole R2K project fails. Let it fail.
9.) It is interesting to note, per DVD’s standards, that the first political community to form after the flood wherein God’s people sought to live in peace with all men, and wherein the commonalities that are to be expected between all men, regardless of their faith, in their respective political communities is recorded in Genesis 11 and is known as Babel. I’m confident a ancestor of DVD was alive then and was emphasizing the importance of common grace.
10.) This is a comparative tidbit in terms of exposing DVD but possibly still a significant one. Note how DVD repeatedly uses the term “human beings.” Once upon a time the word there would be “mankind.” Is DVD influenced by political correctness?
One thought on “R2K Office Hours Examined – Part II”