“So, to respond to Rabbi Bret, my beef with the CRC and its worldview is not only that it is progressive. I also object to worldviews like Rabbi Bret’s that are politically or culturally conservative because opposing abortion, if done for the wrong reasons, is as much a form of works righteousness as is adopting a mandate on global warming. If Rabbi Bret wants evidence of the way that a right-wing worldviewitis leads to churches fudging the gospel, he only needs to say, “Federal Vision.” Can he do that? Sure he can.”
Dr. Darryl G. Hart
2010
Dr. Darryl seems to be reasoning here that all because there exist progressive worldviews that have no business being in the Church or right-wing worldviews that have no business being in the Church therefore the worldview that insists that worldviews in the church are bad should be the worldview that is in the church. Dr. Darryl is advocating that the Church take up a ‘public square antinomianism worldview’ that if done for the wrong reasons, is as much a form of works righteousness as is adopting either global warming or pro-life positions.
Dr. Darryl (and presumably his other brother Darryl) seems to think that it is possible for the Church to be worldview-free. Yet, as I have been saying relentlessly, it is only Dr. Darryl’s law-oriented worldview that is pushing him to advocate what he advocates. Dr. Darryl’s worldview (public square antinomianism) is law-oriented because he seems to suggest that anybody that does not share his anti-worldview worldview is a someone who can not be saved. So, for Dr. Darryl, a person who does not keep the law of having an anti-worldview worldview is a person who must be born again. At the very least, for Darryl, all sanctified Christians, keep the law with him, which teaches that mature Christians don’t allow the Church to have any worldview in the Church.
Dr. Darryl accuses progressivism to be a worldview that is law and not Gospel and so should not be embraced by the Church. Dr. Darryl accuses right wing worldviews to be worldviews that are law and not Gospel and so should not be in the Church. Dr. Darryl insists that the worldview that advocates no worldview and which says that any law is an acceptable law in his “common realm” is to be preferred over progressivism law or right-wing law.
Dr. Darryl’s problem is that he honestly believes that Christianity, as promulgated in the Church, neither asks nor answers the question, “How shall then we live.” Dr. Darryl’s worldview believes that all attempts by the Church to speak God’s mind on this question for the public square are sinful. The consequence of Dr. Darryl’s worldview is that the Gospel’s impact in saving individual lives reaches no further than those individual personal lives. For Dr. Darryl, a medical doctor is saved by the Gospel but after being saved by the Gospel, Christianity, as promulgated by the church, has no word for the medical doctor on how he should speak about medical ethics. For Dr. Darryl, a public square Economist is saved by the Gospel but after being saved by the Gospel, Christianity, as promulgated by the church, has no word for the Economist on whether Keynesianism is consistent with the 8th commandment. For Dr. Darryl, a civil magistrate is saved by the Gospel but after being saved by the Gospel, Christianity, as promulgated by the church, has no answer for the civil magistrate on whether political or cultural Marxism is consistent with the 1st commandment. For Dr. Darryl the third use of the law, as it pertains to the public square, completely disappears. For Dr. Darryl God speaks clearly on how individuals get saved but God speaks only an incredibly contested word (i.e. – Darryl’s appeal to Natural Law) on how Christians as Christians should live.
Dr. Darrly has not escaped the fact that his worldview for the public square antinomianism that he would have the Church embrace if pursued for the wrong reasons, is as much a form of works righteousness as is adopting a mandate on global warming or as adopting legislation that is pro-life.
Great timing of this post. I had just posted elsewhere something I had noticed and was wondering if others have noticed (you did in 2010!). My question was, “do you remember when the press was and wanted to be objective and when the clergy corps was known for being biblically biased (on cultural issues, marxism, etc)?” My other question, why did they switch roles and when?
I have a shorthand for the preaching that is always seeking balance and tries hard to pique both sides of the audience and leaving the pastor above it all, objective, without opinion, I call it “OTOH” (on the other hand) preaching. Over at URC, it’s was, Rachel Maddow says this, but Rush Limbaugh says that, as if that should silence the audience and as if it is an accurate equivalence. My pastors keep comparing communists to right-wingers or Fox and think they are being pithy.
I get that Jesus has the ability to draw attention to everyone’s sins, but he didn’t do OTOH parables or preaching. I get that a pastor doesn’t want to be offensive and burn a bridge and lose an opportunity to share the gospel with a visitor.
But really, no opinions about what public schools are doing to the kids? No opinions about the government telling everyone to wear a mask because it’s a health issue and we’ve just decided that safety based on what government says is our role? No opinions about the open marxist background of our lieutenant governor or Obama’s training by Bill Ayers or Antifa or especially BLM? No opinion about the worldly pretensions presented as climate change or evolution that are so successfully used as a wedge to pry our kids minds from parental and biblical authority? So Climate change is just something kids need to learn and isn’t a spiritual issue? Of course it is a spiritual issue, and no wonder they think such conversation has no place in church, because it’s not settled according to the mainstream media and they don’t want to offend lefties. I get it, it feels Christian to be agreeable and it feels Christian to be humble in the face of a complex topic and it feels Christian to have a bridge to a public school teacher, many of whom are in the pews, and it feels Christian to say Romans 13, “I’m trusting the authorities, in this case, the IPCC.”
Always glancing left and being reasonable. How can the body speak truth when they are so hypersensitive to what everyone says of us? So we are supposed to be what we used to want in journalists? So maybe we should just all adopt the formula, “I’m privately against that sin, but will pay my taxes so it can take place, change my language so it can take place, send my kids to learn and practice those sins, but believe you me, I’m against, I’m just not going to be an offensive and divisive jerk though and be public about it.”
Well said Kurt.
You wrote,
I get it, it feels Christian to be agreeable and it feels Christian to be humble in the face of a complex topic and it feels Christian to have a bridge to a public school teacher, many of whom are in the pews, and it feels Christian to say Romans 13, “I’m trusting the authorities, in this case, the IPCC.”
Bret responds,
It is likely just me but none of the above “feels Christian” to me. In point of fact, it feels cowardly.
But I shoot from the hip.