“It may seem strange to hear, but the distinction between the gospel and the Christian is an important one. Evangelicals, in particular, are accustomed to a type of gospel mindset where everything is a “gospel issue.” But social change does not come directly from the gospel but from the Christians. In a Christian nation, Immigration issues are not determined by the first four books of the New Testament. Instead, they are made by Christians and their families, working through social and political means, ordering the nation to their earthly and heavenly good.”
Unconscionable Blog
I pulled this quote from the link below,
The article is a comparison between Dr. Mike Horton and Dr. J. Gresham Machen on the subject of Christianity and its impact on surrounding social order. It was not a bad piece over all but it still suffers from the wretched 2K philosophy even when warring against Michael Horton R2K / liberalism.
A few observations,
1.) The writers is spot on when he observes that Evangelicals/Reformed want to make everything a “gospel issue.” Everything is not a gospel issue. Now, one can say that everything is an issue to which Christianity as God’s revelation must apply but that is not the same as saying that everything is a gospel issue. The Gospel deals particularly with the question, “How can one escape the just wrath of God against my sin and guilt?” The Gospel does not deal with the question of the criminal penalty for sexual deviancy, as one example, though Christianity does.
2.) The writer notes the distinction between the Gospel and the Christian. Again, he is correct here. The Christian has to evaluate a multitude of questions that are not answered by “the Gospel,” strictly speaking, as noted above. This is important to repeat again because clergy are forever saying that the most abstruse things are “Gospel issues.” Immigration, for example, is not a “Gospel issue,” (the article linked mentions immigration) but it is an issue that the Scripture speaks to and so can be evaluated on that basis upon a close examination of all that Scripture has to say. However, immigration is no more a Gospel issue than what bedtime you set for your children.
3.) Social change does come from Christians as the writer aptly notes but biblical social change only comes from Christians as they are thinking God’s thoughts after Him as revealed in Scripture and the necessary consequences arising from Scripture.
4.) It is true that immigration policy as championed by Christians can not be made solely by consulting the four gospels. However, it is also true that the immigration policy championed by Christians can be made after consulting all of God’s revelation from Genesis to Revelation.
5.) The writer invokes
“Instead, they (decisions on immigration) are made by Christians and their families, working through social and political means, ordering the nation to their earthly and heavenly good.”
The writer is almost correct here but his failing is found in the emanating scent of 2K thinking. Look at what is said about how we need to order the nation to “our earthly and heavenly good.” Now, upon first blush that sounds noble. However, the fly in the ointment here is found in asking the question, “our heavenly and earthly good, by what standard?” You see, W2K (Wolfean 2 Kingdom) and its fanboys will say the standard by which we measure heavenly and earthly good is by the abstract thing called “Natural Law.” A “natural law” that no two Natural Law movements will agree upon. If we are to order the nation to their earthly and heavenly good that can only be done by resorting to the law and to the testimony – to God’s revealed Word.
I am going to end here with an observation about the current W2K movement. I’ve read some of its recent proponents as well as some of its critics through history. I strongly recommend reading Friedrich Julius Stahl on Natural Law. Having done some reading I do not think W2K will be able to seize the conversation and lead the way because it is so utterly contradictory and confusing. You need a Venn diagram to determine what does and does not order a life or social order to a earthly and heavenly good. The way that some matters are declared “strikes” while other matters are called “balls” is mystifying when deciding when a matter is or is not a ordering to a earthly and heavenly good. This is because W2K has no objective standard. They have no “thus saith the Lord.” It is all subjective. This has always been the fault of Natural Law thinking throughout history.
I would recommend reading the linked article. It does a good job demonstrating that Michael Horton is no J. Gresham Machen and that Horton’s view will do for the church what bad views in marriage do for a marriage.
