Who could have guessed? … R. Scott Clark the Hot Social Gospeler

“…whatever social agenda a Christian pursues is one thing but leave the visible, institutional church out of it. The church, as a visible institution, as the embassy of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, has no social agenda for the wider civil and cultural world.”

R. Scott Clark
R2K Aficionado

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on sodomite Marriage in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on women in the Military in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on abortion, euthanasia and other end of life issues for this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on the Marxist inspired Government theft, usury, and inflation in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on any law order that is explicitly non Christian.

One could only wish that this would mean that Scott would be consistent and as a officer of the Church quit advancing the R2K social agenda for the Church.

One simply is required to realize that Scott is pursuing a social agenda with this tripe. Scott’s social agenda is the institutional Church’s complete withdrawal from culture and Scott is a hot Social gospeler in pursuit of that social agenda.

R. Scott Clark Seeks to Capture Jesus for the R2K Agenda

Every culture and generation has been tempted to capture Jesus for their own agenda. The Gnostics portrayed Jesus as a second-century figure (a dead give away) who was a Gnostic opposed to the church and the Christian gospel of free salvation from the wrath to come through faith alone in Christ alone. The Constantinian (post-4th century) church often portrayed Jesus as such a fearsome king and judge that the church began to search for other saviors and mediators. In the Modern era, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) re-made Jesus into his own rationalist image—he produced his own version of the New Testament stripped of supernaturalism. In the Carter 1970s and the Reagan 80s, as the baby-boomer-dominated culture turned inward, Jesus became a facilitator for our personal sense of well being. Now, with the rise of the Millennial generation, the product of the war against terror and a Carter-esque economic malaise, the concern is ostensibly other-centered but once again the Christian faith has become yet another vehicle to carry social concerns. There is renewed talk among young evangelicals and others of the so-called “social gospel.”

R. Scott Clark

Of course the Irony here is that Scott, in insisting the naughtiness of these other movements to capture Jesus for their own agenda is doing the same exact thing. Scott desires to capture Jesus for his R2K movement. For R2K Clark Jesus is the very embodiment of R2K. Jesus, being R2K, is against all those movements which would try to capture Jesus for other naughty movements. For Scott Jesus is a 21st century figure who is R2K opposed to the church and a Christianity that insists that Kings (R2K Common realm Authorities) must kiss the Son lest those Kings perish in the way. Scott, and R2K have re-made Jesus into their own surrender monkey image. They are trying to produce their own version of the New Testament stripped of any notion of Christian culture, Christian education, Christian family, Christian marriage, Christian law etc. With the rise of R2K, a response that seeks to avoid the rising tide of anti-Christian sentiment by means of surrender and withdrawal, we see that the concern is to protect the Church by cutting it off from cultural engagement. What R2K has turned Christianity into, by promoting abdication as the Church’s social concern  is yet another vehicle to carry its own social concern.

CRC — 50th Anniversary Sermon Notes

In 1965, a CRC mission work in Charlotte, Michigan — a city so named after the wife of settler Edmond Bostwick –had been sponsored by Plymouth Heights CRC and Shawnee Park CRC  arrived at the point where it could begin a building project to house those who had been meeting in the parsonage for Sunday services prior to this time. CRC Evangelist Rev. Al Bytwork had been the Church planter and had been diligent and faithful in his calling. Mr. Gary Douma was the Building chairman for the facility and provided the leadership to see the project to completion. As I  understand it costs were kept at a minimum by men of the Church volunteering their time and abilities.

Of course it was a far different world then.

1965 — Petrol 30.9 cents per gallon — 2.33 per gallon adjusted for inflation 2015

1965 average New home — 13,600 — $102,150.68 adjusted for inflation 2015

1965 average loaf of bread — .21 cents — 1,58 adjusted for inflation 2015

1965 average new car —  $2,650.00  — 19,904.36 adjusted for inflation 2015

The nation was just getting knee deep in Vietnam.

The Mary Quant designed Mini Skirt appears in London and will become  the fashion statement of the 60’s while the infamous Connecticut vs. Griswold decision was handed down. Each of these presaged and confirmed the burgeoning sexual revolution.

The British Rock -n- Roll invasion was not very old and Rev. Bytwork, citing author David Nobel, wrote about the effects of Rock -n- Roll on thinking in one of his newsletters.

President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty and expanded Medicare.

In June of 1965 The Gemini IV mission launches and carries astronauts Edward White and James McDivitt.

In 1965 the Hart-Cellar act was passed … a act which eventually ended up radically and forever changing the Demographics of the country forever.

In the context of all this something even more enduring and with greater potential impact was happening in Charlotte Michigan. An outpost of God’s Kingdom was being given a place to gather for Word and Sacrament, for catechism and fellowship, for worldview training and for discipleship. This was a place where God’s army would be trained and equipped for battle.

The Kingdom outpost planted had a humble start, numerically speaking, and in God’s providence, numerically speaking, this church has always been modest in its numbers over its 50 years.  This is something that was shared with that Hebrews congregation and all of the congregations of the New Testament. The letter to the Hebrews was sent to a congregation that was small and struggling against the zeitgeist of their times. This small group of Hebrew Christians were in a place of having to decide whether or not they were going to return to cultural Judaism or whether they were going to remain Christians.  The writer tries to show the readers that the right choice was to continue to trust in Jesus. He does so by demonstrating how the Lord Christ is superior to the Old Covenant.

This plea upon a small group of people, by the writer of this Epistle, to not give into to the prevailing Spirit of the age … to not disavow their confession is a point that we should consider ourselves. Our danger in the Church today is the danger of those Hebrews written to in this Epistle. However our danger is more often to give up on Christianity by reinterpreting it as consistent with the prevailing opposition than it is to just leave Christianity to go back to ways that are more acceptable to the culture as these Hebrews were on the cusp of doing.

We, like they, are feeling the pressure to give up on Christianity. We, unlike they, tend to respond to this pressure by just reinterpreting, or re-adjusting the Christian faith in order to fit in to the culture as opposed to just leaving Christianity behind as the Hebrews were tempted to do.

When we consider this passage proper we see three components. Realities that were true for that Charlotte CRC Church in 1965 and realities that remain true for us today.

I.)  We see in this passage the Church’s Confidence. (19-23)

The confidence we speak of here is the Church’s foundation and cornerstone of every generation. Our confidence is the person and work of our Elder Brother the Lord Christ for His people.

In 1965 when they built this place it was to the end of, corporately, having the boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus. And of course this is why Church’s are built and why people assemble for Church. It is for the opportunity to corporately come into God’s presence by the blood of Christ. Why build churches or attend services if not to enter into this privilege of unique worship of the thrice Holy God?

Of course the whole idea of entering the Holiest is the idea to come into God’s presence. In the OT culture, which the Hebrews are tempted to return to, there was no ability for them to individually and corporately enter into the Holiest. Only the High Priest could do that.  This passage reminds us of the intimacy God’s people may have with God. Other passages remind us that Christ is at the right hand of the Father on our behalf, but this passage reminds us that we ourselves may enter God’s heavenly sanctuary by trusting in Christ alone.

Now the impact of that statement  impacts each of us in relation to our estimation of the character of God. If we have come to appreciate the Holiness and Transcendence of God and have come to know our sin the idea that God has made a way for us to come into His presence is overwhelming.

By this reminder that we can come boldly into God’s presence we are reminded that we as Christians are ourselves now Priests under the authority of the Lord Christ who is our great High Priest. Like the veil of hold that was torn from top to bottom signifying entry into the presence of God so Christ was torn that we might be a Kingdom of Priests ministering in God’s presence speaking to God on behalf of His saints.

This passage with its reference to blood and flesh emphasizes again the work of the Lord Christ for God’s people. The premise is that there was a chasm of hostility between God and man that only could be closed by God and with the arrival and work of Christ the chasm of hostility is closed and God is reconciled to man. The Hebrews were tempted to give up on that for a little relief.

Hebrews 1o:19-25, with its reference to Christ as our High priest, reminds us of the absolute necessity and singularity of Christ as the means of introduction to the Father. In a church culture that has too often given up on the idea of the uniqueness of Christ, Hebrews reminds us that there is no peace with God apart from a Christ who is consistent with God’s revelation.

People who don’t believe this don’t build churches. People who don’t believe this typically don’t attend Biblical Churches. People who don’t believe this don’t celebrate 50th anniversaries.

Before we press on please do not miss that Christ is said here to the High Priest over the house of God.

God’s house throughout Scripture has been his people. The celebration this morning is not primarily a celebration of this facility, as beautiful as it is. The celebration this morning is the celebration that God deigned in 1965 to build a household in this place for the manifestation of His glory.

II.) We see in this passage the Church’s Covenant (vs. 23)

And that is simply put as God’s faithfulness. The idea of God’s faithfulness as deep roots and long tentacles in Scripture.

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,
 
Psalms 36:5 Your steadfast love, O LORD, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness to the clouds.
 
Psalms 89:8 O LORD God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O LORD, with your faithfulness all around you?
 
Psalms 119:90 Your faithfulness endures to all generations; you have established the earth, and it stands fast.
Lamentations 3:22-23 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

Alec Motyer has described God’s hesed or covenant love as

combining the warmth of God’s fellowship with the security of God’s faithfulness.

God’s quality of being faithful is everywhere spoken of in Scripture. It is a component of His covenant promise to His people. In the OT that covenant faithfulness is expressed by the Hebrew word “Hesed” which expresses both God’s loyalty to His covenant and His love for His people along with a faithfulness to keep His promises.

 
Romans 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
 
1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

God never ceases to be faithful. He is first faithful to Himself but He is also faithful to all those He claims as His own. We are called to hold fast to our confession of our hope here without wavering knowing that God is faithful.

God was faithful to that handful in 1965 and He remains faithful to this handful today. Amidst all the uncertainties of a contemporary Church that is too often unfaithful and a culture increasingly tetched God remains faithful. Regardless of the highs and lows of life … regardless of the disappointments or the joys …. whether in wealth or in poverty God remains faithful. It is the certainty of His faithfulness wherein we can find the stability for our lives. We celebrate then His faithfulness.

It is this faithfulness of God that is to be that which motivates us to hold fast our confession  of hope without wavering. Given the immediate context where there is mention of sprinkling and washing with pure water it is not unreasonable to understand that the “confession of our hope” is a reference to Baptism. If so the confession of our Hope would be anchored in the person and work of Christ that Baptism symbolizes.

We can be unwavering in a hope which promises Christ because God is Faithful.

2 Thessalonians 3:3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.
 
Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.

Some of you are young. You will live to see many years and things that many of us won’t see. Through your life I would have you remember that  God is faithful.

III.) We see in this passage the Church’s Commitment (22-25)

Consider one another to stir up love and good works

The modern church often trips over the idea of what it means to stir up love. We would say that to stir up love is to stir up the demonstration of God’s character towards one another.

Obviously the temptation with all fallen creatures is to be self focused, self centered, and self preoccupied. Here the writer of the Hebrews encourages them to not look only to their own needs but also the needs of others. In the imperative to “consider one another,” we are driven off the instinct to look down on fellow saints as inferior. We are to consider each other.

I think Charlotte CRC has done this well over the years. God’s people here have considered one another. They have looked after one another in illness. They have sought to share the load when there was more month than money. This assembly has helped the widow and  sought to encourage the downcast. In a triage culture Charlotte CRC has been good about considering one another. Over the years I’ve had many many people hand me a envelope of money and say, “Could you give this to so and so.” I’ve seen people bring baskets and bags of food to those who lost their employment. I’ve seen house mortgages paid for consecutive months so that families would not lose their home. I’ve seen numerable hospital visits and the caring for one another’s children when in need. I’ve seen people share their holidays with those unrelated by blood but related by Faith. While there is always room for improvement I must say “well done” Charlotte CRC for the way you have considered one another over the years.

The Heidelberg catechism gives us the standard for the good works. It seems proper to cite the catechism on a CRC’s Church’s 50 anniversary.
91. Q. But what are good works?

A. Only those which are done out of true faith,[1] in accordance with the law of God,[2] and to His glory,[3] and not those based on our own opinion or on precepts of men.[4]

Note here that a good work is in keeping with God’s law. God’s law has fallen on hard times in the Church but one thing the Church should be routinely doing is expositing God’s law so that people can stir up one another to good works.

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves

Why the importance of assembling of ourselves?

I think that the importance of this is the fact that in the assembling of ourselves we are reoriented again to the vertical. The Church is the one place where we ought to be able to attend and find ourselves reminded that life is not horizontally regulated. When we regularly assemble we are reminded that we live and move and have our being in God. This vertical reorientation is likely not going to happen institutionally anywhere else. It is in the Church, as we assemble, week by week, that we find ourselves reminded that our orientation in life remains vertical. The Liturgy here goes a long way in doing that.

There are many Churches now where the service has been horizontalized and people leave the assembly not being vertically realigned.

Exhorting one Another

Conclusion

Without wavering (vs. 23)

 

Modernity As Horror Film

“The two monsters of the Enlightenment, now immortalized on cereal boxes, also portray two phases of the Enlightenment as it actually got implemented, as opposed to what it proposed. Frankenstein epitomizes phase I of the Enlightenment project — the early, ostensibly altruistic, optimistic phase, when the revolution, no matter how horrific its execution, still seemed plausible as a way of bettering mankind. This is the electricity phase, the phase of youthful energy, captured in Wordsworth phrase, ‘Bliss was it that dawn to be alive. But to be young was a very heaven!’ Dracula was phase II of the Enlightenment — the syphilitic phase, the disillusionment phase, when blood has been not only shed but polluted, generally by venereal disease as the logical consequence of sexual liberation.”

Dr. E. Michael Jones
“Monsters from the Id; the Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film” – pg. 62

One of my current reads is E. Michael Jones “Monsters from the Id; the Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film.”

It is Jones’ premise that the whole Horror Genre (Novel and Films) arises from the failure of the promises of Modernity to give what it held out. Jones contends that the monsters — from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (the first), to today’s slasher movies — are all a consequence of the Monstrosity reality that the Enlightenment has created with revolutionary politics, materialistic scientism, psychological manipulation, and sexual liberation. Jones contends that Monsters and Horror are the outward manifestation of a people’s inward, though verbally un-confessed,  realization, that Modernity itself is one giant horror reality show. For Jones then, the Modernity project and the Horror genre are two sides of the same coin. Or perhaps better put, the Horror genre is incarnated expression of a real, though consciously suppressed, understanding that the Modernity project is one long Horror film.

Like Dr. Frankenstein’s promise to create life, so Modernity promised to create Utopia but the consequences of both have instead been a Monster that destroys everything in its wake.

Jones starts by telling the story of Mary Wollenstonecraft and the wreckage of her life as she chased the Enlightenment promise. He then teases that out as applied to Wollenstone’s daughter “Mary Godwin,” as the companion of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Jones contends that Mary Shelley’s creation of “Franknstein” was a reflection of her Bohemian lifestyle with Percy Shelley.

If Jones is correct, then we would have to conclude that the creation of the Brutlyn Jenner Monster is just the latest episode of reality as Horror show. Modernity,  like Dr. Victor Frankenstein of old, has created something they would insist is akin to real life. Like the Frankenstein of old, Brutlyn is composed of unreal and dead parts. Frankenstein was put together by old body parts. Brutlyn, as the new Frankenstein, is put together with the unreal parts of photo-shop, make up, lighting, and surgery. If electricity as technology is what brought Frankenstein to life then media coverage as our modern technology has given life to our new Monster, Brutlyn.

That Modernity has been one long episode after another of Horror film incarnation can be seen in a casual look at Paris in the 1790’s, Berlin in the 1920’s, Communist policy following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, or America following its 1960’s sexual revolution. With each incarnation both Frankenstein and Dracula appear and the victims of these blood thirsty Demons are the broken families, the children who now think horror show reality is the norm and so keep the show going when they become adults, the women who are casually used and tossed away, and the men who have become divorce fodder for the liberated woman. Western culture, thy name is Stoker, Shelley, Stevenson, King, and Barker.

“Like Mary Shelley we too are the captive of two contradictory imperatives: We as a culture can’t disavow the Enlightenment, especially its commitment to sexual liberation, and at the same time, we can’t deny that people get hurt when they act on these imperatives. In fact, people die when they act on them, no matter how altruistic their intentions are.”

HOOVER CHRONICLES FDR’S FAILURES WHICH BROUGHT US TO WAR (III)

In his book, “Freedom Betrayed,” (pg. 875f) former President Hoover chronicles 19 failures on FDR that moved the US inexorably towards an unnecessary  war (WW II). Hoover’s case is compelling.

Over the next few days I will list these failures as given by Hoover and you can judge if WW II was a “good war.”

Failure #3 — The third abysmal loss of statesmanship is when the British and French guaranteed the independence of Poland and Rumania at the end of March, 1939. It was at this point that the European democracies reversed their previous policies of keeping hands off the inevitable war between Hitler and Stalin.

It was probably the greatest blunder in the whole history of European power diplomacy. Britain and France were helpless to save Poland from invasion. By this act, however, they threw the bodies of democracy between Hitler and Stalin. By their actions they not only protected Stalin from Hitler but they enabled him to sell his influence to the highest bidder. The Allies did bid but Stalin’s price was annexation of defenseless people of the Baltic States and East Poland, a moral price which the Allies could not meet. Stalin got his price from Hitler.

Yet Hitler had no intention of abandoning his determination to expand in Southeast Europe and to destroy the Communist Vatican in Moscow. But now he must of necessity first neutralize the the Western Democracies which he proceeded to do.

The long train of the hideous WW II started from the blunder of the Polish guarantees. Roosevelt had some part in these power politics but the record is yet to complete to establish how much. ** Churchill, not yet in the government, had contributed something by goading Chamberlain to desperate action after his appeasement at Munich.

________________________

** — Hoover will later document, in his book, a conversation that took place between himself and FDR’s Ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy. In that conversation we get a sense of how instrumental FDR was in pushing Prime Minister Chamberlain to grant guarantees to Poland. Hoover writes,

“Joseph P. Kennedy called me this morning….

Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and a passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullit (US Ambassador to France) were the major factors in the British  making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to ‘put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and to make him stand up.’ Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him, in Roosevelt’s name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

Kennedy claimed that he was constantly urging Roosevelt not to be engaged in this question, but his urgings were to no avail. Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt that the British would not have made this the most gigantic blunder in history.”