Category: Apologetics

Article Review of D. G. Hart’s “Church Not State” Part I

At the link below Dr. D. G. Hart seeks to establish his vision of a common square without Christianity in the name of Christianity.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/church-not-state/

In this article Hart seeks to designate his view as “the conservative view,” but as the this review unfolds it is hoped that it will be clearly seen that Dr. Hart’s views, if they are Christian, are of the anabaptist variety, and that they are Libertarian and definitely not Conservative.

Dr. Hart opens his article and his first problematic presupposition is laid bare in the first and second paragraph when he suggests that it is possible for religion to be excluded from the public square. Hart writes, “Religion was honored in the public square—and incorporated into politics.” This is significant because Hart is going to argue in his article that religion should not be honored in the public square, or conversely that religion is most honored when it is excluded from the public square. Hart desires for the public square to remain naked in terms of religion. This problematic presupposition shows up again in Dr. Hart’s second paragraph when he writes, The loss of religion’s formerly privileged place…. Note again that Hart assumes that it is possible for religion to ever not have a privileged place in the public square.

Of course the problem with this is that religion in the public square is a inescapable concept. Dr. Hart repeatedly misses the fact that it is never a question of whether or not the public square will be shaped and formed by religion but only a question of which religion will influence the public square. Even were it possible to strip the public square of the influence of religion that stripping of the public square of the influence of religion would come about from the influence of the religion that states no religion should influence the public square. Thus Dr. Hart’s opening presupposition about religion and the public square is seen to be an absurdity. Religion’s privileged place in the public square remains, even if it is not the Christian religion’s privileged place.

I’m fairly confident that Dr. Hart would say that he wrote this article as a Historian and not a Theologian and yet Dr. Hart’s article is laden with (bad) theological assumptions. Hart’s appeal to history is read through his Anabaptist theological glasses. I only offer this observation because another of Dr. Hart’s methodological problems is that he assumes that he can cordon his history from theology. Dr. Hart would have us believe that his history is not theologically conditioned and yet his whole article screams of Anabaptist theological premises.

In Dr. Hart’s third paragraph we find this statement,

“Over the last 30 years, born-again Protestants have overwhelmingly backed Republican candidates in the belief that for religion to matter, it must influence not only what people do when they gather for worship but also what they do every other day of the week.”

People should not miss this sentence because implicit in this statement is Dr. Hart’s argument that Christianity (that is the religion, after all, that Hart is referencing) doesn’t need to influence what born-again Protestants do every other day of the week. For Dr. Hart Christianity is something that should influence born-again Protestants in the Redemptive realm but it should not influence them in the common realm, or, to try and put it more charitably for Dr. Hart, Christianity is not a religion that finds its credibility in influencing the public realm. In Dr. Hart’s fifth paragraph we find that theme referred to again when he laments about “conservatives (having) identified with arguments for the worldly relevance of faith…” Here again Dr. Hart is going to stump for a conservatism that explicitly eschews relevance of the Christian faith in the world. How can anyone take this position of Dr. Hart to be Conservative, let alone Christian?

Dr. Hart then tries to convince us that the “truly conservative position is to contend for faith’s own inherent merits, quite apart from any benediction from the civil government,” and Professor Hart worries for that his advocacy for this putatively sui generis “conservative position” is to risk his “sounding liberal—or even worse, secular.” Actually, strictly speaking it sounds Anabaptist.

We find Dr. Hart’s position here paralleling nicely the Reformed Anabaptist John Piper writings. Dr. Piper agrees with Dr. Hart when he writes,

We express a passion for the supremacy of God…

5) by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order… Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths)… We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism. “If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight” (John 18:36)….

I quite agree with Dr. Hart that the Christian faith has it’s own inherent merits and it is precisely because of those inherent merits that the Christian faith pronounces benediction or cursing on the civil government that pronounces benedictions or curses upon the Christian faith. Dr. Hart’s problem here, once again, is that he presupposes that the common realm is, can be, and even should be, neutral.

In part I of this critical review of Dr. Hart’s opinion piece we have found that Dr. Hart’s position is plagued by irrational presuppositions that argue for the neutrality of the public square faith, the irrelevance of the Christian faith for the public square, and the fact that the Christian faith should not influence the public square. We have seen that Dr. Hart’s reasoning parallel’s Dr. John Pipers reasoning on the same subject thus showing the truth that “politics do indeed make strange bedfellows,” and we have begun to suggest that Dr. Hart is more than flirting with a Anabaptist theology that is informing his social order theory. We will see more of that as we continue this critical review.

Rage Against The Machine — Reflections On The Belhar

The Belhar document reads more of Karl Marx than it does of Jesus Christ. This can be seen in the way that the Belhar exudes the stereo-typical Liberation theology motifs. Drawing from European “theologies” and Marxism, Liberation theologians developed their own theology by radically reinterpreting Scripture with “a bias toward the poor.” We see this in the Belhar w/ its statement that,

• that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged

As we have noted previously this statement by itself, were we living in a Church that understood God’s Revelation, would be enough to end the whole Belhar project. God is only God in a special way to His people, regardless of their social status or class ranking. God does not love the poor in Christ more than He loves the rich in Christ, and God does not love the poor outside of Christ more than He loves the rich outside of Christ. God hates workers of iniquity and workers of iniquity are all those who have not sued for peace with God, through Jesus Christ alone. Only on a insane Marxist liberation playground is God, in a special way, the God of the destitute, the poor, and the wronged, though God is God, in a special way, the God of the poor in Christ when they are attacked by the rich outside of Christ, and He is God in a special way to the destitute in Christ when they are persecuted by the rich outside of Christ, and He is God in a special way to the wronged in Christ when they are persecuted by the wrong ones outside of Christ.

THE BELHAR AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY — PRESUPPOSING WHITE BIAS

Liberation theology also begins with the premise that all theology is biased – that is, particular theologies reflect the economic and social classes of those who developed them. Accordingly, the traditional theology predominant in North America and Europe is said to “perpetuate the interests of white, North American/European, capitalist males.”

That this is part and parcel of the Belhar agenda is seen by a overture to Synod that is coming out of Classis Lake Erie. In that overture we have all kinds of the kind of language that is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The Overture from George Vander Weit, Akron CRC and now Lake Erie reads,

“Thus, even while we consider a document that we hope will improve race relations among us, racism is evident both in the comments of Anglos and ethnic minorities.”

“No matter what we do with the Belhar, our very discussion of it reveals how insidious and pervasive the matter of racism among us is.”

“The Akron CRC council overtures Classis Lake Erie to overture Synod 2012:

A. To call the denomination to repent of the personal and institutional racism that causes separation between fellow members, excludes some from full participation in the life of our denomination and hinders the denomination in achieving the diversity goals it has set for itself.”

Note that according to this overture racism is evident both in the comments of Anglos and ethnic minorities. Now, this sounds like a concession, in as much as “ethnic minorities” are mentioned but as the denomination is predominantly white it doesn’t take much to realize where the real problem is in the denomination. Note that according to this overture that racism in the CRC is pervasive and insidious among us. Note that according to this overture the CRC is guilty of personal and institutional racism. All of this is the language of Liberation theology. There is more of Marx than Christ behind the Belhar.

LIBERATION THEOLOLGY AND THE BELHAR — PRESUPPOSING THE NECESSITY OF A REDISTRIBUTIONIST MODE

Continuing on with Liberation theology and how the Belhar reflects this. The traditional theology the Liberation theology is seeking to overthrow allegedly “supports and legitimates a political and economic system – democratic capitalism – which is responsible for exploiting and impoverishing the Third World.”

Now the Belhar Confession necessarily moves us in this direction when it, in section 4, ascribes the presence of poverty and destitution in human society to injustice alone (in apparent contradiction to passages such as Proverbs 6:10-11; 11:24; 21:17; 23:21; 28:19), and asserts that the victims of this “injustice” are, “in a special way,” God’s people.

This two-fold assertion necessarily leads the church to two conclusions:

That the central work of God and his church in this fallen world is a work of justice rather than a work of mercy, and
that “doing justice” is principally the work of redistributing the material goods of this world, taking from those who have more and giving to those (God’s special people) who have less.

The Accra Confession (2004), which is the philosophical, theological, and political offspring of the Belhar Confession (1986) (see note below), takes this position to its logical conclusion by making belief in this kind of public policy an element of true faith. It also proclaims that “neo-liberal” economics, which it defines, in part, by belief in private property rights and free market methods, must be rejected by all Reformed Christians, “in the name of the gospel.”#

Note: The connection between the Belhar and Accra Confessions is well attested and cannot be ignored. In fact, the Colloquium on the Accra and Belhar Confessions, held January 15-17, 2010, outlined this connection, and their concluding document (attached), approved by its participants, including Peter Noteboom of the CRC, makes this position a matter of public record within the Reformed community. Any assertion that we can adopt the Belhar without essentially adopting the Accra is shortsighted.

So, once again on this score we see that the Belhar grows out of the soil of Marxist Liberation theology.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE BELHAR — SHARED METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Karl Marx once famously said, “the point is not merely to understand the world, but to change it.” Liberation theology follows this music and the Belhar serves as a choir singing this tune.

Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation, provides us with a representative methodology. Like other liberationists, Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.

Gutierrez emphasizes that theology is not just to be learned, it is to be done. In his thinking, “praxis” is the starting point for theology. Praxis (from the Greek prasso: “to work”) involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed – and out of this, theological perceptions will continually emerge. The theologian must therefore be immersed in the struggle for transforming society and proclaim his message from that point.

In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the first stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed.

That the Belhar partakes of this Marxist liberation theology mindset is seen in the fact that the Belhar is one long document that says very little in the way of Theology but is long on a praxis, the goal of which is to change the world. Now, in earlier entries we saw that the change that the Belhar is looking for is open to interpretation. I would say that given we are seeing what a Marxist document it is that the change it is looking for is a change not in the direction of Biblical Christianity but a change towards socialism.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE BELHAR — SHARED VIEWS OF SIN

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez’s, liberationists interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Liberation Theologian, Gutierrez explains that “sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men.” [Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1971), 175.]

Once again we see the Belhar just boiling over with this kind of language.

Repeatedly in the Belhar we here of “the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men” with its constant bleating about a unity that is left undefined as to the foundation upon which it gathers men and that is left unknown in terms of that which we are to be united in except some vague concept of “justice.” Also we hear the Belhar regard sin as a social, historical fact when it inveighs against the “rich” and speaks of,

that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

As Gutierrez explains sin is not a merely interior reality, according to the Belhar, it is a social historical fact.

In observing just these few aspects of classic Liberation Marxist theology we can see that the Belhar document ought to not only not be received as a Confessional document for the CRC but that it should not even be received as a contemporary testimony. Biblical Christianity does not equal Marxism, neither as a confessional document nor as a contemporary testimony.

If Hart’s Scholarship Is Anything Like His Internet Interaction — Katy Bar The Door

Darryl G. Hart to Mark Van Der Molen:

Mark, you mean the overture written by some who accused Westminster California of Pelagianism?

(Of course, Hart thinks that it is absurd to suggest that Westminster California might be guilty of Pelagianism, so this is his attempt to portray the authors of the overture as kooks.)

Mark responds to DGH:

Darryl, would you supply some evidence that some ministers made this accusation?

(Rather than rushing to judgment, Mark asks Hart for the evidence.)

DGH to Mark:

Mark, are you looking for more evidence or are you taken aback that this charge would be made? I’m reluctant to give you another flawed source to quote against ministers in your denomination.

Anyway, I thought you knew more about the criticisms than I did.

(Notice that initially Hart defers. Of course, he gives a reason for his deferral, but see what happens.)

Mark to DGH:

No, Darryl, it’s neither of those things.

To put it in your terms, I’m just calling your bluff.

So where’s your evidence of an OPC minister accusing WSC of Pelagianism?

(Attorney Van Der Molen clarifies his request.)

DGH to Mark:

Mark, I thought you thought I didn’t know what was going on in the OPC. Why don’t you stick to the URC and leave Presbyterianism to us Gentiles?

Here is an excerpt from the lengthy Kerux (http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf) review of The Law Is Not of Faith

(it culminates a lengthy introduction to a bloated review that puts the entire book in the context of coming down on the wrong side of Augustine vs. Pelagius):

“This is unwitting Pelagianism (calling it “typological” does not alter its essential and substantial character) and Augustinian Calvinists are correct to see it as a threat to sola gratia as Augustine saw it 1600 years ago.”

I guess this just proves that no one reads Kerux.

Of course, saying that a particular author is committing unwitting Pelagianism is quite a bit different, from having “accused Westminster California of Pelagianism,” but wait – there’s more!

Mark to DGH:

Darryl, I asked for evidence that the authors of the overture I mentioned had accused WSC of Pelagianism.

You answer with the Kerux article who argued that theology that says sinners can “merit” God’s reward is “unwitting” Pelagianism.

None of the authors of the Kerux article were authors of the overture.

So, where’s the evidence?

(Mark notices the key problem with Hart’s evidence. Hart’s evidence isn’t from the pen of one of the authors that Hart was defaming.)

Mark continuing:

For the readers’ {and Darryl’s} benefit, here’s the overture:

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5975:overture-proposed-to-opc-presbytery-seeks-study-on-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-in-the-mosaic-covenant&catid=50:churches&Itemid=133

Notice that Mark provides evidence.

DGH to Mark:

Mark, so let me get this straight. WSC is guilty of infidelity for the slightest infraction of departure from the glories of neo-Calvinism. But if an overture originates from a presbytery where a seminary is located whose founder has a journal that makes complaints about a book similar to those of the overture, it’s only coincidence?

Once again, your slipperiness is astounding. Just be honest and above board in your disagreements. Make a case that this view is outside the standards of our churches. Don’t simply traffic in innuendo.

At least the 2kers are upfront about their disagreements. Your complaint seems to be no more than they disagree with what you’ve always thought. I wonder where you would have come down on Calvin and Luther.

————————–

Rather than apologizing for his defamation, Hart accuses and defames Mark of “slipperiness” and suggests that Mark is dishonest. Then, without batting an eye, Hart accuses and defames Mark, suggesting that he not “simply traffic in innuendo.”

One wonders whether Hart’s presbytery is aware that this is how Hart acts on the Internet.

________________

All this from a exchange at Green Baggins.

This post cut and pasted from Turretin Fan’s Blog.

Rev. McAtee Contra Rev. Stellman — Rev. McAtee Contra R2K (Again) — Part II

Rev. Stellman writes,

What, then, of the dominion mandate?

We read in Psalm 8 a divine commentary on Genesis 1:28, one in which David speaks of man thus:

You have made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet… (vv. 5-6).

Sounds great, right? It sounds like the dominion mandate is still in force, reiterated in all its prelapsarian glory. But again, we need to keep reading. When we come to Hebrews 2, which is a commentary on Psalm 8 (which is a commentary on Genesis 1), we see a truly Christocentric interpretation of the dominion mandate. According to the writer,
Now in putting everything in subjection to [man], [God] left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (vv. 8b-9).

Talk about an already/not yet hermeneutic! According to the author here, there is a promise to man of dominion that is still outstanding and unfulfilled, one which we do “not yet see.” But what do we see? “We see Jesus” who, like Adam, was made for a litte while lower than the angels. He is the One who exercises dominion, the One to whom has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Will we, the men and women whom Jesus represented and whose nature he assumed, ever get to share in this dominion? Indeed we will, but the writer to the Hebrews insists that this dominion is “not yet.” Immediately preceding the quotation from Psalm 8, Hebrews says:

Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking (v. 5).

The implication is that though this present fallen order is not under man’s control, the world to come will be. The conclusion, then, is clear: The dominion mandate of Genesis 1 has not been revoked, but due to the Fall, man cannot by his own cultural labors usher in the power and glory of the kingdom like Adam could have. Rather, this promise is now reformulated Christocentrically, with Jesus experiencing “the dominion of the resurrection” now, as demonstrated in his ascension to the Father’s right hand. We, on the other hand, do not see these things with our eyes, but only embrace them by faith and hopeful cross-bearing. The day will come, however, when faith will give way to sight and the cross will give way to glory. On that day, and not before, “the kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,” and we will reign with him forever and ever.

1.) Rev. Stellman’s point is that because Christ reigns from heaven the Church, as organism, is not to seek to extend the Crown Rights of King Jesus over every area of life. In order to reign in this fashion the Church, as organism, has to wait until Christ’s return in order to share in the Lord Christ’s dominion.

And yet, Hebrews 11, which Rev. Stellman does not allude to, tells us that we are to emulate the faith of the Old Testament saints. And some of the faith of those OT saints we are to emulate was of such a character that,

32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

These OT saints, who earlier in the chapter were described as “strangers and exiles on the earth,” still had the character of faith to conquer Kingdoms, and the quality of the OT Saints faith is what is being held up to the Hebrews as faith to emulate. Apparently the writer of Hebrews was not a advocate of R2K “theology,” for if he were he never never would have included examples of Faith for these NT saints to emulate that included “conquering Kingdoms.” Apparently the inspired writer didn’t get Rev. Stellman’s memo that the NT saints are not to share in Christ’s dominion until He returns.

2.) Rev. Stellman’s analysis likewise falters by the fact that he conveniently leaves out other divinely inspired commentary on Psalm 8. In I Corinthians 15 St. Paul gives us some commentary that makes hash of Rev. Stellman’s Klinean amillennial theorizing.

22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God[c] has put all things in subjection under his feet.”

Paul’s presentation of the postmillennial kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-27 overturns all the innovative commentary offered by Rev. Stellman. This clear Scriptural testimony reminds us that, contrary to the teaching offered in the blockquote above, that we should anticipate Christ’s, in principle already accomplished gospel triumph as it unfolds in history.

The teaching here in I Corinthians 15 forces us to take the strongest exception to Rev. Stellman’s handling of Hebrews 8 for what I Corinthians 15 teaches is that which is to precede the conclusion of history is not the gloom and despair found in the amillennial report but rather in vs. 24 we read, “the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father.” The end of earth history is brought about “whenever” (literally) Christ “delivers up” the triumphant kingdom to the Father.

Dr. Ken Gentry helps us out with the Greek construction of I Corinthians 15,

In the construction before us the “delivering up” of the kingdom must occur in conjunction with “the end.” The Greek for “delivers up” here is (paradidoi), which is a verb in the present tense and subjunctive mode. When the word translated “when” or “whenever” (hotan) is followed by the present subjunctive (as here), it indicates a present contingency that occurs in conjunction with the main clause, which is “then comes the end.” Here the contingent factor is in regard to the date of the “end”: “whenever” it may be that he delivers up the kingdom, then the end will come.

Associated with the predestined end here is the prophecy that the kingdom of Christ will be delivered up to the Father. But this occurs only “when he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.” In the Greek text the hotan (“when”) is here followed by the aorist subjunctive, katargese. This construction indicates that the action of this subordinate clause precedes the action of the main clause. The phrase here should be translated: “after he had destroyed all dominion, authority and power.”

So, in summarizing what the exegesis is teaching us, we note that the “end” is dependent. The “end” is dependent upon whenever the Lord Christ delivers up the Kingdom to the Father. However, this only occurs “after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.” Consequently, “the end” will not occur, Christ will not turn the kingdom over to the Father, until after he has abolished his opposition. Here is the certain hope of postmillennialism!

Listening to Dr. Ken Gentry again,

As we continue to vs. 25 of I Corinthians 15 we read, “he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Here the present infinitive translated “reign” indicates the continuance of a reign then in progress. References elsewhere to the Psalm 110 passage specifically mention his sitting at God’s right hand. Sitting at the right hand entails active ruling and reigning, not passive resignation. he is now actively “the ruler over the kings of the earth” who “has made us kings and priests to his God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever” (Rev. 1:5).

Here in 1 Corinthians 15:25 we learn that he must continue to reign, he must continue to put his enemies under his feet—but until when? The answer is identical to that which has already been concluded: it is expected before the end of history. Earlier it was awaiting the abolishing of all rule, authority and power; here it delayed until “he has put all his enemies under his feet.” The repetition of the expectation of his sure conquest before the end is significant. Furthermore, the last enemy that will be subdued is death, which is subdued in conjunction with the Resurrection that occurs at his coming. But the subduing of his other enemies occurs before this, before the Resurrection.

In verse 27 it is clear that he has the title to rule, for the Father “has put everything under his feet.” This is the Pauline expression (borrowed from Psa. 8:6) that is equivalent to Christ’s declaration that “all authority has been given Me.” Christ has the promise of victory and he has the right to victory. Psalm 110, especially as expounded by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, shows he will have the historical, pre-consummation victory as his own before his coming.

So, we see here that if we are to listen to all the New Testament commentary on Psalm 8:6 and not just the commentary that Rev. Stellman would direct our attention to, we can not conclude that there the Dominion mandate is a “Spiritual” dominion, or that it is a Dominion Christ has no intent of bring to bear until His return. Rev. Stellman’s theology is all “not yet,” and while we must surely avoid the opposite error of having a theology that is all “now,” we can surely see that all of Scripture does not allow us the retreatist mindset that Rev. Stellman’s teaching inculcates in God’s people who take it seriously.

3.) Rev. Stellman seems to be on the verge of denying the Unio Christi. God has placed all things under the feet of Christ. We (the church) are the body of Christ and the physical presence of Christ on earth. In other words we are the feet, connected to the Head, under which all things have been placed. To suggest that the head (Christ) has Dominion without His body taking any part in that Dominion strikes me as a casting asunder what God has placed together. Now, once again, it would be a mistake to embrace a eschatology that is too over-realized but it is just as grievous an error to embrace a eschatology that is too under-realized. Remember, one of the ways that the new covenant is distinguished from the old covenant is that in the old covenant the “not yet” of the “now, not yet” was front-loaded because the King and the Kingdom had not yet come. However, with the coming of King Christ, and with His ascension to rule we are now living in a covenant that is front loaded with the “now.” Now, certainly a “not yet” remains but compared to the Old and worse covenant it is a retiring “not yet.” One of my problems with the Escondido “Theologians” is that they seem to live in the old and worse covenant with their front loaded “not yet” pessimism. The Lord Christ has bound the strong man. The Lord Christ pronounced “It is Finished.” The Lord Christ has ascended on High and is seated the right hand of the Father in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet (note the Psalm 8 commentary again) and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body (note the unio Christi theme again), the fullness of him who fills all in all.

4.) We see this heavy gloom and doom “not yet” theology in Rev. Stellman’s statement, The implication is that though this present fallen order is not under man’s control the world to come will be.”

Remember, the point that Rev. Stellman is laboring to prove is that Redeemed man should not have dominion, nor should expect to have dominion, so when Rev. Stellman says the above italicized statement what he is telling us is, by way of logical necessity, that non-redeemed man will have dominion. Look, Dominion is an inescapable category. Either the redeemed will have it, or the Christ haters will have it. There is no neutrality. You can not make Dominion go away by pretending there is a neutral common realm where nobody and / or everybody will have dominion. All the Escondidoists have to do is open their eyes. Is it not self evident (a little “Natural Law” lingo there for my R2K fans) that currently Dominion is being exercised by the Christ haters in the common realm?

So, what Rev. Stellman does is he concedes that the “age to come” ushered in by our Lord Christ is to have no impact in his “common realm” — a realm that is characterized in the Scripture as “this present wicked age.” This is a very odd stance for a minister of the Gospel to advance.

5.) When Rev. Stellman writes, “man cannot by his own cultural labors usher in the power and glory of the kingdom like Adam could have,” he does those who oppose him a disservice for none of us believe that man can by his own cultural labors usher in the power and glory of the Kingdom like Adam could have.” All of us who oppose R2K Escondido Theology believe that the Spirit of God ushers in the already present in principle Kingdom in its finality as men who are filled with the Spirit of God increasingly bring all things into submission to God’s revelation. It is not man, in his own power who usher’s in the power and glory of the Kingdom but man as he humbly submits to God’s instruction as he is filled by the Spirit of the living God to do so. There is no humanism in those who oppose Rev. Stellman.

6.) Rev. Stellman gives us a “tell” in his theology when he writes, “On that day, and not before, “the kingdom of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,” and we will reign with him forever and ever/”

This is classic Klinean amillennialism. Rev. Stellman has told us bluntly and with the full force of his expression that the Kingdom of God is not present in this world. Oh, sure, it might be present in the Church, but the Kingdom that Christ brought is not and never will be invading this present wicked age. In my way of thinking that is a breath-taking assertion and explains why the R2K lads are forever railing against notions of “Christian Education,” “Christian Families,” “Christian Magistrates,” or “Christian culture.” It is their conviction that these areas, being non-redemptive in definition can not be affected by the impact of the “age to come” on these realities as they exist in this present wicked age.

Besides what I’ve covered in Parts I & II of McAtee Contra Stellman, what Rev. Stellman has written is something I fully agree with.

Rail Against The Machine — Reflection On The Belhar;

The Belhar would find us confessing,

We believe

• that God has entrusted the church with the message of reconciliation in and through Jesus Christ; that the church is called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, that the church is called blessed because it is a peacemaker, that the church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells

Now remember the problem that we have recognized with the Belhar is its ambiguity. The reason for that ambiguity is lodged in the reality that we do not know what meaning the drafters of the Belhar are filling their words with. We need to keep in mind in this discussion that while words have true meaning in themselves, one tactic that is used by a alien worldveiw to overthrow an existing worldview is to retain the form of the word while emptying it of its true meaning and then filling that word with a novel meaning unique to the worldview that the word is now dwelling. Purposeful ambiguity thus becomes a chief weapon for those seeking to introduce non-Biblical thinking. The Church has had to fight this tactic of subterfuge by purposeful ambiguity for millennium. If one reads carefully through books like Jude or I John one sees that a similar tactic was being used there as the Gnostics / Docetists were retaining the language and jargon of the Christian faith but were filling it with a meaning that was unique to their alien world and life view. In the 20th century, in the Modernist vs. Liberal controversy that roiled the Church the battle was fought over the tactic of the Liberals / neo-orthodox to empty Christian words and jargon of its orthodox meaning only to fill those words and that jargon with a meaning that was alien to Biblical Christianity. In all such contests the form of Christianity is maintained but the thing itself is mutated into something unrecognizable to those who previously identified with it.

This is the kind of ambiguity we find throughout the Belhar. Over and over again we find words, concepts, and jargon used that sounds familiar to the Christian ear but upon closer examination one is left wondering if the words used, left undefined as they are, really mean what they have historically meant or if those words are being used ambiguously in pursuit of subterfuge.

The emboldened words in the paragraph above is just such an example.

What few people in the American setting recognize is that the words “witness by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” have a decidedly political meaning in the light of statements that have been made by liberation theologians. In other words what we have in the phrase “witness by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” is a phrase that has been co-opted by some of the Liberation Theologians. Dr Allan Boesak, a key drafter of the Belhar and one influenced by Liberation theology and theologians, explained the above emboldened phrase like this:

“The New Jerusalem is no future world somewhere else. No, the new Jerusalem comes from Heaven into this reality… The New Jerusalem is no mirage from the beyond… It does not need to wait for eternity. This new Jerusalem will arise from the ashes of all that which today is called Pretoria. For the old things have passed away.”

Now, when you read the quote immediately above and then juxtapose it with this liberation theology inspired quote below from Dr. Boesak suddenly the implications of the Belhar take on foreboding meaning,

“[Black Power] is action to achieve justice and liberation for black people. It does not purport to be the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the true Christian church. Black Theology is how black theologians understand Jesus Christ, the Spirit, the church, etc., in relation to justice and liberation

Farewell To Innocence: A Socio Ethical Study On Black Theology And Black Power
Dr. Allen Boesak — pg. 71

Now, in light of these words one wonders if the New Jerusalem in which righteousness dwells is in fact a community ruled by Black Liberation Marxist theologians and inhabited by disciples of James Cone. At the very least we see that the phrase “the church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” is one that is filled with ambiguity. If the Belhar is adopted that phrase could be read in terms of its historic Christian meaning or it could easily be read in terms of Liberation theology. Do we want to affirm a Confession that we are not sure what it means?