Category: Apologetics

“A second problem with pluralism as a goal for our society concerns the need for social cohesion. Sociologists widely agree that a common religion is necessary to hold a society together. When the religious base of a society is undermined, or its unifying vision is lost, the fragmentation of life and the polarization of society is likely to occur. Our society’s confessional pluralism, however, prevents foundational biblical principles from being the basis of social cohesion. And, thus, the issues of public policy are becoming increasingly intractable.”

David M. Carson
God & Politics — pg. 118

The resolution commonly pursued to the problem of pluralism that Carson notes is to create a pagan civil religion with the intent of serving as the unifying glue to hold a society together. The success of such a civil religion to serve as social glue is its ability to borrow enough from the competing religions in the society to satisfy all the adherents of the different religions. The result is a civil religion that is characterized by pagan syncretism. In America this civil religion was most clearly seen in the Chapel service in Washington DC following 9/11.

The observation here is important because one clear implication is that as long as there are religions out there who insist that confessional pluralism is something that we need to institutionalize are in reality working to insure that the civil religion of pagan syncretism will be the religion of the nation. Radical two Kingdom virus people should take special note of this.

Without some religion providing the glue which makes for social cohesion the result will be cultural disintegration and balkanization.

If people want the full context of this conversation, it is taking place at,

Why Is John Calvin Still Important?

The reader also needs to know that Darryl Hart and I have a long history. Dr. Darryl Hart is one of the key promoters of the R2Kt virus. He also delights in zinging his opponents. As such I try to return the playfulness.

___________________________________________

Darryl: I guess you don’t know how you sound. If you want to know how you sound I encourage you to read the comments at IronInk where I am cross posting your comments. The people there hear you to sound like someone very confused. I agree with them.

Can you deny that defacto godlessness reigns in the public square in this country? Obviously you can’t. Indeed you are contributing to it by insisting either that the public square be deistically sanitized of “religion” or that the polytheism of all religions be allowed into the public square. Yes, indeed Mr. Darryl, godlessness does reign.

I find it amusing that you are living in a society that aborts 1.3 million people annually, that is actively warring against Christianity in the curriculum of the government schools (consider California’s recent homosexualization of the school curriculum) where the State is constantly taking up the mantle of God walking on the earth, and you can say you wouldn’t want to live in a society of godlessness. You crack me up you silly man.

You glory in this virtuous society but I bet you if the unborn could speak they might say that Iraq is better than these United States.

You continue to be ignore the reality that the common grace of God may mitigate in any given society the degree of hostility that pagans have towards Christians. Because of this the godlessness in one culture may not be as far advanced in one society that is against Christ as it is in another. Even a Ph.D. ought to be able to understand this Darryl.

To make it as explicit and simple as possible for you Darryl, some godlessness is not as bad as other godlessness because some godlessness remains comparatively muted due to the reality that the worldview of the muted godlessness is being muted because of the remaining capital of Christianity that remains in the comparatively muted godless Worldview that is informing that society. In short the contradictions have not yet worked themselves out in the direction of full throated godlessness. So, people are either for or against God’s people but that for(ness) or against(ness) is comparatively stronger or weaker depending on how far the anti-thesis has worked itself out.

Finally, in your last example, I would say it is less bad, due to God’s common grace.

How many times are we up to where you imply I am a hypocrit by serving in the CRC?

I hoped I helped you to understand concepts that my children understood when they were in the fifth grade.

BTW, I know my theology stinks, but I do think you mean to say that Christ rules, not theology. It would be hard for me to imagine a doctrine ruling, and it would even be harder for me to believe that you could entertain the rule of anything else but Christ.

First, thanks for humbly admitting that your theology stinks. That took a lot for you to admit, I’m sure. You are to be commended.

Second, certainly Christ rules, but how would we ever know Christ apart from Christology? You’re not going pentecostal on me are you Darryl?

I’ll shut off my faucet if you turn off your constant dripping.

Bret, at the risk of unleashing another torrent of words, I don’t see any in-between in your thinking (except when it comes to your remaining in a denomination — the CRC — where less in-between thinking would be useful). Everything (minus the CRC) is either-or.

You mean kind of like the idea of he who does not gather with me scatters? You mean kind of like he who is not with me is against me?

You surely are right Darryl. I do not believe that there is such a thing as neutrality.

Don’t worry about the torrent of words. On this subject I have a vast reservoir.

And bless your Ph.D. theological heart, you keep right on with your homey jabs implying I am a hypocrite by being in the CRC. How many different times at different forums have you done that now?

You seem to be saying that the United States is as hostile to true religion as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. How can you expect any Christian who would rather live in the United States than Iraq to take yourself seriously?

Oh fiddlesticks Darryl! While there is no doubt no such thing as neutrality, hostility certainly can come in varying degrees. Now, I surely agree that no one should take me seriously if I really were saying, the words you are trying to put in my mouth, that these United States are as bad as Iraq, but as I never said that, people are free to take me seriously.

Now, how people can take you seriously after advocating a neutral realm where theology does not reign leaves me quite flummoxed.

Also, you keep insisting that you separate church and state, but since the state administers justice and grace, and does so on the basis of administering God’s word, there does seem to be at least a measure of redundancy between church and state.

I don’t know where you get some things you keep repeating. I keep correcting and you keep repeating what I’ve corrected you on.

Ah well, that’s part of the fun of it all isn’t it?

I tell you what. You quit with your downpour of misrepresentations and I’ll quit with my torrent of words.

Zrim,

One of the interesting aspects to the prevailing notions of parochial education, as seen in this discussion, is the idea that children and adults are somehow in different categories with regard to their respective spiritual states. Grounded in the understanding that they are in impressionable developmental stages it is not further more carefully considered that a distinction must be made between creational and spiritual development. Rather, the differences are collapsed and it is assumed that there is a direct correspondence between creational and spiritual status. The upshot is that children must be hedged in while adults are free to roam in and out of sacred and secular venues with nary a worry.

First, there is no such thing by secular, if by secular you mean something that isn’t dependent upon and reflective of some faith system or religion. Adults are free to roam in and out of venues that are informed and controlled by various faiths.

Second, I would suggest that the way you make the distinction between creational and spiritual development is gnostic. You are suggesting that children can be put in a climate where they are taught to think in an adversarial way to Biblical Christianity and yet they will not be affected in their spiritual development. This makes me think that the only way I will understand your backward perspective is if I spend some time standing on my head.

The idea that what you are calling creational development is isolated and separated from spiritual development is just one more example of the constant dualism’s that we find in the R2kt virus system. Because there is a dualism between creational and spiritual development it is possible to saturate your children in a creational pagan school setting without there be any effect on your children’s spiritual developoment. Dualism. Gnosticism.

But according to this logic, the older convert, say in high school, college or beyond, should drop out of his/her secular educational environs until he/she is declared “satisfactorily grounded in the faith” (whatever that might entail).

Actually, if they are not grounded in the faith that might not be a bad idea unless they have the capacity to learn what is not true and what is true at the same time. I have personally known some people who became converted in post-graduate studies and were able to do that.

But nobody ever actually seems to demand this of older converts; they only demand it of physically younger believers. Not only that, but this seems to suggest that by virtue of an older age alone sinners are somehow less vulnerable to the effects and influences of sin.

You cite that nobody demands this of older converts and yet you frequently observe what a mess the current Church is. Could there be a correspondence between those two statements?

So, I think this observation of yours, bounces off of somebody who thinks it would be a good idea for older converts to somehow get grounded in their faith as quickly as possible. Another thing that needs to be said here is that given the way that God designs life, our foundation of truth is to be laid when we are young. If we don’t get it when we are young, the nature of life makes it difficult to get it later.

Evidently, the ages of 18 and/or 21 must be the point at which this vulnerability is significantly lessened. Does that really make sense, especially when plenty of fully grown and schooled-up believers clearly can get so much wrong while younger ones can be observed quietly remaining faithful? But I just can’t bring myself to admit that my physical age hedges me in…isn’t that Jesus’ job? I know it drawls howls around here to suggest that catechesis with dad every night buries the influences of either sacred or secular educators every day, but something tells me that at root in much of this child/adult divide is more a modern idea that youth are to be handled with kid gloves because they are so very different. This over against a Christian notion that sin is an equal opportunity affliction and cares very little for creational walls built to keep it out and righteousness in.

Your quip about Jesus’ job indicates that you seem to think that Jesus works apart from means. Sure it is Jesus’ job and the way he often does his job his by parents being faithful to the vows they made when they brought their children to Baptism.

Second, I would say that most home schoolers don’t suddenly set their children free at 18 or 21 the way you are suggesting. Home school parents practice what might be called incremental exposure. Home school parents put their children in situations that are appropriate to their age all along the way. They then debrief and train. In such a way when the children get to 18 or 21 the children have been trained. Even then though, when they attend the pagan universities there will be phone calls home asking parents about what they learned in this or that class. Indeed, with my oldest daughter I had to attend a class to politely inform the professor he was getting the puritans wrong in some pretty significant ways. He received my correction. Said he would look into my points and later came back to my daughter and told her, “your father was right.” So, Zrim, the training doesn’t stop at 18 or 21 and it doesn’t even stop while they are in school.

You really are constructing straw men.

Darryl writes,

Bret,

Believe it or not, I understand that Geneva was different from Philadelphia. Calvin ministered in the shadow of Constantine. All of the creeds from Reformed churches in the 16th century advocate a state church. I think they were mistaken, and I can find teachings in Calvin about the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom (not to mention Ursinus) which imply that the church should minister the keys of the kingdom (not the state), and that this ministry is spiritual and moral, not physical or political. But I do honestly get that Geneva had a state church. (I wish the critics of state schools would also see that Geneva had a state school.)

Darry,

There is no shadow of Constantine, if by that you mean, that Constantine can be avoided. All governmental arrangements are Theocracies — whether in a defacto or dejure sense. You seem to keep running right by that.

Second, no theonomist advocates that ministers run the civil realm. You seem to keep implying this and it really is horse hockey. Also, no theonomist denies the spiritual nature of Christ’s Kingdom, if by that you mean that Kingdom is ruled by Word and Sacrament. Still, all because the Kingdom is ruled by Word and Sacrament that doesn’t mean that that spiritual and moral authority doesn’t incarnate itself in a physical and political fashion.

I agree that Geneva had a State School. I don’t think that was, or is, the optimum arrangement since I believe education should belong to the family sphere.

Darryl,

So if you want to stand full-stop behind the 16th c. political/ecclesiastical arrangements, and don’t want to disavow the idea of killing professing believers in Christ’s name, how can you conceivably live with the current political arrangements and subscribe to those creeds?

By professing that the current governmental arrangement, due to its various wicked policies (Roe vs. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, Theft on an obscene scale, etc.) no longer has legitimacy. We live under an illegal regimen. We obey because we know that the State can beat us up. We wait for God’s good pleasure to raise up lesser magistrates to petition on our behalf, and failing that, to lead us against wickedness. Until that happens we bear God’s just judgments against us.

Darryl,

Don’t you have to cross your fingers on the civil magistrate? Even the Covenanters in the U.S. had to learn how to participate in the political process without an affirmation of Christ as Lord in the constitution.

In dealing with the current civil magistrate we must be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.

Darry,

So isn’t there something binding on you to take up arms and overthow the current government?

Yes, what is binding on me is that we are currently living under God’s just judgment against us, as exhibited in His punishing us with wicked magistrates. What releases me from that binding is God raising up lesser magistrates to oppose the wicked magistrates. Much like Americans had their magistrates lead them in the American war for Independence and much like Southerners had their magistrates lead them against the wicked Federal magistrates.

Darryl,

I guess I’ll have to deal with what may come if you succeed in grabbing power. But for now it does seem a lot easier to beat up on me when you’re real problem is with a state that has established a church that is anti-God. HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF!!???!!!

By reminding myself of God’s severe mercy, great providence, that His judgments are altogether just, and that He will turn to my good whatever adversity he sends me in this sad world.

Oh, and by keeping my powder dry for the time that God raises up a righteous magistrate.

Darryl,

I also understand that the government is not fair and balanced, and that neutrality with respect to the God of the universe is impossible for every person. I also understand the problems of public schools and am quite comfortable with parents deciding to home school or send to private schools. What I am troubled by is a good point being used to make up reality. We do not have an established “church” as in something where our citizenship is bound up with worshiping a false god.

That is only because you’re looking in the wrong places. You expect the false God to come up and greet you by saying, “Hi, I am the false God and this is how my worshipers here are worshiping me.” People with eyes wide open clearly see that the God here is Demos (autonomy — The people have become as god) and the established Church is the government schools and while a few citizens fall through the cracks, Demos realizes that if he gets the majority the rest will be insignificant as it comes to control.

Darryl,

Thankfully, we are still able to practice our religion freely in this country. And thankfully, the government does not tell my communion how to conduct its worship. So again its fine if you want to analyze philosophical the problems that attend liberal democracy in the United States. Take a number because the line is getting longer. But that analysis does not give a right to make irresponsible statements either about churches that are really schools, worship that is simply a property tax bill, or government bias that actually protects the way most of us worship both publicly and privately.

You can practice your religion freely? Well, I suppose you can, if your religion is one where it is wrong to condemn wickedness in the high places of the civil realm. Those of us who believe that freedom of religion means that should be allowed to speak prophetically against wickedness have been threatened by the State with various laws prohibiting such religion. It is completely reasonable to note that Schools are Churches. Public teachers are catechizers. Curriculum is catechism. Political correctness taught is the new prayer book. The long day in school is equivalent to the ancient Churches matins, vespers, and lauds. The School has its high holy Days (Martin Luther King B. Day, winter break, spring break, etc.) which is equated with the feast days of old. It’s all there Darryl, you just have to know where to look.

Darryl,

I am an anti-federalist and I think the U.S. went off the rails in 1789. So I have my alarms. But can’t we get a grip on the differences between Geneva in 1560 and Philadelphia in 2008, and can’t we see that somethings are better and some are worse. If we can’t, then how can we tell the difference between real persecution and not having a seat at the table? Maybe I’m a coward (there’s an opening for you, Bret), but I like life.

I like life also Darryl. And obviously you’re very brave in defense of cowardice. I commend you for that. I guess I more inclined to agree with Knox’s estimation of Geneva that, it was “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles,” then I agree with your apparently high estimation of Philadelphia 2008.

I don’t want a seat at the table Darryl. Since Christ is Lord of the table, I want the table. I agree that we are not suffering real persecution now. But real persecution doesn’t come apart from a process building to that end. I’d like to strangle the baby of persecution in the cradle.

I wish you could get a grip on the whole idea of inevitable categories.