Category: Apologetics

Rev. Rick Phillips is a fairly well known PCA minister who is a two Kingdom advocate Recently he weighed in on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright incident. I want to take a minute to look at what two kingdomist Phillips had to say.

Having been preaching the prophet Micah for several months, I have discovered quite a lot of concern in the Bible over social ethics, and I have often reflected on how little attention such concerns receive in evangelical circles. A thoroughly biblical worldview will speak to both private and social ethics, and for evangelicals to speak persuasively to the culture we need to be strong in both.

Note here that Phillips is encouraging ‘evangelicals’ to speak persuasively to the culture. That is good as far as it goes. Still, Phillips nowhere suggests that the Church as the Church should speak persuasively to the culture. It seems it is only individual evangelicals who should speak persuasively to the culture and not the Church as the Church. Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s problem isn’t that he was speaking persuasively to the culture from the pulpit, as Phillips will say in the next quote. Wright’s problem is that he was speaking as the spokesman of some other God besides the God of the Bible from the pulpit.

Listen, the problem with this approach is seen beautifully in the California Judge H. Walter Croskey who also is a presbyterian elder and who just rendered a ruling that implied that the State owns the children and so homeschooling is not legal. Croskey, no doubt, is seeking to speak persuasively to the culture. But as the Church, according to two kingdomist views, cannot speak to what Croskey has done because ‘God doesn’t speak to that issue in the Bible’ then we are left with no place that can give God’s corrective authoritative word to the H. Walter Croskey’s of the world.

3. Regarding Wright’s use of the pulpit. When I first saw the Youtube excerpts of Wright’s preaching, my first thought was not, “He hates America!” or “He’s a racist!”, but “What a terrible use of God’s pulpit!” I feel exactly the same outrage whenever I see a candidate standing behind a pulpit — Democrat or Republican. I feel exactly the same outrage whenever I see a preacher extolling the virtues (or vices) of a particular candidate — Democrat or Republican. Surely the church pulpit is intended for higher and better matters than the small concerns of national politics! The pulpit is not an institution of the republic, but of the Kingdom, and it’s only legitimate use is the preaching of King Jesus. Politics should be kept out of the pulpit not merely for reasons of church-state separation, but because the pulpit is for matters of such greater significance. And when King Jesus speaks from His Word on matters that pertain to politics — such as personal or social ethics — He speaks equally to all parties, all candidates, and all voters.

I agree with Phillips that it was a terrible use of the pulpit. The question is, ‘why was it a terrible use of the pulpit(?).’ Phillips seems to suggest that it was a terrible use of the pulpit because the pulpit is not the place to speak to social and cultural issues, for, according to the two Kingdomist view, the Church as the Church can’t speak to these issues, because that is not what the Bible is about. To the contrary, as I’ve already mentioned, I would say it is a terrible use of the pulpit because it grossly misrepresents God’s mind, which is what one expects to find emanating from the pulpit.

With regards to that portion that is in bold I must ask Phillips who he thinks the Republic belongs to. It is true that the pulpit is the institution of the Kingdom but for that matter since the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof so is the Republic. One cannot consistently place a dichotomy between the pulpit and the Republic as if God owns the former and not the latter. When Republics are walking askance of their rightful King Jesus then the pulpit must rebuke the Republic in the name of King Jesus. When Republics are in submission to King Jesus then pulpits must teach people to be in submission to authority. Rev. Phillips problem here is the problem of all two kingdomists, and that is that he wants to interject a compartmentalized reality between the reality of Christ’s Lordship over the pulpit (Church) and a reality where, according to two kingdom thinking, Christ is Lord in a different (non-explicit) way. Rev. Phillips says that the pulpits only legitimate use is the preaching of King Jesus. I agree. If King Jesus is over the Republic then should not the pulpit occasionally speak King Jesus’ mind to the Republic? That is what Wright was doing. Wright’s problem though is he serves a different Jesus than the Jesus in the Bible.

In the italicized section of Rev. Phillips quote above he once again does the compartmentalization thing. According to Phillips the pulpit is for greater things then politics, and yet Phillips just said that, the only legitimate use of the pulpit is to preach King Jesus. Rick, is Jesus King over politics? Is Jesus King over economics? Is Jesus King over education? Is Jesus King over civil jurisprudence? Is Jesus King over the arts? If, as you say Rick, we are supposed to preach King Jesus then I don’t know how it is when we preach Christ as King over the political realm we are abandoning the greater things that you say the pulpit is for. Now, we both agree, that not only Christ’s Kingship must be proclaimed from the pulpit but also Christ in His role as High Prophet (thus engendering sermons on epistemology, philosophy illumination, inspiration, revelation, etc.) and Christ in His role as High Priest (thus engendering sermons on soteriology, sacramentology, hamartiology, etc.). This is why the preachers job is so burdensome Rick, because we have to speak about everything precisely because Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King over everything. Who is sufficient for such a task?

Next as it touches the italicized section we must understand that separation of Church and State never, ever, meant that the Church couldn’t speak to the any realm it darn well pleased. The separation of Church and State only meant that the Federal State couldn’t force a national denomination on the states, who were free to have their own State denominations as they chose. Further, the Separation of Church and State where it functions properly doesn’t mean the division or divorce of Church and State (as if that could ever happen) but rather it means that each realm functions only within its proscribed and God ordained boundaries. Rick, the danger of eclipsing Church and State separation today comes not from politically charged pulpits but rather from the State who wants to become the holder, not only of the Sword, but also of the Keys and of the Rod.

Now in reference to Phillips last sentence it looks like he is trying to hedge his bets. It looks like he is saying that the pulpit can speak to these areas as long as everyone is guilty. Well, the good news Rick is that it is a target rich environment on that score. Still, the idea that King Jesus speaks equally to the abortionists as he does to the pro-lifer in a convicting word on that issue is nonsense. I appeal to James to be sustained. In the book of James Jesus speaks a condemning word to the oppressors (Rich) that he does not equally speak to the oppressed. In short Rick, there will be times that the Church speaks to support some view, and some person holding that view, because it and they are being consistent with the law and the testimony of the King, while correspondingly and simultaneously speaking an unequal word against positions and candidates which and who are inconsistent with the declamations of King Jesus — and all that from the pulpit.

Thus endeth the lesson.

I meant to add to my last post an addendum that ties things together in my mind. In that post we looked at some traits of socialism. Eventually where I hope to go with this is to segue into differences between Marxist Socialism and Fascist Socialism and to show concretely that the political differences that exist in this country among the two major parties is merely a contest over which stripe of Fascism one prefers. Anyway … there is another connector between this and what I have also written recently on Radical Two Kingdom Theology of the Westminster West variety (R2Kt virus).

The connector is that when the Church refuses to deal with, from the pulpit, the kind of issues that I am trying to clarify in my posts on Socialism and Fascism the consequence is that the larger culture loses the sense of the True Transcendent that is required for Biblical civilization to occur. If the Church will not speak a clarion word about how the Transcendence of God needs to be a guiding presupposition in the cultural life of any nation then that culture will embrace a false god with a false transcendence. R2Kt proclaims that culture lies in the common realm where all can participate but what we are already seeing in these posts on Socialism and Fascism is that culture while certainly a common realm is affected by presuppositions that either are or are not Biblical. While all agree that culture is a common realm we are learning that it is not a neutral realm. If culture is affected by presuppositions that are Biblical then those presuppositions along with the texts they grow out of need to be preached from Reformed pulpits and Reformed Churches all across the land.

To refuse to do so in pursuit of some lame academic theory is treason.

In my reading today, I came across the following gem from a Westminster West graduate. (Remember Westminster West — Escondido, is the Seminary where the equivalent of the Streptococcus pyogenes is being incubated and disseminated so as to infect the Church with the flesh eating Radical Two Kingdom Theology — {R2Kt}.)

First he who is infected with R2Kt asks,

I wonder if transformationism in the spiritual kingdom is the mirror-image of its counterpart in the civil one?

Here we see one incipient problem in the R2Kt virus. By opposing completely the notion of ‘transformationism’ the R2Kt infected people are advocating non-transformationism. Are they advocating for a Gospel that leaves people and cultures unchanged? Or are they suggesting that transformation of culture is impossible? If pre-millennialism teaches a kind of reverse transformationism where the worst things get the better things are because that means that Jesus is close to coming back, and if the post-millennialism teaches a positive transformationism that teaches the better things get the better things are because that means that the present Kingdom of God is continuing to expand those infected with R2Kt with its a-millennial chaser, seem to be teaching a ‘things never changism’ because they seem to hold that transformation is Maya.

The comment quoted above seems to suggest that belief in some kind of transformationism is avoidable. It is as if they believe that theological convictions don’t by absolute necessity transform. It is as if they don’t believe that transformation can be characterized as positive or negative. If transformation can’t be characterized as either positive or negative then what standard could we possibly use to determine cultural progress or regress? Is it the case no matter how culture is transformed it always remains equally good and bad?

Once again we would say that this is a case where it is not possible to hold to a-transformationism. It is never a question of if Theological ideas will have cultural transforming implications. It is only a question of which Theological ideas will be embraced that will lead to some kind of cultural transformation. Those infected with the R2Kt bug seem to think that transformation is avoidable. Ironically though with the convictions that those infected by the R2Kt bug hold the result is indeed transformationism, for if the R2Kt bug spreads far enough the result will be the Church’s continued fleeing from the common realm leaving a vacuum to be filled by the adherents of other God’s who are far less shy and retiring about exercising direct hegemony over culture thus transforming it.

Finally, the problem with ‘Secular’ transformation in the civil Kingdom is not that such desire for transformation is inherently evil. The problem is that the putatively Secularist has married his desired Transformations with eschatological anticipations that are informed by a pagan theology. As many have noted what has happened in America is that Puritan Post-millennial theology has been retained among Humanist Secularists but it has been ripped away from its Christian and Biblical moorings and has been put into the service of anti-Christ theologies.

Just as postmillennial transformationists feel compelled to “redeem the city,” so many Americans (believing or not) feel the responsibility to “make the world safe for democracy.” The latter has been called “the white man’s burden,” and perhaps the former should be considered the Christian version of Manifest Destiny.

I will gladly consent to calling post-millennialism Manifest Destiny. It is the revelation of God’s Word that teaches me that it is the Manifest Destiny of the Nations to Kiss the Son lest He be angry and they perish in the way. It is the revelation of God’s Word that teaches me that it is the Manifest Destiny that we should pray ‘Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’ It is the revelation of God’s Word that teaches me that it is the Manifest Destiny that the Kingdoms of this World shall be the Kingdoms of our Lord. It is the revelation of God’s Word that teaches me that it is the Manifest Destiny that the Knowledge of the Glory of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.

Now, the problem with the old notion of the necessity of ‘making the World safe for democracy’ is not that we as Christians shouldn’t desire for the World to be safe, but the problem is that the word ‘Democracy’ has become a synonym with ‘non-Christian.’ Acutally, I have even less use for this idea then those infected with R2Kt.

Those infected with R2Kt virus have the same concept of Manifest Destiny though in their Theology. For them it is Manifest Destiny that nothing ever changes. For them it is Manifest Destiny that the good and evil grow equally together until the end when finally evil gets the upper hand. For them it is Manifest Destiny that the Church is to be silent when it comes to whether Communism is to be preferred of Constitutionalism, or whether Keynesianism is to be preferred over Market economies, or whether Education that locks God out as the beginning of all wisdom is to be preferred over Education that acknowledges the Lordship of Christ in every area of life. So, again, it is not a question of whether Christians will have a kind of Manifest Destiny or not but rather it is a question of which kind of Manifest Destiny will we support. I vote for the one in the Bible.

If what is good for the pious goose is good for the pagan gander, then the secular version of judgment beginning at the house of God may be the willingness to admit that we Americans don’t need to get to “Babylon By Bus,” we can just walk out our front door.

I am a post-millennialist and I couldn’t agree with that statement more. A genuine post-millennialist believes that we don’t call ‘evil,’ ‘good’ in order to lie to ourselves that the Kingdom is expanding before our very eyes. A genuine post-millennialist transformationist so desires transformation that he realizes that he must call a spade a ruddy shovel in order to push for transformation. I have said for some time now that America may well indeed be the modern incarnation of ‘Babylon the Great.’

Does that make me a pious goose or a pagan gander?

“Natural law is the moral revelation that God gives in creation itself. Romans 1:18-32 speaks of things that may be known of God from creation, including a great deal of moral knowledge. Romans 2:14-15 speaks of the law of God being written on people’s hearts, such that even those without access to the law revealed in Scripture are held accountable to God through their consciences. Many prominent Christian theologians have identified natural law as the standard for civil law and government, including not only medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas but also reformers such as John Calvin. Thus, acknowledging the importance of natural law is neither unbiblical nor foreign to historic Christian theology.”

Dr. David VanDrunen

We’ve already dealt with the faults within Natural law in relation to the Romans 1 passage that VD cites above. Simply put the fault in appealing to that passage as a source of legitimacy for Natural law theory is that it ignores the context which teaches that men, because of their depravity, suppress the truth they definitely receive from what is revealed. Because this is true, it is naive to think that Natural law theory can be appealed to in order to provide the legal foundation by which to govern cultures that are post-Christian.

Cornelius Van Til underscores this point,

The doctrine of total depravity of man makes it plain that the moral consciousness of man as he is today cannot the source of information about what is ideal good or about what is the standard of the good…. It is this point particularly that makes it necessary for the Christian to maintain without any apology and without any concession that it is Scripture alone, in the light of which all moral questions must be answered. Scripture as an external revelation became necessary because of the sin of man. No man living can even put the moral problem as he ought to put it, or ask the moral questions as he ought to ask them, unless he does so in light of Scripture. Man cannot of himself face the moral question, let alone answer it.”

Second, VD appeals to Romans 2:14-15 as another base of support for Natural law theory. Let us consider that passage.

14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

On this passage we must immediately note that the context is the Apostles indictment against Gentiles for their suppressing what they can not avoid knowing. The consequences of their suppression of this known truth is that they exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship things that are not worthy of worship. God having predestined them for such an end thus gives them over to the lusts that they freely desire. This results in a final proclamation from the Apostle in Romans 1:29-32 that they ‘know the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, (yet) not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.’ Romans 2:1-15 finds the Apostle continuing to build the case that the Gentiles are guilty before God even though unlike the Jews they didn’t have God’s written law. St. Paul argues that what proves that they have a knowledge of the moral law of God is seen in that the Gentiles ‘do by nature the things contained in the law,’ and that they have a conscience that judges their conduct consistent with the law. However what we find in Chapter two can’t be made to contradict what we find in Chapter 1 where the Gentiles are characterized as suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. When in the passage quoted above the Apostle says what he does he is not teaching that there are Gentiles who receive the moral law through Natural law mechanisms and who keep the Natural law and so are saved by their righteousness. Such a reading would be contrary to what the Apostle explicitly teaches in 3:19-20, 23. What the Apostle is (again) arguing is that there is a universal sense of obligation — a obligation that is suppressed but still exists. What the Apostle teaches throughout Romans 1-3 is that Gentiles (and all men) are conscious of the moral law to a degree that makes them both guilty before and accountable to God. Romans 2:14-15 thus is anything but a recommendation for a Natural law theory that makes room for the ability of fallen men to not suppress the truth in unrighteousness. In point of fact Romans 1-3 is a round condemnation of any idea of Natural law theory. How can gentlemen like VD appeal to Romans 2:14-15 to support a theory that teaches that men can be governed by their reception and embrace of Natural law when when the immediate context teaches that the Gentiles suppress natural revelation(Romans 1:18-20), worship nature (Romans 1:23-25), act against nature (Romans 1:26-27), and deny their natural affection (Romans 1:31)? If anything the context implicitly suggests that any theory of Natural law that is arrived at by fallen man is a theory that will use Natural law as a means to justify and rationalize their perversions and anti-Christ agenda.

Finally, by way of support for Natural law VD appeals to a long line of Natural law theorists within the Reformed camp. It is undoubtedly true that this long pedigree exists. I would submit however that Natural law theory makes far more sense in the context of Christendom (the context that all these men lived in) then it does in post-Christian culture. Natural law in the context of Christendom has the advantage of making sense if only because there is such a large natural constituency available to buy into what a Christian community would advocate that Natural law teaches. Remember it has been consistently said in these posts on Natural law that God does indeed make His moral order known in natural revelation. The problem is not with the sender but with the receiver(s). In the context of Christendom it would not be a surprise to find that the receivers would be more naturally inclined to correspond with that message which is being sent. Another way to get at what I am saying here is that in a culture embracing a Biblical Worldview Natural law could make perfect sense but in that context one would find that Natural law was nothing but a reflection of Biblical law. So on one hand Natural law could work in a culture shaped by a Biblical Worldview but on the other hand that culture wouldn’t need Natural law since it was looking to God’s Word for guidance. All of this is to say that the long pedigree of Reformed Natural law thinkers that can be pointed to makes sense in light of the fact that they all were living in the context of Christendom where there existed common ground. Natural law in a post-christian context can’t make that kind of sense.

So, the three reasons that VD give for giving Natural law a hearing have been weighed and found wanting.