Are All R2K Advocates Closet Leftists or Libertarians?

“When I became a believer in the mid-1970s I did the same thing. I did not know Jeremiah from Matthew. I remember being surprised that there were “minor prophets” in the Bible. I was utterly ignorant of the Christian faith but upon coming to faith in Jesus I immediately imputed my (then leftist) social views to Jesus…

I have my (now more libertarian) social views, which I express in social media and elsewhere but I am constrained as a minister not to seek to use my office to achieve my social goals (to be left alone).”

R. Scott Clark
Escondido R2K Theologian

1.) I wonder if there are any R2K fanboys who are not at their core either Leftist or Libertarian? Do keep in mind how much Libertarianism and Leftism have in common. I’ve never met a R2K advocate who is traditionally conservative in their social views (think R. L. Dabney or T. S. Eliot). Hence, I must tentatively conclude that R2K seems to be a view of the left.  If this is correct then Scott did not change his social views. He merely has softened them somewhat.

2.) Scott is using his office to achieve his social goals. Scott says that the institutional church should be silent quite without realizing that the Church’s silence on social goals speaks volumes. Should sodomites be allowed to marry? The Church, as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion. Does Christian ethics apply to cloning or the creeping issue of trans-humanism? The Church as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion. Does Christianity have anything to say about rounding up Gypsies, Kulaks, or Slavs to be put into concentration camps?  The Church as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion.

Does anybody really want to advance the notion that this silence from the pulpit isn’t equal to moral approval?

3.) Interesting that Scott is Libertarian enough to want to be left alone yet he won’t leave me alone to Preach what God’s word clearly teaches touching social order matters.

The Problem of Christian Societies Minus the Christian Church

“Christians are free to form what the Dutch Reformed used to call societies (committees, organizations) to achieve this end or that but they are not free to impose those agendas on the visible, institutional church by way of programs or in public worship. Christian organizations must stand or fall on their own, without the endorsement of the visible church.”

R. Scott Clark

The problem here with Scott’s observation is that this view provides no boundaries. It is true, Christian societies might be formed but every Christian society one could imagine. There might be one Christian society in favor of overturning Bestiality laws while a different Christian society would be formed to keep Bestiality laws in place. Imagine formation of one Christian society supporting Marxist progressive tax policies while a different Christian society would be formed to oppose Marxism in the Government.  One Christian society could form to champion forcing all children in to Government schools while another Christian society could form to champion laws that demand all public schools be closed. Theoretically all these Christian societies could exist and there would be no Institution — no visible Church — declaiming which are indeed Christian societies and which societies are wolves in sheep’s clothing. What Scott is advocating here is that each Christian society do and each potential individual member of these societies do is what is right in its own eyes. Indeed, Scott would take us back to the time of Judges when there is no King in the land.

As such it really doesn’t matter if the individual Christian is against Marxism. He would be just one voice vis-a-vis other Christian voices that are advocating Marxism as Christian. Tomato vs. Tomatoe … Potato vs. Potatoe.

Even if you individualize or create Christian societies R2K is a flaming disaster.

 

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.

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.”