Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

Part III as we continue to examine “Rev.” Brian Lee’s pre Mid-term election article advocating that Christ desires His Church and His ministers, when in the pulpit, to remain silent on moral issues as they arise in the political process.

“Rev.” Brian Lee continues

Christ rules in the redemptive kingdom, the church, by his Word, and the means by which it is governed is by the keys of the kingdom: The preaching of the Word and Church discipline, which regulates the sacraments as a means of God’s grace. This is a heavenly and spiritual kingdom, not of this world (John 18:36).

This is the broad outline of what is commonly called the “Two Kingdom” view, as it is developed in the Augustinian and Reformational traditions. Christ rules equally but differently in the two kingdoms of common grace (preservation) and saving grace (redemption).”

1.) Note when “Rev.” Lee writes that, Christ rules in the redemptive kingdom, the church, by his Word, what he is saying is that Christ does not rule in the common Kingdom, the social order, by His word. Lee is telling us that in the culture and social order Christ does not rule by His revealed word — special Revelation. Instead, in the culture and social order Christ rules by general revelation. As such Lee is telling us that when it comes to the everyday affairs, where we, as Christians, do over 95% of our living, we may not appeal to God’s word for guidance because God’s word does not apply to culture and the social order.

2.) Of course we concur that Christ rules His Church by His Word and we agree that the Church is governed by the Marks of the Church. There is no disagreement here. We merely but strongly disagree with Lee’s Platonic Dualism that suggests that Christ is only concerned with directly Legislating the affairs of men as they live out their public lives in their respective culture and social orders.

3.) Another passage that R2K dilettantes misinterpret is John 18:36 to which Lee appeals. Like their mishandling of the Noahic covenant they butcher John 18:36 in its meaning. What they want to make it mean is that Christ has no interest in this world. But in point of fact that is not what is being taught in John 18:36. B. F. Wescott speaking of John 18:36 could comment,

The Gospel According To John — pg. 260

Dr. Greg Bahnsen echoing Wescott’s work wrote,

“‘My kingdom is not of [ek: out from] this world,’” is a statement about the source — not the nature — of His reign, as the epexegetical ending of the verse makes obvious: ‘My kingdom is not from here [enteuthen].’ The teaching is not that Christ’s kingdom is wholly otherworldly, but rather that it originates with God Himself (not any power or authority found in creation.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
God & Politics — pg. 27

John 18:36 along with Matthew 22:15-22 are two of the passages that are often put forth as defeaters for the comprehensive sovereignty of the Lord Jesus over this world. Bahnsen clearly shows here, quite in agreement with the Greek scholar B. F. Westcott, that God’s Kingdom, as it manifests itself in this world, is energized by a source outside this world. This is important to emphasize because many people read John 18:36 as proof that the Kingdom of Jesus does not and should not express itself in this world. Often this verse is appealed to in order to prove that God’s Kingdom is only “spiritual” and as such Christians shouldn’t be concerned about what are perceived as “non-spiritual” realms. Support for such thinking, if there is any, must come from passages other than John 18:36.

What we get from some contemporary Calvinists, is the quote of Christ telling Pilate that ‘His Kingdom is not of this World,’ as if that is to end all conversation on the Lordship of Christ over all cultural endeavors. What is forgotten is the way that John often uses the word ‘World.’ John often uses the word ‘World’ with a sinister significance to communicate a disordered reality in grip of the Devil set in opposition to God. If that is the way that the word ‘world’ is being used in John 18:36 then we can understand why Jesus would say that His Kingdom ‘was not of this world.’ The Kingdom of Jesus will topple the Kingdoms of this disordered world changing them to be the Kingdoms of His ordered world, but it won’t be done by the disordered methodology of this World and so Jesus can say, “My Kingdom is not of this World.” Hopefully, we can see that such a statement doesn’t mean that Christ’s Kingdom has no effect in this world or that Christ’s Kingdom can’t overcome the world.

John 18:36 is often appealed to in order to prove that the Kingdom of God is a private individual spiritual personal reality that does not impinge on public square practice(s) of peoples or nations corporately considered. Those who appeal to John 18:36 in this way are prone thus to insist that God’s Word doesn’t speak to the public square practice(s) of peoples or nations since such an appeal (according to this thinking) would be an attempt to wrongly make God’s Kingdom of this world.

The problem with this though is it that it is a misreading of the passage. When Jesus say’s “My Kingdom is not of this world,” his use of the word “world” here is not spatial. Jesus is not saying that His Kingdom does not impact planet earth. What Jesus is saying is that His Kingdom does not find its source of authority from the world as it lies in Adam.

Jesus brings a Kingdom to this world that is in antithetical opposition to the Kingdom of Satan that presently characterizes this world in this present wicked age. The Kingdom that Jesus brings has its source of authority in His Father’s Word. As a result of Christ bringing His Kingdom with His advent there are two Kingdoms that are vying for supremacy on planet earth. Scripture teaches that the Kingdom of the “age to come” that characterizes Christ’s present Kingdom will be victorious in this present spatial world that is characterized by “this present wicked age,” precisely because, in principle, Christ’s Kingdom is already victorious in this present spatial world.

4.) We must note that Lee speaks of his view as being part of the Reformational tradition. Unfortunately, this is just not true of what Lee is advocating. It is true that in the Reformation History there is a Two Kingdom understanding but what Lee and the R2K school has done is something quite different than standard Reformed Two Kingdom theology. Lee and the R2K school have not Reformation tradition to which to appeal. Their work is completely innovative and it is just disingenuous for Lee to appeal to something called the “Augustinian and Reformational tradition” as if such a tradition provides a foundation for R2K. It most certainly does not.

5.) Finally, Lee’s thesis that Christ rules dualistically is explicitly opposed to by Scripture

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” – Daniel 7:13-14

Note, the passage in Daniel does not say that He, that is the Son, receives dominion when He returns to earth with the clouds, but rather when He came to the Ancient of days, namely, when He ascended into Heaven to the Father.

Christ’s Kingdom now extends not only over the Church but according to Daniel it extends over cultures and social orders. Lee’s R2K “theology” is not substantiated by either Scripture or History and is a innovative but false testimony.

We continue dissecting the honorable Rev. Lee.

“It’s important to begin this discussion with a note of charity. There is great diversity in how Christians answer questions of Christ and culture, because the New Testament says very little explicitly about the matter, and the questions raised are necessarily highly contextual, reflecting one’s particular time and place. We need therefore to hold loosely to our conclusions and applications in this area, and respect those in other times and places and other traditions with whom we disagree.

As a minister in the Reformed tradition, I answer these questions with a series of distinctions that aren’t often clearly understood in our day, so establishing a framework is important to avoid confusion.

The Reformed tradition begins by acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, but also makes careful distinction between how Christ rules in different spheres, or kingdoms.

First, Christ rules all the nations by his common grace. As Creator, all civil authorities are instituted and given by him (Romans 13:1), and the moral behavior of all men will be judged by him. Jesus does not administer this common grace kingdom to save, but to preserve the created order until the end of this age (Genesis 8:22) so that his redemptive work in the kingdom of grace may continue. The Law by which he rules in this realm is generally known through nature and our consciences, and it is sufficiently clear for all magistrates to punish evildoers by the sword (Romans 13:4).

1.) Those who are advancing a Heterodox position are always those who plead the loudest for “a note of charity.” This is merely the plea for “tolerance” wrapped up in Christianese. I’m all for “a note of charity,” in the non essentials (adiaphora), but what “Rev.” Lee is advocating is certainly not a matter of adiaphora. Rev. Lee, as we shall see, is advocating muting the Church’s voice in the face of the State’s invasion of the morals of her membership.

2.) “Rev.” Lee raises the issue of “contextualization” as a reason to go slow. Of course it was the ploy of Liberals and progressives to insist that contextualization required us to allow women in office. It is the ploy of Liberals and progressives to insist that contextualization requires us to affirm homosexual marriage. Contextualization has become one of the great levers by which the clear teaching of Scripture is overturned.

3.) When Lee recognizes that “Jesus Christ is Lord of all,” we might say that he says it with a lisp. You see for Lee, “Jesus Christ as Lord” means that Jesus is Lord enough to not be Lord in the common realm. We must recognize for Lee, and for all R2K, the Lordship of Jesus Christ is a spiritual (read — Platonic) reality that can not manifest itself in the common realm.

4.) The fact that Christ rules all the Nations by His common grace does not mean that Christ has no interest in seeing the Church, as Institution, being salt and light to the Nations. Nor does it mean that the Church’s witness ends at the common realm’s shore. The idea that since Christ rules all the Nation by His common grace therefore that means that Christ is not interested in His Church resisting the wickedness of the State is a position without precedent in Reformed Church History.

5.) Lee desires to cut the Noahic covenant off from the covenant of Grace so that he can posit a dualism between a realm of grace (the Church) where Christ is explicitly Lord and a common realm wherein the possibility of being conditioned by Christianity is literally not possible. This is a very tenuous exegesis that has been repeatedly challenged. Consider O. Palmer Robertson’s words where the Noahic covenant is seen as having continuity with the covenant of grace as opposed to Lee’s attempt to create a dualism between the Noahic covenant (establishing a common realm) and the covenant of grace (establishing a grace realm.)

“God does not relate to his creation through Noah apart from his on-going program of redemption. Even the provision concerning the ordering of seasons must be understood in the framework of God’s purposes respecting redemption. . . . The covenant with Noah binds together God’s purposes in creation with his purposes in redemption. Noah, his seed, and all creation benefit from this gracious relationship.”

Robertson continues: “A second distinctive of the covenant with Noah relates to the particularity of God’s redemptive grace.” This we see in Genesis 6:8: “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” In other words, “From the covenant with Noah it becomes quite obvious that God’s being ‘with us’ involves not only an outpouring of his grace on his people; it involves also an outpouring of his wrath on the seed of Satan.”

Again, the reason it is important to overturn Lee’s confusion on this point is that Lee’s whole article stands or falls on his ability to create a dualism via the Noahic covenant. If the Noahic covenant has continuity with the covenant of Grace then Lee’s insisting that the Church must be mute in the common realm cannot stand.

6.) Like all Radical Two Kingdom advocates Lee insists that Natural Law is to be preferred over God’s revealed law as it pertains to the common realm. There is no place in Scripture where it is taught that we are to prefer Natural law (whatever that may be) over revealed law in the common realm. This is all pure hypothetical theorizing on Lee’s part.

I hope to take a few posts examining the article found here

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

I was going to deal with it in all one post but there is so much wrong with this article from Radical Two Kingdom “Pastor,” Rev. Brian Lee, I thought I would take it one bite at a time over several posts and maybe days.

POLITICS IN THE PULPIT

The Church Should Not Weigh In On Ballot Issues

The Good News of Jesus Christ is the sole focus of our Gospel ministry, because we have neither the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters.

By Brian Lee, November 03, 2014

The headline of the article and the following lead in thematic sentence give us what “Rev.” Brian Lee believes the role of the Institutional Church and Ministers is to be, in American politics. It is interesting that the point that Lee is trying to support in his article is the same point that Chancellor Adolph Hitler made to Bishop Martin Niemoller when Niemoller protested some of Hitler’s policy. Said Hitler to Niemoller,

“I will protect the German people. You take care of the church. You pastors should worry about getting people to heaven, and leave this world to me.”

It is fascinating that the italicized sentence above is exactly what “Rev.” Brian Lee is arguing in for in the affirmative. Who could have known that Lee would have learned his theology from Hitler. Who could have known that Hitler’s position was a early form of Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) theology.

Of course it is not just Hitler’s theology. In point of fact it is the theology of all Tyrants who would have the Church shut up and remain supine in their attempt to translate themselves and the State into God’s competition as God walking on the Earth.

Yet here we have, in Lee, a putatively Reformed minister in a putatively conservative denomination, (URC) agreeing with every Tyrant’s most intense lust, that the Church just needs to go all supine when presented with the State’s rebellion against God.