R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 25

Machen On Education As The Most Important Part Of Human Life

“In the political and social discussions of the day, God’s law has ceased to be regarded as a factor that deserves to be reckoned with at all…[But] of one thing we can be sure—a nation that tramples thus upon the law of God…is headed for destruction” (140,141).

A “very ancient principle in the field of education…has been one of the chief enemies of human liberty for several thousand years—the principle, namely, that education is an affair essentially of the State, that education must be standardized for the welfare of the whole people and put under the control of government, that personal idiosyncrasies should be avoided…It is a very ancient thing—this notion that the children belong to the State, that their education must be provided for by the State in a way that makes for the State’s welfare. But that principle, I think you will find if you examine human history, is inimical at every step to liberty” (87,88).

“I hope therefore…that we may return to the principle of freedom for individual parents in the education of their children in accordance with their conscience…But let us be perfectly clear about one thing—if liberty is not maintained with regard to education, there is no use trying to maintain it in any other sphere. If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might just as well give them everything else…No, we do not want a Federal Department of Education and we do not want, in any form whatever, the slavery that a Federal Department of Education would bring” (98).

“Uniformity in education under central control it seems to me is the worst fate into which any country can fall…parents have a right to educate children as they please…education is essentially not a matter of the State at all” (100-102).

We “are dealing with the most important part of human life when we are dealing with education” (114).

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

Note, with the very last quote in this batch that Machen has said the Education is the most important part of human life. This is not a statement that is inconsistent with Christianity as the R2K boys might say. The R2K boys, given their beliefs about the dichotomous nature of reality, should be appalled that any Christian Theologian would say that, we “are dealing with the most important part of human life when we are dealing with education,” since for the R2K boys education belongs not to the grace realm (which would be their “most important”) but to the common realm.

This reveals, again, that Machen was R2K the way that Jeffery Dahmer was a chef.

Machen could say what he said because he realized, unlike the R2K boys, that education is primarily a religious enterprise. Machen understood that Education was definitely not a so called “common realm” concern. The education of children is driven by religious considerations and presuppositions and any Christian who says otherwise, may well be saved, but nevertheless remains a damn fool who shouldn’t be listened to on much of anything no matter how many degrees he has behind his names.

Also, we should zoom in on Machen’s statement here about the dangers of Christians giving over their children to the State for schooling. Machen realized that should we give up our children to the State then it will do little good to hold on to our guns, income, or anything else vis-a-vis the State. If the pagan State is the tutor and the “en locus parentis” of our children for upwards to 8 hours a day then Christians will not normatively keep our children for our undoubted catholic Christian faith. If you give your children to the State to be saturated, soaked, and marinated in a pagan worldview, via the government schools you can not expect the children to become anything but reflections of the religious pagan education in which they were saturated, soaked, and marinated. This is especially so when one adds to the the prison time government school influence upon God’s covenant seed the impact of a pagan culture.

When we baptize our children part of what parents hear in the Baptismal charge is that Baptism is not to be used as a superstition. Yet, when we baptize our children and then send them to Government schools what else can the practice of Baptism have been by the parents, but a superstition that was supposed to be a talisman to ward off the evil that comes from government school education?

Dr. J. Gresham Machen was a prophet who being now dead, still speaks.

Machen … The Non R2K Theologian Offering On Christian Education

(As) “a matter of fact the religion of the Christian man embraces the whole of his life…everything that he does he should now do as a child of God…[The] bearing of truth, the meaning of truth, the purpose of truth, even in the sphere of mathematics, seem entirely different to the Christian from that which they seem to the non-Christian; and that is why a truly Christian education is possible only when Christian conviction underlies not a part, but all, of the curriculum of the school. True learning and true piety go hand in hand, and Christianity embraces the whole of life…I can see little consistency in a type of Christian activity which preaches the gospel on the street corners and at the ends of the earth, but neglects the children of the covenant by abandoning them to a cold and unbelieving secularism” (81,82).

“Another line of attack upon liberty has appeared in the advocacy of a Federal department of education. Repeatedly this vicious proposal has been introduced in Congress.”

“Uniformity in education, it seems to me, is one of the worst calamities into which any people can fall…Uniformity of education under one central governmental department would be a very great calamity indeed.”

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State — 81, 82, 71, 73,74
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

Of course when a “Christianity” is embraced that insists that Christians should not take every thought captive to make them obedient to Christ, because many thoughts exist in a common square where it is not possible to take those thoughts as captive to Christ since they are “common thoughts,” then the consequence every time is, what Machen calls, a “neglecting of the children of the covenant by abandoning them to a cold and unbelieving secularism.” R2K, by its very definition, is a neglecting of all God’s people of the covenant by abandoning them to a cold and unbelieving secularism. In point of fact, R2K finds a cold and unbelieving secularism to be what is optimal for the common realm because all that is possible for the common realm is secularism.

Listen to Machen and abandon R2K.

Machen Thumps For Christian Schools — Contra R2K

“A monopolistic system of education controlled by the State is far more efficient in crushing our liberty than the cruder weapons of fire and sword. Against this monopoly of education by the State the Christian school brings a salutary protest; it contends for the right of parents to bring up their children in accordance with the dictates of their consciences and not in the manner prescribed by the State.”

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State — pg. 68
Edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

Pointing out the Obvious

I picked at part of this quote in the previous entry but I just have to come back for another bite at the proverbial apple.

D. G. Hart writes,

“So if you are a legislator or president or judge and you hold office by virtue of being elected by Americans, not just the Christian ones, then don’t you have an obligation to execute your office in a way that is in the best interests of the people you serve (Americans and American-Christians)?”

1.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one posit, that acting in a non-Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents would be a Christian thing to do?

2.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one not think, that acting in Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents, would always be in the best interest of non-Christian constituents?

3.) By what standard are we defining “best interest?”

Darryl asks,

“But if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

1.) I guess every thought captive to the obedience of Christ is understood to have the addition “except in the public/common kingdom.”

2.) So much for “whatever is not done in faith is sin.”

3.) This quote suggests that if someone is voted in by all the Americans then there are times when it would be wrong to act in the best interest of Christians vis a vis the Christian constituents.

3.) Are we being told by a Dr. of the Church that it is wrong, at times, (by what Standard?) to act as a Christian when in a public capacity?

4.) If one is not acting as a Christian then how is one acting? Perhaps it is the case for Hart that it is Christian to not act as a Christian when you are a public official representing all the people?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Hart continues,

I get it. Politicians face ethical dilemmas but those are not the same as a personal preference or conviction on the one hand and what is best for everyone on the other. A Major League Baseball umpire may have grown up as a Phillies’ fan, but if he is behind the plate for a Phils-Pirates game, he’s supposed to call the same strike zone for both pitchers.

So doesn’t the same apply to Christian legislators who would seek public office in the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Don’t they have to act in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers?

1.) Only a Christian Umpire, or a Umpire influenced by a Christian worldview would think it important to call balls and strikes as “balls and strikes” in a Phillies vs. Pirates game. A non-Christian Umpire would call that outside pitch a third strike on Andrew McCutchen every time and be glad he was able to do so.

2.) Acting in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers would be to always act as a Christian.

Where R2K World’s Collide … Dr. Darrell Hart contra Dr. R. Scott Clark

Recently, public officials of the California State University locations, ruled to “de-recognize” the Christian campus ministry called “Inter-Varsity.” See story linked,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/intervarsity-sanctioned-california-state-university_n_5791906.html

Now according to R2K Chieftain Dr. D. G. Hart, this was a understandable move since,

” … if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

Now, it is at least possible that the public officials of the California State University system were Christian and it is possible, that since the California State University system was not to show any religious preference, therefore those Christian public officials of the California State University did the right thing.

However, even if the all the California State University officials who made this decision were pagans, it still is the right decision, according to Hart, since the University system was not to show any religious preferences. I mean, after all, who does Inter-Varsity think they are requiring leaders to adhere to Christian beliefs? The University, per Hart, was correct to shut this travesty of unprincipled pluralism down.

However, Hart’s colleague, Dr. R. Scott Clark thinks that the California State University was wrong to de-recognize Intervarsity. Clark offers this morsel,

“One area that ought to be a matter of growing concern for Christians (and other religious folk) is the attempt by some in our society to use administrative and bureaucratic positions to silence views with which they disagree. Such impulses are fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

Scott, sees de-recognizing Inter-varsity as something bad. But, we might ask, “bad,” by what standard? By a Biblical Standard? 1000 times no. Scott’s standard for faulting the California State University system’s decision as bad bad bad is that it is “fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

But applying Darrell’s principle it most certainly is American and just. After all, the California State University system is to show no religious preferences and allowing Intervarsity to only have leadership that is Christian is the very apex of religious preference.

Pursuing a brief rabbit trail one wonders why Dr. R. Scott Clark appeals to the Confessions in order to gain traction for policy in the Common realm? Certainly, if Scripture is not to be our guide in the common realm, per R2K, then the confessions would be out of bounds also right? Why should Christians care what the Confessions have to say concerning common realm activity? Well … they might care what those Confessions say about the common realm when they are in the Church realm but the minute they leave the Church realm they would have to forget that they cared what the Confessions said when they were in the Church realm.

Scott also complains about the California State University system trying to impose ideological conformity from above but if the University system would do what Scott wants by allowing Inter-varsity to operate untrammeled wouldn’t that also be a case where the University is imposing a top down ideological conformity? The University can either impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced,” or they can impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced except Christianity.” Either way, the University system is imposing a top down ideological construct. No neutrality Scott … remember? It is never a question of “whether or not top down ideological construct,” it is only ever a question of which top down ideological construct.

Scott complains about the unfairness of it all, but what is fair outside a Biblical standard?

Scott asks the question,

“From what mountain did the administers descend, what revelation did they receive that gives them the authority to banish historic Christian orthodoxy from campus?

I hate to be bearer of bad tidings but the answer to this question is they descended from Mt. positivistic law or they received the Revelation from St. Natural law. The further bad news for Scott is that the only thing that can combat each and both of them is Biblical Christianity in the common realm.