“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.

“…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.

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.

“… the doctrine of Republication cannot be harmonized with the teaching of the Westminster Standards.”

Robert B. Strimple
President emeritus & Professor emeritus of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, CA

Recently a prominent Reformed Lawyer, on a social media cite, posted a hypothetical in order to continue the conversation with the Escondido Republicationists.  Our Lawyer friend posited this hypothetical proposition,

Of course this hypothetical could arises due to Escondido’s insistence that the Mosaic covenant was at the same time both a covenant of Grace and a covenant of Works. This is accomplished by introducing language of “upper” and “lower” register into the Mosaic covenant while insisting that the idea of typology sustains that “in some sense” the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works for Israel.

Of course, one can use this reasoning not only in the Mosaic covenant but also in any of the other covenants which represent the continual maturing and flowering of the one covenant of grace.  For example, one could go back to Genesis 17 and say much the same thing about God’s command/stipulation to Abraham to “walk before Me and be blameless” (Genesis 17:1 ). Given that stipulation language in Genesis 17 one can’t help but wonder, given Escondido predilections for a hyphenated Mosaic covenant,  how is it that the Abrahamic covenant also is not an example of a mixed (hyphenated) covenant? In point of fact Dr. Meredith Kline taught that that Noah and Abraham were themselves under a legal-works covenant?   One thus wonders, if, according to Escondido, whether the covenant of works was republished to Abraham and Noah as well?

In all this I wonder if there isn’t some covenant confusion that was articulated by a Baptist named Philip Cary in 1640 in a debate with John Flavel and other Reformed luminaries. This debate surrounded the issue of the validity of infant Baptism but some of Cary “reasoning” sounds a great deal like Escondido reasoning on covenant republication.  Cary treated Genesis 17 (Abrahamic), Exodus 20 (Mosaic) and Deuteronomy 29 (Mosaic) together under a covenant of works. In doing so, the Baptist, Cary, could treat all these passages as discontinuous in nature, purpose and extent with the covenant of Grace. For the Baptist Cary, no commands from the covenant of works could affect the covenant of grace. For the Baptist, Philip Cary, this meant that Abraham, as well as all the elect in the Old Testament were in both covenants at the same time. This sounds strangely familiar to some of the writings of Escondido adherents.

Keep in mind though that if covenant are both law and gracious at the same time, it is also the case that people living under those hyphenated covenant arrangements lived and moved  by both law and Gospel at the same time. Escondido would have us believe that the Mosaic saints earned, via congruent merit, their stay in the land while at the same time those same saints were saved by unmerited grace. This seems to me to be a “Glawspel” arrangement. If so, it is ironic that the very people (Klinean republicationists) who complain that those who don’t accept their republicationist paradigm are guilty of not distinguishing properly “Law and Gospel,” with the consequence that “Glawspel” obtains are themselves guilty of not properly distinguishing “Law and Gospel” so that “Glawspel” obtains.

Think about it. If you’re living under the Mosaic covenant how do you determine if your obedience to God’s law is motivated by earning congruent merit in order to stay in the land as opposed to an obedience that is motivated by gratitude for God delivering your from your enemies and putting you in the land?

Second, in light of the constant disobedience of Israel under the Mosaic, how can we speak of going back under a covenant of works in the Mosaic when the covenant of works required absolute perfect obedience? If the Old Testament saints under the Mosaic covenant were put back under a covenant of works it was a very different covenant of works then what Adam was under in the Garden where one violation was all that was required to be cast out of the garden. Are we to believe, per Escondido, that the covenant of works was more gracious in the Mosaic covenant then it was in the garden?

________________

For some reading that might kick start thinking on this matter I recommend chapter 45 of Beeke and Jones, “A Puritan Theology; Doctrine for Life.”