Category: ecclesiology

Elder’s Rule … Laity Submits

Acts 20:38 — Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

I Corinthians 16:15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints— 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.

I Thessalonians 5:12And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 In love, hold them in highest regard because of their work. Live in peace with one another.

I Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who [a]rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct….

17.) Obey those who [e]rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership:

“Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church” (16).

Obvious truths we have learned from the Scripture we have cited;

1.) There exists and has always existed a God ordained hierarchy not only in the home where husbands are to rule their wives and children, and not only in the civil realm where Magistrates are to rule the citizenry, but also in the Church where the Elders are to rule the laity.

2.) This truth in turn reminds us when discussing all of this of the necessity to understand Jurisdictionalism. There are these sphere of jurisdiction that God has appointed and in those spheres of jurisdiction God has named different authorities. These jurisdictions are important to keep in mind since the respective authorities in the differing jurisdiction must seek to honor the distinct jurisdictions.

For example, as an Elder, I do not have the authority to come into your home and rule your home unless for some reason you have grossly abdicated your legitimate authority by no longer ruling your home “in the Lord.” At that time the Elders will come to you, point out the appropriate Scripture that someone is walking contrary to, and then will ask you to repent. This is the kind of action that we see the Apostle Paul call for in I Corinthians 5;

 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even [a]named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are [b]puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord [c]Jesus.

Here St. Paul is taking up his authority as an Elder to correct both an individual in the Corinthian congregation but also the Church as a whole.  St. Paul later in II Timothy gives Timothy the Elder to do this very same kind of work:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,

Now obviously this kind of authority, like all authority can be abused. The maxim, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” does not find any exceptions among those who are Elders in Christ’s church. So, when we insist, with Scripture that the role of the Elder is to engage, when necessary, in reproof and correction of the flock Elders should understand that power can go to their head. This is why, we have a plurality of Elders so that no one Elder is holding all the authority.

So we see here that one area in which an Elder rules in the Church and one area therefore upon which the laity are obliged to submit (Hebrews 13:17) is when it comes to the area of morals and doctrine. The Elders are to be the gatekeepers for the proper thinking (Doctrine) and proper morals (Behavior) as among God’s people. This is why St. Paul told the Church in Corinth to excommunicate the man who was sleeping with his step-mother. It is why Scripture repeatedly calls Elders to guard what was committed to their trust (I Timothy 6:20-21).

The Church is the Bride of Christ and it is the role of the Elders to protect the purity of the Bride.

Now, of course Elder’s fail and given this high and holy calling they can’t help but be hypocrites since they themselves can never reach the standard that is placed upon all God’s people for holiness of living and thinking. Yet, despite that reality Elders are called to rule and the laity is called to submit.

Now, what we have seen so far?

1.) We have seen a wee bit what Elders are called to do in their role as God’s appointed leader of the Church.

2.) We have noted that the role of the laity is to submit when their Elders are ruling them as “in the Lord.” Now, if an Elder comes to you to speak on some matter of course the initial route is not likely going to be instant ultimatums but rather the course is going to be one of reasoned conversation. The exception to that is if someone here would be doing something extreme like sleeping with their stepmother or advancing Radical Two Kingdom theology among the saints.

3.) We began to look at the notion of jurisdictional spheres and tried to emphasize that the authority of an Elder rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the Church just as the role of the Father/Husband rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the home.

Let’s talk about that one just a wee bit more.

The jurisdictional spheres as found in the Scripture means there are boundaries for authority. Jesus Christ is the only one who has all authority. Any authority here whether exercised by husband, Elder, or Magistrate is authority that exists in a very circumscribed sphere.

So a Magistrate cannot enter the Church and based on his authority as a magistrate violate the jurisdiction of the Church by presuming to rule in the affairs of the church unless the Church has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the Church as “in the Lord.” In the same way Elders in the Church cannot enter the civil sphere of the Magistrate and on the basis of his authority as an Elder violate the jurisdiction of the Magistrate by presuming to rule in the affairs of the civil order unless the Magistrate has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the civil order as “in the Lord.”

So, we have these spheres of jurisdictions and we have proper authorities ruling in each jurisdictional sphere. Conceptually this is not difficult to understand. Practically, if the God ordained rulers of each sphere rule as “in the Lord,” there is not going to be a problem in honoring those jurisdictions or the authorities therein. However, when one sphere gets out of whack that makes matters often very difficult.

For example when one jurisdiction ceases ruling as “in the Lord” then eventually authorities from another jurisdiction are going to have to interpose into that errant jurisdiction and set matters right. This is called the doctrine of interposition.

But let us not get to far afield from where we are at this morning. We will talk, I think, more about interposition in a later sermon. Right now let’s concentrate on the fact that the Church is a jurisdictional sphere of authority where God has placed a structure of hierarchy so as to have a ruler and ruled ecclesiastical order.

We have seen that Elders in the Church have ruling authority. This is indisputable from the Scripture that we have looked at. However, we pause to note again this stated hierarchy because it is in some sense disputed in some circles. Among the Anabaptist movement today one will learn that there is a leveling when it comes to the roles of leaders. In the Anabaptist movement (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren,) there is the principle that there is no such thing as interposition of human authority since the New Covenant. This means that the role of Elder in those Christian communities are going to be more egalitarian.

As such Anabaptist churches and Christians have a view of ecclesiastical authority that is going to be very different from the view of ecclesiastical authority as found among Roman Catholics who go to the opposite extreme. If the Anabaptist have a tendency to level all hierarchical structure in the Church, Rome and ecclesiastical models like Rome tend to absolutize ecclesiastical authority in the Church so that Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes are seen as being vested with uber-authority that is not to be questioned.

The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of a ministerial role and not a magisterial role such is found in Rome. The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of the Shepherd of the flock who is a sheep himself with real authority  and not as just some kind of life coach such as might be found among the Anabaptists.

And because the Elder has real authority to lead, to lead by serving, and to rule the flock is called upon to submit as they are “ruled in the Lord.” We’ve seen that in the Scripture this morning. We also see it in our Confessions;

“All men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with the Church, maintaining the unity of the Church;3 submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ;4

Belgic Confession Article 28

Now let us talk a wee bit more about what Elder authority looks like and how does it apply?

And for the answer to that we have only to reference our own Heidelberg Catechism as it faithfully teaches Scripture.

Keys

Question 82: Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer: No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation;10 therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons 11 by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life.

Question 83: What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?1

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and Christian discipline,2 or excommunication out of the Christian church;3 by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.

We learn here that by sound preaching the Elders exercise their authority. This would mean that every Lord’s Day upon your attendance at Morning, and Evening service as well as Sunday School  you are at that point practicing a submission to the Elder’s authority by sitting under the preaching of the Gospel.

As to Christian discipline, the word discipline in the Greek is paidea and it means to instruct or correct. Elders have the responsibility to instruct and correct the flock. This can happen as easily as in a casual conversation and it can happen as officially in official Church discipline. Most often it should happen in casual conversation. The more drama that is injected into the context of Christian discipline the less likely there will be a satisfactory result.

Question 85: How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ,8 those, who under the name of Christians, maintain doctrines or practices inconsistent therewith,9 and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church or to those10 who are thereunto appointed by the church;11 and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments;12 whereby they are excluded from the Christian church and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and His church.13

Q. 85 here demonstrates again that the Elder is to rule and one means of ruling is to admonish (to lead, to have charge over) and the rule of is to be submitted to by the flock because a lack of submission means excommunication.

Now, having noted all this lets be realistic about Elder’s ruling and the flock submitting in today’s Church. I’ve been at this long enough now to know how this works in real life. When there is something that needs correction I go to the person in question and they blow me off. For example there have been numerous times over my 35 years in the ministry that I would challenge people about a tender subject and they would essentially tell me to mind my own business. If the matter is serious enough such as someone sleeping with their stepmother what happens is that somewhere along the path to excommunication they just up and leave and join the church down the block who doesn’t care about where they were because the other church is just happy for the new meat in the seat. Because, that is true the authority of the Elder in today’s church is largely irrelevant in the every day life of the Church.

And yet not irrelevant to God. Elders should take up their authority even if they know it will have little impact because in doing so they are being faithful to God even if there is little or no submission on the part of the laity and even if there is little or no fruit as a consequence of seeking to exercise Godly authority.

Finally, all that being said, as an Elder, I recognize how hard it must be for the flock to submit to Elders today given the character and lack of wisdom that we as clergy and Elders demonstrate today.

All of this is a matter we should be diligently in prayer about. The Church in the West is a mess and only God can deliver us now.

The good news is that in His time He will certainly do that. God will, in His time once again raise up good men to be Elders who wield authority with humility, yet with boldness. God will, in His time once again raise up laity who will see that their safety and well being lies in submitting to godly Elders. God will, in His time, renew, reform, and revitalize His Son’s bride so that she is once again without spot and without blemish.

May it happen in the lifetime of some of us in attendance today.

The Miserable State of the Clergy Seen in the Words of Tim Keller

“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”

-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal
02 September 2022

“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
 Henry II of England 
 Referring to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170 

1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said that he would rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.

2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by Christ-haters.  Has Rev. Keller ever considered that all power is derived from God, hence, godly men must pursue power  in order to honor God using power for righteous and godly ends — something that the Christ-hater can not do if he is consistent with his Christ hating worldview?

3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power. The right honorable Dr. Rev. Tim Keller posits a false dichotomy when he suggest that Christians have a binary choice wherein they can either take power or they can renew their churches but they can’t do both. Has Tim ever considered that one piece of evidence that Churches are being renewed is that they seek to exercise godly dominion over the state apparatus?

Jon Harris On Transgenderism … McAtee Corrects Harris

Jon Harris is one of the guys in a white hat. Typically his material is quite good. However, Jon remains a Baptist and here his Baptist hackles were apparently raised by something Carl Trueman wrote. Jon tries to correct Trueman but fails miserably as I intend to demonstrate.

Jon Harris opined,

“People who think they’re trans don’t think they’re trans because they chose to be trans. On the contrary, they believe it was not their choice. They think its who they actually are independent of any choice they made. They believe gender is a social construct. So they root their identity in social interactions. (i.e. how they “experience” the world). This is why it is so important for them to receive social affirmation. People must experience them as their trans identity if gender is a social construct. Carl Trueman hinging this all on “radical individualism” is causing Christians to make basic mistakes. Mistakes like thinking Baptist theology leads to transgenderism because it supposedly bases Christian identity on choice. Mistakes like mocking people who think they’re trans by saying “if I chose to be a cat would I be?” It’s not about choice. It’s about experience. We need to clearly say, “You do not experience life as a trans person.” Often I hear Christians giving up the entire argument by saying things like, “That may be your experience, but what is true?” What is true is that they experience the world according to the way they were designed. Let’s stop reinforcing delusion.”

1.) Of course people who are trans don’t admit that they chose to be trans and so don’t think they chose to be trans. Just as sodomites don’t admit that they chose to be sodomite and so don’t think they chose to be sodomite. Very few people admit to choosing a lifestyle that is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22). So that people who think they’re trans refuse to say they consciously chose to be trans doesn’t mean that they didn’t consciously choose to be trans. Of course they chose to be Trans. Unless one is going to buy into the idea that they were genetically coded to be trans there is no other choice except that for whatever reason based possibly on whatever trauma in their lives they chose to be Trans.

2.) Of course they wouldn’t say that it was their choice. Now, I grant that it is possible that they didn’t even fully realize that they were making a choice when they made the choice and I grant that something horrific may well have entered into their life that moved them to make that choice, but for whatever reason, consciously made or silently acquiesced to, at some point it was decided that being trans was preferable to living in harmony with the way God made them.

3.) Of course they think being trans is who they actually are independent of any choice they made. What else would they say? If they admit that they made a choice then the whole “this is just the way I am” argument goes right out the door. That “this is just the way I am argument” is key because without it their perversion can’t gain traction. Without that argument then the abnormality of it all has to be admitted.

4.) Jon offers that Trans people root their identity in the way they experience the world suggesting that this “way they experience the world” is different from making a choice to be Trans. However, Jon, at this point has given us a false dichotomy when he wants to make a significant distinction Trans people being the way they are because they chose to be that way and Trans people being the way they are because that is the way they experience the world. At this point we have to ask … “Did not the Trans person choose to experience the world in the way in which they experience the world?” Jon’s false dichotomy gives his argument no traction.

5.) I have my issues with Carl Trueman but in this case Trueman is correct when he observes that all of this grows out of a radical atomistic individualism that has swamped the West. On this score Trueman has not made any mistakes.

6.) Whether Harris likes it or not Baptist Baptism “theology” and transgenderism “ideology” do indeed have a point of contact and that point of contact is the denial that God does designate a person’s identity. Baptists deny God designating a baby’s identity as “covenant member” requiring the individual to choose for themselves and Tranny’s deny God designating a person’s gender as male or female, allowing the individual to decide for themselves. For both the Baptist and Transgender identity at a pivotal point is a social construct. For Baptist being in the covenant or not in the covenant is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual. As such they will not give Baptism to a child until that child determines their own social construct by choosing Jesus. For the Tranny being male or female is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual, and there are parents that are so buying into this that they are refusing to tell their child what gender they are so that the child can choose the social construct themselves.

Maybe we should refer to such parents as “Gender Baptists?”

Naturally enough, Jon doesn’t like this linkage because it hits too close to his Baptist home.

7.) I must agree with Jon about not using the “If I think I’m a cat does that make me a cat” argument with the Trans person because it is clearly the case that we are at a point that their replying with “yes” is not going to make very many people blink.

8.) And I agree that we must quit reinforcing delusion. However, Jon’s apologetic that we must tell the Trans person that they have to stop experiencing the world as Trans requires them to make a choice to do so, and at that point we see, once again, that Jon is involved in a false dichotomy.

But he has to reach for this false dichotomy because otherwise he may have to give up his Baptist radical atomistic individualism.

The War Heats Up; Road Runner McAtee Correct Wile E. Coyote R. Scott Clark Part V

R. Scott Clark (RSC) writes,

“They (The Kinists) not only ignore the plain teaching of Colossians 3 and Galatians 3.”

Bret responds,

Galatians 3:26f & The Indiscriminate Nature of the Gospel AND the Foolishness of Social Egalitarianism

Galatians 3:28 & Egalitarianism

RSC writes,

“They (Kinists) also ignore the plain teaching of Acts 10:15, where our Lord told Peter in a vision, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (ESV).”

Bret responds,

Except Kinists don’t call other races “common.”

This statement also implies that the 9th commandment challenged R. Scott Clark doesn’t realize that Kinists come in all hues. I have black friends who are kinist, yellow friends who are kinist, brown friends who are kinists, and on and on. So, once again, Scott is dissimulating about what Kinists believe.

RSC writes,

The next thing we read in Luke’s narrative is that Cornelius, a Roman centurion, wants to speak with Peter. Ordinarily, this would not be a good thing. A Roman centurion had a lot of authority and could have made Peter’s life not only uncomfortable but uncomfortably short. Peter explained to him, “God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So, when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me” (Acts 10:28b–29; ESV). The point of the vision was really about how Christians are to relate to one another across ethnic barriers. Kinism defies and denies the unequivocal teaching of God’s Word about the history of redemption and our new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17).

Bret responds,

That whole paragraph is SKUBALA. It is just not true.

RSC writes citing the CRC,

At Synod, in 2019, the Christian Reformed Church considered overture 7 (pp. 485–505) regarding Kinism. It adopted the following declarations regarding Kinism:

A. Declare that this is a grievous deviation from sound doctrine, a heresy: the Kinist teaching that interracial marriage is sinful, and the theological reasoning supporting this teaching.

Bret responds,

1.) At least as it pertains to me, which is the person the CRC was pointing at in all this, I have never ever said that “interracial marriage is sinful,” though I have said repeatedly that it is “normatively unwise.” I have also said repeatedly that once a inter-racial marriage is contracted that the local church should do all it can to support such a marriage if such a marriage exists in their congregation while at the same time reminding the congregation that the children of the congregation should not marry along inter-racial lines. To encourage such marriages would be to adopt Marxist principles for God’s covenant seed.

RSC citing the CRC,

B. Declare that this is a grievous deviation from sound doctrine, a heresy: the Kinist teaching that God has ordained separation in a religio-ethnostate, and the theological reasoning supporting this teaching.

Bret Responds,

See

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2022/11/17/naturalvsnonnatural?fbclid=IwAR0ly5u8bXFPlA-SWWztH1PbARSnLwaAwW-rflGjL3v5152ct66dz8c6eRg

RSC writes citing the CRC,

C. Declare that any office bearer who teaches or promotes Kinist theology is worthy of special discipline in accordance with Church Order Article 83.

Bret responds,

Now, the CRC may someday do this in the future but they did not do so with me.

RSC citing the CRC

D. Instruct the executive director to create, through the appropriate agencies, opportunities for education, instruction, and discussion so that church leaders and lay members can recognize and refute the heresy of Kinism in various social contexts where they may encounter it.

Bret responds,

I am looking forward to the day when someone trained by the CRC tries to refute Kinism, because it has not been done to date. R. Scott Clark certainly has not done so in is laughable and ridiculous two part series.

RSC citing the CRC writes,

According to article 74 of the Acts of Synod (pp. 818–20) for 2019, the Synod adopted those for declarations on this ground:

Ground: Kinist theology and practice is neither biblical nor Reformed. Rather, Kinism is a twisting of Reformed doctrine. The Bible makes clear that God’s ideal is a family of every tribe and nation being considered equal in every way. Kinist principles and praxis distort this truth.

Bret responds,

1.) As we have seen from the countless of quotes I have given in this series, Kinism in theology and practice is both biblical and Reformed. It is the Alienism (Marxism as applied to social orders) of R. Scott Clark and the CRC which is neither Biblical, nor Reformed, nor historical.

2.) “Equal in every way?”

Surely the CRC can’t be serious. This is pure hard egalitarianism. Surely all peoples are ontologically equal. Certainly no peoples are made of better dirt than other peoples, and so in that sense are equal. Certainly, all men are equal before God’s law. But to say that all peoples are equal in every way is just French Revolution lunacy. Superiorities and inferiorities run through all races, peoples, tribes, and nations and to suggest that all races, peoples, tribes, and nations are equal is the kind of denial of reality that is in the same league as saying girls can be boys and boys can be girls because they are equal in every way.

RSC citing the CRC,

Synod also adopted the following motion:

That synod, given the recent history of Kinist teaching in a particular church of the CRCNA, admonish councils and classes to promote confessional fidelity and mutually to pursue special discipline of an office bearer who is found to hold views contrary to our standards.

Bret responds,

1.) LOL … the CRC calls for special discipline of any office bearer who is found to be a kinist and yet when they could have tried to do that to me they passed. Is this their subtle admission that I was never an office bearer and so they had no jurisdiction over me?

or

2.) Is it an admission that they did not go after me because they knew they could not prove their case and exoneration would have been something that the Dutch Mafia who runs the CRC would have found mortifying?

RSC citing the CRC.,

Grounds:

a. The pastor who was teaching Kinist views was able to do so for several years without special discipline being successful.

Bret responds,

1.) I was never a Pastor in the CRC, though I did Pastor a CRC Church

2.) Special discipline was never successful because special discipline was never attempted. There were delegates at Synod 2019 who were asking why I was released instead of being disciplined. So far as I know they never got an answer to that question.

3.) And keep in mind that;

a.) When I was released from the CRC (though I was never in to be released) that the governing Church’s Pastor of the Church I served recommended and argued vehemently that I should be released with a “honorable release” as opposed to the “Dismissed” that released me.

b.) The Church that I Pastored unanimously voted to leave the CRC due to the CRC’s heretical stands, knowing full well who I am after ministering among  them for a quarter of a century.

RSC writes citing the CRC

b. By admonishing councils and classes to encourage confessional fidelity and special discipline when applicable, it sends a strong message from the broadest body of our denomination that Kinist teaching will not be tolerated in our churches.

Bret responds,

The CRC has no worries about Kinism in their midst. They are safely Marxist. I was the proverbial “One in a Million.”

RSC citing the CRC,

Synod adopted another overture offered from the floor:

That synod acknowledge, with lament, the historic tolerance and indifference within our Reformed theological tradition to perpetual hateful racial prejudice and the theological error of Kinism as well as the need to act as a prophetic voice on these matters in the present and future.

Bret responds,

AH… here we see the slight glimmer of admission that Kinism, or something very much like it as been part of the Reformed theological tradition. Naturally, quite to the contrary of what is written above, the kinism I’ve read of in Church history (See Achord and Dow’s Anthology, “Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations”) has never resembled hateful racial prejudice.

Maybe there has been “hateful racial prejudice” in the Reformed tradition but if it existed it would be hard to top the “hateful racial prejudice” that is being exhibited towards Kinists who are not Marxists.

RSC writes,

Make of the last clause what you will, Synod was clearly embarrassed by the existence of Kinism within the CRC for a decade and wanted to send a clear message that the CRC repudiates Kinism.

Bret responds,

1.) And yet, the CRC had every opportunity to bring charges against me and so run me through their Kangaroo court system. If the CRC really had wanted to send a clear message of their embarrassment regarding Kinism THAT is what they would have done. But they didn’t. Instead they merely dismissed me upon my request. (A strange action considering that I had never been ordained by the CRC.)

2.) Is it interesting that the “Conservative” R. Scott Clark is making common cause in these two articles not only with his arch-enemy Doug Wilson but also with a denomination that he excoriates; the uber-Liberal CRC. It seems that “Conservative” Wilson, “Confessional” Clark, and the uber-liberal CRC have all in common the desire to libel, slander, and rid the planet of Historic Christianity, which is, in the end, all Kinism is.

This has been proven exhaustively by Achord & Dow’s book “Who is My Neighbor.” It is also nicely set forth in the article linked above titled  “Natural and Non-Natural communities.”

RSC writes,

It is certainly a gross error, schismatic (as it separates what Christ has united), it is ugly and unbefitting of a Christian profession. Let no man cast asunder what Christ has joined together.

Bret responds,

Quite to the contrary it is the Alienism that condemns all the Church Fathers who were Kinist just by their virtue of being Christian. By abandoning the idea and truth of Kinism Clark and the rest of his ideological brood of vipers is abandoning the Christian faith. It is they who are vile and ugly beyond all recognition. It is they who are in gross error (and in Clark’s case not only on this count but also on the count of his heretical R2K). It is they who are the schismatics dividing the Church from its Christian past. It is they who are touting beliefs that are not befitting Christian men. It is they who have cast asunder what Christ joined together opting for some red stew because they were tired from hunting acceptance of the world.

And keep in mind this all started merely because R. Scott Clark wanted to smear my book, “Saved to be Warriors; Exposing the Errors of Radical Two Kingdom Theology.”

The Problem with our Cognoscenti

“He who is unaware of his ignorance, will only be misled by his knowledge.”

Richard Whately

I would have to say that herein we find the problem with to many in our clergy corps who are bright and educated but are still intellectual scofflaws. They have this vast pool of knowledge about any number of things from 16th century Elizabethan Puritanism, to Textual Criticism of the 18th Century Continentals, to the influence of Mercersburg theology on Philip Schaff as it influenced his Church history and yet the church languishes under their leadership. It is not that the subjects named above are bad. I want people around who know about those subjects. The problem is not with their areas of expertise. The problem is with their amazing ignorance, of which they are completely unfamiliar with, which puts all their grand learning in the service of the most idiotic and harmful of projects. For example how in the world could otherwise intelligent people come up with R2K, Federal Vision, or the New Perspective on Paul unless the quote by Whatley applies? We are a Church led by people who have not yet determined the difference between IQ and discernment, between the kind of mental acuity required for graduate and post-graduate work and the kind of mental acuity needed for the work of everyday living. We have a clergy corps who are long on theory but short on the ability to see the implications of where their theory is going to take us as a people.

And because of this, matters are going to get progressively worse in the Church.