Category: ecclesiology

3. Do forget the OT, please. Seriously. You must understand that Romans 12 – 13 and the rest of the NT is a radical departure from OT Israel. Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite. The prophets were calling the kings to account because it was in their portfolio, it was a theocracy, and the “King” was a type of Christ. NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people. This is why Paul says that God himself instituted the civil authority, they are God’s servants, and they answer directly to him, not to him through the church. Romans 13 is not a command. It is a description. They are doing this, now, apart from the Bible or the Church. God has given them sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office since the fall.

Dr. Rev. Pastor Brian “Latin reader, no coward, Titles indifferent” Lee

1.) Here we find an explicit dispensationalizing of the OT and a hermeneutic of radical discontinuity. Now, R2K may apply their dispensationalism in different ways but the idea of counseling someone to “Do forget the OT, please. Seriously,” is a Dispensational impulse.

2.) This provides a window into why the Republication theory of the Mosaic Covenant is part and parcel of R2K. R2K needs to slough off any and all general equity talk that remains from the Mosaic covenant, as well as all concrete application of the OT Law to the Post-Resurrection public square. The R2K Republication theory of the Mosaic Covenant serves that purpose. We can make distinctions between R2K and the Mosaic Republication but we must keep before us that the innovative theology that is R2K can not be “successful” apart from their innovative reading of the Mosaic covenant as a Republication with it’s upper and lower registers and its “merit here” but not “merit there” “reasoning.” What the republication of the Mosaic covenant theory offers R2K is the ability to disregard the Mosaic covenant law in any of its concrete expressions, while still retaining the Mosaic law as somehow abstractly abstracted from the Mosaic covenant.

3.) The way that Romans 12 and 13 is read by Lee is yet another example of innovation. I would challenge the reader to read the way that Christopher Goodman read Romans 13 which was fairly typical of men like Knox and a share of the Puritans.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/goodman/obeyed.htm

Harold Berman offers a good work that traces how the Reformation impacted the Law and Social Order of Nations. Berman traces out how the Reformation applied the insights of God’s Law as expressed in all of Scripture for the ordering of the civil realm.

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Protestant-Reformations-Tradition/dp/0674022300/ref=pd_sim_b_6?ie=UTF8&refRID=0HJ54FNAXBDMQ1ZDWVVR

Lee is asserting that his innovative reading of Romans 12-13 should just be accepted upon his word but his assertion is just not accurate.

We need to keep in mind that it is incumbent to read all of the bible in context with all of the Bible. Just consider though how Lee and R2K does not do this. They excise the Mosaic covenant. They tell us to forget the Old Testament … Seriously. They dispensationalize the Scripture. Sure, if you read Romans 13 presupposing your own historically innovative and mistaken matrix naturally one is going to find Romans 12-13 convincingly proving that the Church’s only role is to submit to the anti-Christ State. Lee has need to heed Van Prinsterer’s warning of the need to avoid “serious conceptual confusion when it comes to Church and State and their mutual relation and the misuse that is being made … of the no less apostolic admonition, ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,’ with the result that people run the risk of …. lapsing into a passiveness which is injurious alike to civil liberties and law and order and which in no wise resembles genuine Christian submission.”

All I can do is to beg the reader to look into these things and not accept the assertions of R2K-philes.

4.) Lee’s statement that in the OT the Nations were to ruled by Israel’s religion while in the NT the Israel of God is to b ruled by the pagan religion of the Nations is breathtaking.

“Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite.”

Please keep in mind, dear reader, that the reign of a nation never happens in a vacuum. To be ruled by a Nation, by necessity, means to be ruled by the religion of said Nation since reigning, like law, has to be informed by some religion or worldview. When Lee tells us that the Church is to submit to the reign of the Nations, he is, by necessity, telling us that the Church is to be ruled by the religion that informs that reign. In my hearing that statement has the sound of treason about it.

Part of our difference here is eschatology but not even amillennialists of old never went so far as to suggest that the Israel of God is to be ruled by the pagan religion of the Nations.

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

It is Lee’s militant amillennialism (another characteristic of R2K) that informs him. The Nations can not be ruled by the Church’s Christian faith (as opposed to being ruled by the Church) since such ruling can not happen until Christ’s returns. Indeed, for R2K, Christ ruling over concrete Nations in time and space is an impossibility. Hence their hatred for Christendom. You see, their eschatology can not allow it.

Even if you are amillennialist, dear reader, will you close ranks with Lee or Vos on this matter?

5.) Lee’s statement about the mandates being opposite brings us to another conclusion and that is that R2K and standard historical Reformed theology are also opposite. The extremity of the R2K position makes it another Reformed religion. The similarities between R2K and standard historical Reformed theology are only linguistic. R2K has poured new meaning into all the old words and phrases so that even though we may use the same words the meaning is entirely different. One simply cannot rummage around and change beginning principles (covenant, law, denial of general equity, etc.) of our undoubted catholic Christian faith and end up with the same faith.

6.) The fact that Caesar remains in our Portfolio is demonstrated by the fact that in a Constitutional Republic we Christians (Citizens of America and Heaven at the same time) are inclusive of those who are Caesar’s employer. Being Caesar’s employer means that we take of what we learn from our Catechism (LD 40), as it is taught in home and Church, and we apply it in the civil realm. No one denies that a distinction between the two realms exist but to bifurcate the two realms the way R2K does approaches being unfaithful.

As Exodus 18:21 says “But select capable men from all the people–men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain–and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.” America was set up in this republican form of government. Christians are to be involved in the selection of capable God fearing people to represent society. You will find that the Bible teaches that legitimate civil (not criminal) government is an ordinance of God, and tyrants have no claim upon conscientious submission of Christians in Romans 13.

Ridderbos, an amillennialist, explains how this non-bifurcation realm reality works where the Kingdom of God interacts and transforms the world,

“But the Kingdom of God also defines the Church in its relation to the world. The Church has a foundation of its own, has its own rules, its own mode of existence. But precisely because of the fact that it is the Church of the Kingdom, it has also a positive relation with the world, for the Kingdom of God is seeking acceptance in the world.

A sower went forth to sow. And the field is the world. That is why the Church is seeking catholicity. And this catholicity has a double aspect, one of extension and one of intensity, in accordance with the nature of the Kingdom. So the Church is as wide as the world. The horizons of the world are also the horizons of the Church; therefore its urge to carry on missionary work, to emigrate, to cross frontiers. This is because the Church is the
Church of the Kingdom. She is not allowed to be self-contained.

But there is also an intensive catholicity of the Church because of the Kingdom. The Church is related to life as a whole. It is not a drop of oil on troubled waters. It has a mission in this world and in the entire structure of the world. This statement does not arise from cultural optimism. This is the confession of the kingship of Christ. For this reason, too, the Church is the Church of the Kingdom.

And the third remark is my concluding one: as Church of the Kingdom, the Church is seeking the future. She has received her talents for the present. But her Lord who went into a far country will return. Her waiting for Him consists of working. Otherwise she will hear: What have you done with my talent?”

Herman Ridderbos,
“When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology”

Of course the militant amillennialists cannot agree with this quote because for the militant amillennialists the Church and the Kingdom are exactly co-extensive. They are one and the same.

7.) Nobody is advocating that the Civil Magistrate answer to the Church. It’s hard to believe that Lee would make that statement since it is widely known that the Reformed vision, as it came to America, was neither Church over State, nor State over Church. The Reformed vision had it, as it came to the America, that Church and State while distinct were interdependent spheres, each under sovereign God. The State’s end was unto providing Justice to God’s people as God defined Justice, and the Church’s role was to the end of ministering grace to God’s people by word and sacrament in the Christian Church. Each had their own place but neither was cut off and bifurcated from the other. The traditional election cycle sermon is one proof of that.

8.) Finally, the 20th century as the bloodiest century in human history wherein more people were killed by Governments than all other centuries combined completely mocks Lee’s statement, “God has given them (The State) sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office since the fall.

This is part of the problem with much of the current ministerial corps. They seemingly have so little knowledge of History. Has Lee never heard of Lenin and Stalin and their murderous purges where tens of millions of people were tortured and killed? Has Lee never heard of Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, and any number of other Tyrants who certainly did not have sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office?

What Lee and R2K is doing with that kind of magnificently stupid statement is to absolutize the State as God walking on the earth and in doing so may be guilty of fostering idolatry in God’s people. No Institution … no person has absolute authority. All authority is dependent upon and must be in submission unto God’s revealed authority.

Look, in the end R2K is a different Reformed religion. The Understanding of God is different. The understanding of the Kingship of Christ is different. The eschatology is different. The ecclesiology is different. The Hermeneutic is different. The understanding of covenant is different. The understanding of the place and the role of the law is different. It is just a different religion.

Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

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

“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (titles ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward) wrote,

How then shall we best love our neighbors outside the church? How shall we preserve and protect those lives that are not directly subject to the moral government of the church?

We have no comparable clarity here. Shall we enact laws against abortion? Christians may, in our wisdom, decide it is best to do so. But neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws must be enacted. She lacks the authority, and the wisdom, to do so. Perhaps such a law will backfire; perhaps it will lead to more abortions, to more deadly abortions. Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just. If she bases her actions on what God’s word teaches, the church must remain agnostic on such questions.

Therefore, the church should be mindful of its members’ dual citizenship, and differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.

Yet while the church is bound and limited in what she may teach, the individual Christian is free. She may engage in politics, may lobby for pro-life causes, may hold civil office. But the church may not compel her to do so.

1.) The implication that the Institutional Church and her Ministers is directly subjecting pagans to the moral government of the Church when it speaks against matters like abortion is a red herring. When the Institutional Church and her Ministers speak consistent with the Heidelberg Catechism seeking to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” it is hardly subjecting them to the moral government of the Church, unless you consider keeping them from harm a matter of direct moral governance.

2.) “Latin Lee” insists that we have no comparable clarity here but Heidelberg Catechism q. 107 says otherwise. Whose words shall we take on the matter?

3.) Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee then launches off into the law of possible unintended consequences. If we followed Lee’s logic on this none of us would get out of bed in the morning. Perhaps such a law will lead to nuclear holocaust.” “Perhaps such a law will lead to more than 1.3 million abortions every year.” This is such a reach one seriously wonders if the good minister is receiving a commission from Planned Parenthood? Lee’s fretting changes the question from “Shall we do evil that good may abound,” to an imperative, “We shall not do good because evil might abound.” Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.

4.) “To more deadly abortions?”

More deadly abortions?

More deadly abortions?

God forbid that we would want to go from dead abortions to even more deadly abortions.

5.) “Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just.”

Only a former bureaucrat could possibly think like that. Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.

6.) Keep in mind that you, Dear Reader, read above, a Minister of the Institutional Church of Jesus Christ say, “the church must remain agnostic on such questions” of whether or not Ministers should verbally, from the Pulpit, support laws ending abortion.

What reasons are given?

a.) such laws might backfire
b.) such laws might lead to more deadly abortions
c.) such laws might be politically unwise

And despite the requirement in question 107 of the Heidelberg Catechism to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” we are told that the Institutional Church and Her ministers must not speak on this kind of matter.

Such council is to boggle the mind.

7.) But Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee is not done. His next statement almost seems to channel Joseph Fletcher — he of “situational ethics” fame. Lee warns us about the, “differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.

If this is not situational ethics it then sure sounds like cultural relativism. God’s law is not multifaceted, and is simple and true but we can’t get to it because we are finite and variable. Paging Dr. Immanuel Kant, there is a severe case of the noumenal realm in room 17.

And here we end our analysis. If this is what Christianity has become, I have no interest in being a Christian.

Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

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

“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward) wrote,

This is a controversial, but crucial, distinction. Let’s apply it to the contested area of abortion.

God’s law clearly proscribes the taking of life. His word clearly teaches that unborn life is precious and to be protected. This has been a hallmark of Christian social ethics since the early church. Therefore, as a preacher I can unambiguously proclaim from the pulpit that a Christian who aborts their child is committing a heinous sin. God commands his people to preserve and protect life.

But the command to not take a life is not a command to pass a law not to take a life. Nor is it a command to politically agitate or lobby for such a law. Such political activity could be understood to run counter to Paul’s command to church to “live quietly and mind your own affairs” (1 Thessalonians 4:11).

1.) Here is one example of German Christians from the 1930’s following Lee’s advice to not politically agitate and to live quietly and mind your own affairs,

“A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from the distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we noticed cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying innocent prisoners. They were like cattle in those cars!”

“Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the innocent prisoners would begin to cry to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor miserable people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns. By the time the train came rumbling past the church yard, we were singing at the top of our voices. If some of the screams reached our ears, we’d just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more.”

2.) Allow me to contend that when Christians speak up for the judicially innocent and the “least of these” they are minding their own affairs and are therefore not crosswise with I Thessalonians 4:11. Besides, is Lee really minding his own affairs and living quietly when he disrupts the Church with his alien theology? Physician heal thyself.

3.) Lee says above that a “Christian who aborts their child is committing a heinous sin.” Because of the way that Lee uses language in a slippery way one wonders if this means that Lee does not think that the non Christian who aborts their children are committing a heinous sin?

4.) Understand that Lee has explicitly said there that for a Christian, to politically agitate or lobby for a law is counter to Scripture’s command. Think about it. If it is counter to Scripture’s command for a Minister to politically agitate or lobby for a law from the Pulpit because it violates the idea of leading a quiet life then why would it be acceptable for any Christian in any context to politically agitate or lobby for a law for the same reason? Are only the ministers to live a quite life and mind their own affairs?

All of the Latin reading and German Published Minister’s “reasoning” is hash.

Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

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

“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward wrote,

As a minister of God’s word, I am therefore limited in how far I can say, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” I can only bind the consciences of my congregation so far as God’s Word has spoken.

There is a difference between saying “You shall not murder,” and saying “You shall pass a law that says you shall not murder.” The former implies the latter is a just act. But the latter act has different force altogether; it commands an act of governance, the authority for which the church lacks in the civil kingdom.

1.) Here Lee is seemingly non-confessional as he is sideways with HC 107 which states,

Q. Is it enough then that we do not murder our neighbor in any such way?

A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves,1 to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them,2 to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.3

The catechism instructs us that we are required to protect our neighbors from harm as much as we can while Lee is instructing us that the Institutional Church and its Ministers in its and their role as Institutional Church and Ministers must not protect our neighbors from harm as much as we can. HC 107 gives us both the wisdom and authority to speak a “thus sayeth the Lord,” and Lee denies this.

2.) Keep in mind that if a Minister says in the pulpit “Congregation, you should vote against the Law that allows abortion,” he is not saying that in the civil Kingdom. He is saying that in the Church realm. The minister therefore is not commanding an act of governance for the civil Kingdom, rather, he is commanding an act of governance for the people of God as they are underneath the authority of the Word in the Church realm. The minister takes them to the catechism (Lord’s Day 40 in this case), and teaches them that they are to prevent the hurt of their neighbor as much as lies in them and that one way to prevent the hurt of their neighbor that does lie in them is to not vote for people who will vote for abortion. (One is left wondering if this is really that difficult for a guy with a earned Doctorate who reads books in Latin and who has been published by German publishing houses.) The minister then could explain that in representative government when you vote for someone you are yoking yourself with that person so much so that when they act you act. (One basic idea of Federalism.) The minister could then bring it home that when they vote for people that vote for abortion they are involving themselves in that sin and crime and so are violating the idea of protecting our neighbor from harm as much as we can and so are trespassing the 6th commandment.

3.) On this point keep in mind that in a Constitutional Republic (in which we live) the people are a large percentage of the governance. Lee’s envisioned scenario suggests that the Institutional Church and its Ministers should not speak God’s mind by God’s authority to the percentage of the governing Constitutional Republic that is attending word and sacrament. In a Constitutional Republic the assumption is that the people do have the wisdom and authority to make these kinds of decisions and Lee’s “thinking” suggests that God’s wisdom and authority shouldn’t be impressed upon the minds of that portion of the governing Constitutional Republic under our shepherding care.

4.) Note what Lee is doing is that he is suggesting that one can give the truth of something (Thou Shalt Not Murder) but is forbidden to give all the implications of “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” Certainly a Minister can give the implications in the sense of not burying a knife into someone themselves but the Minister can not tell God’s people they can not hire someone, by their vote, to murder someone. This is all very strange stuff.