Category: ecclesiology

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.

Continuing to examine 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

“While individual believers live in both kingdoms, the church and her servants, Gospel preachers, are exclusively heralds and ambassadors of the heavenly, redemptive kingdom. Like any good ambassador, they carry only the message of the king who sends them, and this message is very precisely circumscribed by the New Testament: “For I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).

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. This is why in the matter of the Houston subpoena of preached sermons, I wrote that as far as preached material goes, pastors should be entirely willing to send their sermons to anyone who will listen.”

1.) Here Lee premises that the only message that the Lord Christ has for this world is “Marvel not when I say unto you, you must be born again,” or, “we beseech ye be ye reconciled to God.” But this is the beginning of our undoubted catholic Christian faith, not all of our undoubted catholic Christian faith. There are other words that ministers are to speak to their congregations from the pulpit.

2.) The idea that Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can only give thematic messages that are consistent with “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2), is belied by St. Paul writing to Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” Was Paul being unfaithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for telling Timothy something besides Christ and Him crucified when he told him to throw back some liquor? In the same way Ministers are commissioned to bring forth the whole counsel of God — a counsel that speaks to every area of life.

3.) Lee reveals some serious confusion in the second paragraph above. Lee keeps suggesting that the Institutional Church and her Ministers are involving themselves in the Church realm when in point of fact it is the civil realm that is involving itself in the Church realm. Lee wants the Church to “shut up” because the Church shouldn’t involve itself in the common realm when the reality is that the Church must speak, precisely because the civil realm is involving itself in the Church. When the Magistrate seeks to redefine the Christian ethic of our people via making murder (abortion) and sodomy (sodomite marriage) normative then it is not the case, even by R2K standards, that the Church and her ministers are involving themselves in the civil realm, but rather the civil realm is involving itself in the Church’s bailiwick.

4.) In Acts 19 we see that the instructions of faithful ministers resulted in economic and social order chaos. Because of the Gospel message silversmiths were economically ruined and there was an occult book burning. These would have both been actions that would have been contrary to the social order and culture in Ephesus. Paul, as a minister of Christ, brings the Gospel, and the result is that those converted overturn the social order via their obedience. So much for Lee’s “circumscribing of the message.” It is not possible to speak to people about the need to turn to Christ without also speaking to them about the need to turn away from the idols that are propping up the common realm. Lee is wrong.

5.) Lee says that Ministers have neither the authority or expertise to weigh in on civil matters? Says who? Lee? Certainly ministers have the expertise to look at the abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell and then say from the pulpit, “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” What amount of expertise does it take to say abortion is murder? Secondly, we might ask on this score why is it that Lee assumes that it is Politicians who have enough expertise to weigh in on civil matters? Politicians are some of the stupidest people you will ever meet on God’s green earth.

6.) Clearly Ministers have the authority to speak a “Thou Shalt Not Murder,” to a social order intent on killing itself.

One wonders though…. where does Lee get the authority to suggest that ministers don’t have authority? Shouldn’t he, by his own principles, just resolve to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

Continuing to examine 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

The great challenge for Christians is that we are called to live faithfully as citizens of both these kingdoms.

With the Apostle Paul, we can say that we are citizens of Rome, or the USA, by physical birth (Acts 22:28), and we can say that by the new birth we have been made fellow citizens with the saints in the household of God (Ephesians 2:19). Our citizenship therefore is in heaven, from which we await a Savior (Philippians 3:20). Christians therefore have dual citizenship. The Two Kingdom view is not schizophrenic, as some critics believe, but faithfully reflects the tension between our earthly and heavenly citizenships that is inherent in the New Testament.

Because the future heavenly kingdom of grace is breaking into our current time and place, these two kingdoms overlap. By his heavenly citizenship, Paul was free at the same moment his Roman citizenship kept him in chains. When the new heavens and new earth arrive—suddenly and violently, from above, and not by our doing—this duality will cease.

Given these distinctions, should the church publicly weigh in on ballot issues? I believe not.

1.) And the great problem for R2K Christians is that living faithfully as citizens of both these Kingdoms puts them in the position of being full of contradictions. In their personal lives they must not steal but in their lives in the common realm they can vote for people who would legislate theft via redistribution of wealth. In their personal lives they must not practice abortion, but in the common realm, as “Rev.” Lee tells us in his article, Christians can support abortion with their vote. In their personal lives they must not have sex with animals but in their public lives, according to Rev. Todd Bordow, a R2K advocate, it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to vote for Candidates who support repealing Bestiality laws. So, Lee calls for Christians to live faithfully as citizens in both Kingdoms but his theology makes that requirement an impossibility.

2.) The only tension that is inherent in the New Testament is the tension that R2K imposes on the New Testament. We find zero examples in the New Testament where the Apostles write that 1st century Christians are allowed to bifurcate their personal lives from their public square lives.

3.) Notice also Lee’s repeated references to the New Testament. This is because for R2K the Old Testament ethic was lifted into the heavenlies when Israel failed. This is the famous R2K “Intrusion Ethic.” This “Intrusion Ethic” teaches that the ethic of the OT is voided upon the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This bifurcating of the OT ethic from the post Ascension world accounts for why R2K has often been long referred to as “Reformed Dispensationalism.”

4.) Lee’s protestation notwithstanding, his “theology” (R2K) is schizophrenic in the worst way possible. Lee demonstrates that schizophrenia supremely when, as a minister of the Church, he opens his mouth on the subject of politics (i.e. — writes an article) insisting that ministers must not open their mouths on the subject of politics.

5.) Notice Lee’s “Transcendentalizing of the Eschaton.” For Lee, the age to come awaits to have impact on this current wicked age until the violent coming of the Lord Christ. For Lee the “age to come” does not slowly grow as a mustard seed in the common realm. For Lee the “age to come” does not leaven its way slowly though the whole common realm loaf. For Lee the Eschaton is a locked away reality, only to have impact upon the common realm once it comes violently from above. This again reveals the R2K dualism. The “age to come” is only a spiritual (nee-Platonic) reality that shows up in the Church realm. For the common realm the “age to come” Eschaton is “up there,” while “this wicked age” is “down here.” What wonders how this is not Gnostic?

6.) Lee says, “(because) the future heavenly kingdom of grace is breaking into our current time and place, these two kingdoms overlap.” But, for R2K they only overlap if one attends Church or if one is part of the Church realm. There is zero overlap between the Kingdom of grace and the common realm in the common realm. The eschaton is completely Transcendentalized and Platonized. This is why he can say that the Church should not weigh in on public ballot issues. The Church should not weigh in because the church belongs to another realm. For Lee, for the Church to weigh in on public ballot issues in our cultures and social orders would be like Peruvians voting in Taiwanese elections. For Lee Christ has to do with the common realm the way that Peruvians have to do with Taiwanese elections.

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.