Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

It is possible that some of you may remember my interaction with R2K-phile Dr. Brian Lee from last November. Dr. Brian Lee, you will recall, informed us that he has a legit Ph.D and is a Reverend Doctor. Further he has read books (most of them in Latin) and he has had his dissertation published with Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, which is a legit German academic house. Anyway … Dr. Lee said in our interactions back then,

“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…. 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.”

Rev. Dr. Brian Lee, on R2k submission to Ceasar, Nov. 2014

But now it seems that Dr. Lee is whistling a new tune.  Just yesterday he was caught giving advice on the whole SCOTUS Sodomy affair.

“I encourage folks to read this roundup (Lee provides a link) of what the dissenting justices believe are the religious liberty implications of Friday’s SCOTUS decision on SSM (Same Sex Marriage). These aren’t partisan hacks raising baseless alarm bells. These are constitutional scholars pointing out the disastrous side-effects of having engineered this cultural transformation through the courts. A legislative enactment of SSM would have been far more orderly, peaceful, and constructive to our constitutional form of government.

The failure of Kennedy’s majority opinion to articulate or guarantee free exercise of religion for opponents of this decision is astounding, and gravely troubling. It’s not accidental.”

My question to the good Latin reading Doctor is based upon his words in November. Based on his words in November why should he or any member of the clergy care what SCOTUS does? All of what Lee published on this subject has taught us is that none of us have the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters. Yet here he is weighing in on civil matters. Perhaps what the man with the legit Ph.D meant is that none of us, except the star of Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, have the authority or expertise to weigh in on civil matters?

Is R2K really just a ruse to get everyone else in the Church to shut up about these civil matters so that the benighted R2K geniuses of the world have a clear field in order to instruct the cattle?  Or is it just the case, as I’ve argued before, that R2K is a miasma of contradiction and inconsistency that only someone with pretzel logic can understand?

Dr. Brian Lee (Nov. 2014) —  “NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people.”

Dr. Brian Lee (June 2015) — “A legislative enactment of SSM would have been far more orderly, peaceful, and constructive to our constitutional form of government. “

Has Dr. Brian Lee had a “Road to Damascus” conversion or, as I think it more likely the case, is he merely demonstrating the bi-polar tendency in all R2K “thinking?”

Now as to his actual words themselves, as typed in bold print, one wonders if Dr. Brian Lee is against SSM as a principle, or is he just against SSM as it is implemented  by judicial fiat?

R2K — A “theology” that keeps you guessing.

“Read on its own terms, the teaching of the New Testament about the Kingdom of God is remarkably silent about the pressing social concerns of the day.”

R. Scott Clark 
Escondido R2K Theologian

Here the dispensational tendency of R2K is seen. Scott wants to consider the Kingdom of God as only in its New Testament reality. But all Reformed scholars realize that the Kingdom of God in the New Testament was a concept that had long been anticipated from the Old Testament. The Kingdom of God in the New Testament is fulfillment of the Old Testament anticipations. As such we have to go to the Old Testament to view what was expected of this Kingdom of God and there in the OT we find a promised coming Kingdom that is replete with social order concerns. So concerned with the social order is the Kingdom of God that we are even told that the lion will lay down with the lamb.

In Isaiah 65 we read of this present and future Kingdom,

17 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.
20 “ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
They shall not plant and another eat;
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain,
Nor bring forth children for trouble;
For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD,
And their offspring with them.
24 “ It shall come to pass
That before they call, I will answer;
And while they are still speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”
Says the LORD.

This passage has been surrounded by a great deal of debate as to when we can anticipate such blessedness. Pre-millennialist insists that this description comes to pass in the Kingdom of God that Christ establishes once He returns. A-millennialists insist that this description comes to pass in the eschaton. Post-millenialist insist that all that Isaiah speaks of has been inaugurated by and in Christ, and so will come progressively in Christ as His Kingdom, (His new creation of heaven and earth) like the Mustard seed, increasingly reflects what it has already established in an inaugurative fashion, with the consummation being the fulfillment of what has been inaugurated and all that is becoming true progressively regarding this present and future Kingdom of God. Clearly the Old Testament teaches that the Kingdom of God has social order impact.

In the ministry of the Lord Christ, He impacts the social order by refuting and correcting the cultural gatekeepers at every turn. Indeed, in his healing ministry the Lord Christ is demonstrating that the Kingdom of God has impact in the lives of people that they, now being clean, may return to participation in the social order. Clearly the life and ministry of Christ in the New Testament has social order impact.

When St. Paul brings the Gospel of the Kingdom (Resurrection and the Kingdom of God are the two main preaching themes in Acts) to Ephesus (Acts 19) the consequence is that the social order of Ephesus experiences a major shake up in its economic, and political social order. The Kingdom was pressing in on the wicked social order of Ephesus and it made for the threat of change in Ephesus. Earlier in Acts 17 St. Paul again brings the Gospel of the Kingdom message to Athens and again threatens to overturn the social order of Athens.  Clearly the Apostolic ministry in Acts demonstrated the Kingdom of God has social order impact.

That the New Testament doesn’t articulate again what the Old Testament taught about the impact of the Kingdom on social concerns is no reason to toss the Old Testament teaching on the Kingdom of God. Scott should know better.

“When I became a believer in the mid-1970s I did the same thing. I did not know Jeremiah from Matthew. I remember being surprised that there were “minor prophets” in the Bible. I was utterly ignorant of the Christian faith but upon coming to faith in Jesus I immediately imputed my (then leftist) social views to Jesus…

I have my (now more libertarian) social views, which I express in social media and elsewhere but I am constrained as a minister not to seek to use my office to achieve my social goals (to be left alone).”

R. Scott Clark
Escondido R2K Theologian

1.) I wonder if there are any R2K fanboys who are not at their core either Leftist or Libertarian? Do keep in mind how much Libertarianism and Leftism have in common. I’ve never met a R2K advocate who is traditionally conservative in their social views (think R. L. Dabney or T. S. Eliot). Hence, I must tentatively conclude that R2K seems to be a view of the left.  If this is correct then Scott did not change his social views. He merely has softened them somewhat.

2.) Scott is using his office to achieve his social goals. Scott says that the institutional church should be silent quite without realizing that the Church’s silence on social goals speaks volumes. Should sodomites be allowed to marry? The Church, as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion. Does Christian ethics apply to cloning or the creeping issue of trans-humanism? The Church as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion. Does Christianity have anything to say about rounding up Gypsies, Kulaks, or Slavs to be put into concentration camps?  The Church as Christ’s spokesman, insists that Christ has no opinion.

Does anybody really want to advance the notion that this silence from the pulpit isn’t equal to moral approval?

3.) Interesting that Scott is Libertarian enough to want to be left alone yet he won’t leave me alone to Preach what God’s word clearly teaches touching social order matters.

“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.