Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

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.

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?