Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

I picked at part of this quote in the previous entry but I just have to come back for another bite at the proverbial apple.

D. G. Hart writes,

“So if you are a legislator or president or judge and you hold office by virtue of being elected by Americans, not just the Christian ones, then don’t you have an obligation to execute your office in a way that is in the best interests of the people you serve (Americans and American-Christians)?”

1.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one posit, that acting in a non-Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents would be a Christian thing to do?

2.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one not think, that acting in Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents, would always be in the best interest of non-Christian constituents?

3.) By what standard are we defining “best interest?”

Darryl asks,

“But if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

1.) I guess every thought captive to the obedience of Christ is understood to have the addition “except in the public/common kingdom.”

2.) So much for “whatever is not done in faith is sin.”

3.) This quote suggests that if someone is voted in by all the Americans then there are times when it would be wrong to act in the best interest of Christians vis a vis the Christian constituents.

3.) Are we being told by a Dr. of the Church that it is wrong, at times, (by what Standard?) to act as a Christian when in a public capacity?

4.) If one is not acting as a Christian then how is one acting? Perhaps it is the case for Hart that it is Christian to not act as a Christian when you are a public official representing all the people?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Hart continues,

I get it. Politicians face ethical dilemmas but those are not the same as a personal preference or conviction on the one hand and what is best for everyone on the other. A Major League Baseball umpire may have grown up as a Phillies’ fan, but if he is behind the plate for a Phils-Pirates game, he’s supposed to call the same strike zone for both pitchers.

So doesn’t the same apply to Christian legislators who would seek public office in the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Don’t they have to act in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers?

1.) Only a Christian Umpire, or a Umpire influenced by a Christian worldview would think it important to call balls and strikes as “balls and strikes” in a Phillies vs. Pirates game. A non-Christian Umpire would call that outside pitch a third strike on Andrew McCutchen every time and be glad he was able to do so.

2.) Acting in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers would be to always act as a Christian.

Recently, public officials of the California State University locations, ruled to “de-recognize” the Christian campus ministry called “Inter-Varsity.” See story linked,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/intervarsity-sanctioned-california-state-university_n_5791906.html

Now according to R2K Chieftain Dr. D. G. Hart, this was a understandable move since,

” … if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”

Now, it is at least possible that the public officials of the California State University system were Christian and it is possible, that since the California State University system was not to show any religious preference, therefore those Christian public officials of the California State University did the right thing.

However, even if the all the California State University officials who made this decision were pagans, it still is the right decision, according to Hart, since the University system was not to show any religious preferences. I mean, after all, who does Inter-Varsity think they are requiring leaders to adhere to Christian beliefs? The University, per Hart, was correct to shut this travesty of unprincipled pluralism down.

However, Hart’s colleague, Dr. R. Scott Clark thinks that the California State University was wrong to de-recognize Intervarsity. Clark offers this morsel,

“One area that ought to be a matter of growing concern for Christians (and other religious folk) is the attempt by some in our society to use administrative and bureaucratic positions to silence views with which they disagree. Such impulses are fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

Scott, sees de-recognizing Inter-varsity as something bad. But, we might ask, “bad,” by what standard? By a Biblical Standard? 1000 times no. Scott’s standard for faulting the California State University system’s decision as bad bad bad is that it is “fundamentally un-American and unjust.”

But applying Darrell’s principle it most certainly is American and just. After all, the California State University system is to show no religious preferences and allowing Intervarsity to only have leadership that is Christian is the very apex of religious preference.

Pursuing a brief rabbit trail one wonders why Dr. R. Scott Clark appeals to the Confessions in order to gain traction for policy in the Common realm? Certainly, if Scripture is not to be our guide in the common realm, per R2K, then the confessions would be out of bounds also right? Why should Christians care what the Confessions have to say concerning common realm activity? Well … they might care what those Confessions say about the common realm when they are in the Church realm but the minute they leave the Church realm they would have to forget that they cared what the Confessions said when they were in the Church realm.

Scott also complains about the California State University system trying to impose ideological conformity from above but if the University system would do what Scott wants by allowing Inter-varsity to operate untrammeled wouldn’t that also be a case where the University is imposing a top down ideological conformity? The University can either impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced,” or they can impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced except Christianity.” Either way, the University system is imposing a top down ideological construct. No neutrality Scott … remember? It is never a question of “whether or not top down ideological construct,” it is only ever a question of which top down ideological construct.

Scott complains about the unfairness of it all, but what is fair outside a Biblical standard?

Scott asks the question,

“From what mountain did the administers descend, what revelation did they receive that gives them the authority to banish historic Christian orthodoxy from campus?

I hate to be bearer of bad tidings but the answer to this question is they descended from Mt. positivistic law or they received the Revelation from St. Natural law. The further bad news for Scott is that the only thing that can combat each and both of them is Biblical Christianity in the common realm.

“When we come to the Republication Paradigm, merit is being defined and used differently than in the Westminster Standards.”

Elam, Van Kooten, Bergquist
Moses and Merit; A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication

1.) The reason that merit is being defined and used differently than in the Westminster standards is because the whole idea of “merit,” as handled by the Klinean Republication lads, is resting in a different worldview from those who wrote the Westminster standards. Words are worldview dependent and the worldview of the Escondido Theology is a different worldview than the Westminster divines and so their definition of merit is as different as the worldview that they own.

2.) Concretely speaking, merit is different in the Escondido Theology because, following Kline, the Escondido theology no longer is taking into consideration the ontological divide between man as creature and God as Creator. Because the Westminster West lads view merit only covenantally there is little understanding in their position to see the inability whereby Adam could gain, even in the prelapsarian covenant, a strict merit. Adam could never have earned a strict merit due to the ontological distance between the Creator and the creature.

Adam gained merit in the prelapsarian covenant only due to God’s condescension. God’s condescension allowed Adam to accrue “covenant merit.” However, covenant merit could never be strict merit because of the ontological divide between God and Adam. The only one who could ever gain strict merit was the Lord Christ; and that only because there was not ontological divide between the Father and Son. The Escondido theology severely minimizes this ontological distance between God and man and so does not render justice to the idea of God condescending to man.

The sum of it all is that the changes made in the Escondido Republication Theology goes a long way towards giving a facelift to the Reformed faith so that it no longer is what it once was. You simply cannot rearrange and redefine central concepts of the Reformed faith without sending ripple effects through the whole theological structure.

Over at this site,

http://www.visionandvalues.org/2013/04/thoughts-on-same-sex-marriage-part-iii/#sthash.0PuXIRyC.dpuf

R2K fanboy T. David Gordon, a year ago or so, had a go at same sex marriage. Someone sent me this article written by the Religion and Greek Prof at Grove City College. This article demonstrate why I did not send my children to “Christian colleges.” Why spend your hard earned money to have your children indoctrinated in this dreck?

You may not know this but T. David Gordon (hereafter TDG) is the chap who once said of standard vanilla Christianity,

“(it is) the Bible-thumping error par excellence,” and the doctrine of the “never to be wise.”

TDG also said once of the Covenant of Grace that he “pitied the poor Israelites who suffered under the Mosaic administration.”

TDG gets points for boldness but has points subtracted for being slow.

Anyway, in the piece that follows, TDG tries to convince us that the same sex marriage issue should be approached as a civil issue and not as a religious issue.

TDG titles his article,

Thoughts on Same-Sex Marriage, Part III: The Issue Is Civil, Not Religious

Bret responds,

By what standard is TDG determining that the issue of same sex marriage is civil and not religious? What other standard could he use to come to that conclusion except a religious standard? Something is informing TDG that same sex marriage is not a religious issue. I contend that it is TDG’s religion that is the standard informing him that same sex marriage is not a religious issue.

TDG writes,

“Parties on each side of the same-sex marriage issue often interject religion into the discussion. In my opinion, this is unhelpful. The manifest intention of the First Amendment is that the majority may not impose its religious preferences on the minority, but permit the minority the same due exercise as the majority enjoys. If the determination of whose union the state must recognize were a religious matter, then plainly, Mormons could still be polygamous, and the state would be obliged to certify their polygamous unions. In plain point of historical fact, the Utah compromise proves that the question of whose unions the state will recognize is not a religious decision; it is a civil decision, which the state determines according to its own interests.”

This is a non sequitur which commits the is / ought fallacy but lets pretend it doesn’t and play along with TDG.

1.) TDG interjects his religion into the discussion by saying that interjecting other religions (besides the one he champions of course) is unhelpful concerning the issue of same sex marriage. TDG desire the religion of “no religion” to have the final say.

2.) To take the 1st amendment the way TDG is taking it is to argue that all minority religious preference immoralities must be protected since that is what the 1st amendment promises. Would TDG say that the 1st amendment supports smoking peyote for religious reasons? Would TDG say that the 1st amendment protects the minority religious practice of “Suttee?” Would TDG say that the 1st amendment protects the religious minority preference of child sacrifice in a religious ceremony? By TDG “logic” shouldn’t these minority religious practices have the same due exercise of religion as the majority enjoys?

3.) TDG misses the fact that it was precisely because polygamous marriage was a religious matter that the FEDS said “no” to Mormon polygamy. In point of fact, in the polygamy case the FEDS imposed upon the religious minority of Utah their religious preference in favor of the majority religious preference.

4.) In plain point of historical fact,

a.) The Utah decision was no compromise.
b.) The Utah decision is proof positive that even a broken clock is right twice a day
c.) The Utah decision proves that religion is an inescapable category

5.) How does the State determine what is in its own interest without some kind of religious standard? Note this is important. TDG insists that the standard used by the State is a cost-benefit analysis. But one must still ask, ‘what standard will be used, by the State, to assess the cost benefit analysis to which TDG appeals? What religious- Theological presuppositions will be in play in order to determine the cost-benefit analysis?

TDG writes,

“If the issue were a religious issue, it would be difficult to account for the prevalence of the civil recognition of marriage in so many religiously diverse nations. Secular nations such as France and the former Soviet Union recognized marital unions; Buddhist and Hindu nations recognize marital unions; Islamic countries recognize marital unions. If recognizing opposite-sex unions were merely an expression of religious faith, why would Joseph Stalin’s USSR have done so? Why would France do so? State recognition of certain unions is a civil issue, regardless of whatever religious (or irreligious) opinions exist regarding those unions themselves. And a great variety of differing governments have recognized the union of a single man and a single woman for some reason that must, therefore, be non-religious.”

1.) It is not difficult in the slightest to “account for the prevalence of the civil recognition of marriage in so many religiously diverse nations.” It is simply a matter of understanding that no pagan worldview completely cleanses itself of all residual tenets of Biblical Christianity.

2.) TDG needs to do some historical work looking at what happened to marriage and family at the beginning of the great Soviet Union experiment before it reversed course. He could start by looking up the name of Alexandra Kollontai and go from there. He could discover that religious reasons moved the Soviet Union to originally seek to break up the idea of marriage and family and that the failure of reorganizing marriage and family consistent with Christ hating religion forced them to give up on their religious project of redefining marriage and family. But then TDG, being a religion guy, wouldn’t know anything about the history of religious communism.

3.) The fact that a great number of pagan States have recognized opposite sex unions no more proves that such recognition is irreligious then the fact that a great number of pagan states have recognized dog licenses proves the state is one big dog kennel. The fact that men and States never act completely consistently with their God hating worldviews is not that difficult to understand.

TDG writes,

“I suspect the primary consideration that has motivated such a diversity of states to recognize heterosexual unions between one man and one woman is because this is the ordinary biological way in which new taxpayers (and soldiers, etc.) are created. Governments do not (yet?) have the power to create new humans to pay taxes in the future and to participate more broadly in the culture. They are dependent upon the biological union of males and females to secure a national progeny, and, for this reason, they recognize and protect such unions by issuing licenses. Now, there may be a host of religious reasons for being happy that states do this; but the states do not do so for religious reasons. Secular as well as non-secular states do so for the common reason that this is the ordinary way in which new citizens enter the state and are reared to maturity. That is, to put it crassly: the state has an interest in preserving and promoting the biological unions by which, ordinarily, new citizens enter the public arena.”

Bret responds,

1.) In this quote TDG takes up the fundamental principle of legal positivism which is that the good is what the state does and a just law is whatever the state decrees.

2.) The fact that many states might do what Christians want them to do, yet not for the reason Christians want them to do so should convince Christians that this is not a religious discussion? Hello Bueller?

3.) If this reasoning was correct then the State most certainly should, on the basis of a cost benefit analysis, at least allow polygamy. After all polygamy can produce large numbers of taxpayers. Further, States, on the theorizing of TDG should pass laws that require marriages to be voided if there is some kind of sterilization that prohibits child bearing. Remember … this is all cost-benefit analysis.

4.) There is no such thing as a “secular” State if by that one suggests that a State rules from nowhere and from no religious disposition.

5.) TDG has the State recognizing marriage for the purpose of self-sustainment. The problem here is that the desire for self sustainment is a religious consideration. A religious consideration that is driven by a Christian (religious) presupposition that life (sustainment) is good and that death is bad.

TDG writes,

“We would do well to remind ourselves: We are not discussing whether consenting adults may have sexual relations as they wish; that matter has been settled (in the United States) since the Texas Supreme Court decision. We are discussing which unions the state ought to recognize. I am suggesting that, unless and until the state can procure a future progeny by another means than the union of a male and female, it would be imprudent for it not to recognize, and therefore protect, this particular union. And, I further suggest that the conversation we ought to be having is this: What similar benefit does state recognition of same-sex unions bring to the state, which would warrant the clerical and judicial costs to the state?”

Bret responds,

1.) So because Lawrence vs. Texas gave us a illegal law the matter is now settled?

2.) So, if the state could suddenly discover better ways to produce progeny for its own survival therefore the State would have a legitimate grounds in order to recognize marriage between a man and his cow? Paging Todd Bordow.

3.) TDG is taking us here from “Has not the Lord said,” to, “Has not the State said.”

TDG wrote,

“I myself remain open to a convincing conversation here, but I do not hear or read anyone making it. It should not be difficult to determine what it currently costs the individual states (or their aggregate) in clerical and judicial expenses to recognize those marriages that they now recognize. Nor should it be difficult to calculate, therefore, the “per-union” cost to the state recognizing unions. The conversation should then turn to the “return” the state would likely get for this expense.”

Bret responds,

1.) Am I to take from this that if a cost-benefit analysis could be made which would reveal that it was profitable for the State to turn me into Soylent Green it would be acceptable to do so?

2.) This is pragmatism and utilitarianism in its most ugly visage. Do we need to enter into arguments that has been used to overturn pragmatism?

3.) Why is it so wrong to thing that the conversation should turn to what God thinks?

TDG seems to come from the Libertarian “axiom” that one cannot legislate morality, but the whole, “it’s a civil issue, not a religious issue” is a self-defeating stance, for that in and of itself is legislation of a morality. There are no “irreligious” issues and because there are no irreligious issues there is no separating law from religion.

In the end what TDG wants is that all the gods be seen as equal thus receiving equal protection under the law. So, we ask T. Dave, “what entity will make sure that all the gods will receive equal protection under the law? What entity will make sure none of the gods get a leg up on the other gods?

The answer TDG offers us is that the God state of course will make sure all the gods are equal in the common realm. No god is given preference. Decisions are made via a cost-benefit analysis. The God state thus becomes the God of the competing gods and so the God state is God over all. The God state will make sure the the God of the Bible is restricted in the exercise of His dominion. All must serve and bow before the God state. Re-read TDG article and note that the civil realm is ordered according to the desires of the State. What else is that but acknowledging that the State is the God in the civil realm?

Because this is so, we do currently have a Theonomic order. The State is the God we serve and the State, while insisting its law comes from nowhere in terms of religion, is actually giving us a law order of Humanism.

TDG, as a professing Christian, supports this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl9_cWxpLxY