R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 27

Are All R2K Advocates Closet Leftists or Libertarians?

“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.

The Problem of Christian Societies Minus the Christian Church

“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.

Who could have guessed? … R. Scott Clark the Hot Social Gospeler

“…whatever social agenda a Christian pursues is one thing but leave the visible, institutional church out of it. The church, as a visible institution, as the embassy of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, has no social agenda for the wider civil and cultural world.”

R. Scott Clark
R2K Aficionado

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on sodomite Marriage in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on women in the Military in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on abortion, euthanasia and other end of life issues for this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on the Marxist inspired Government theft, usury, and inflation in this culture.

This means that the institutional Church has zero to say on any law order that is explicitly non Christian.

One could only wish that this would mean that Scott would be consistent and as a officer of the Church quit advancing the R2K social agenda for the Church.

One simply is required to realize that Scott is pursuing a social agenda with this tripe. Scott’s social agenda is the institutional Church’s complete withdrawal from culture and Scott is a hot Social gospeler in pursuit of that social agenda.

R. Scott Clark Seeks to Capture Jesus for the R2K Agenda

Every culture and generation has been tempted to capture Jesus for their own agenda. The Gnostics portrayed Jesus as a second-century figure (a dead give away) who was a Gnostic opposed to the church and the Christian gospel of free salvation from the wrath to come through faith alone in Christ alone. The Constantinian (post-4th century) church often portrayed Jesus as such a fearsome king and judge that the church began to search for other saviors and mediators. In the Modern era, Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) re-made Jesus into his own rationalist image—he produced his own version of the New Testament stripped of supernaturalism. In the Carter 1970s and the Reagan 80s, as the baby-boomer-dominated culture turned inward, Jesus became a facilitator for our personal sense of well being. Now, with the rise of the Millennial generation, the product of the war against terror and a Carter-esque economic malaise, the concern is ostensibly other-centered but once again the Christian faith has become yet another vehicle to carry social concerns. There is renewed talk among young evangelicals and others of the so-called “social gospel.”

R. Scott Clark

Of course the Irony here is that Scott, in insisting the naughtiness of these other movements to capture Jesus for their own agenda is doing the same exact thing. Scott desires to capture Jesus for his R2K movement. For R2K Clark Jesus is the very embodiment of R2K. Jesus, being R2K, is against all those movements which would try to capture Jesus for other naughty movements. For Scott Jesus is a 21st century figure who is R2K opposed to the church and a Christianity that insists that Kings (R2K Common realm Authorities) must kiss the Son lest those Kings perish in the way. Scott, and R2K have re-made Jesus into their own surrender monkey image. They are trying to produce their own version of the New Testament stripped of any notion of Christian culture, Christian education, Christian family, Christian marriage, Christian law etc. With the rise of R2K, a response that seeks to avoid the rising tide of anti-Christian sentiment by means of surrender and withdrawal, we see that the concern is to protect the Church by cutting it off from cultural engagement. What R2K has turned Christianity into, by promoting abdication as the Church’s social concern is yet another vehicle to carry its own social concern.

Will the Real Michael Horton Please Stand Up

“Nothing in the 2K view entails that Christians do not, then, pursue their vocation in a ‘distinctively Christian way’ or that neither the church nor individual Christians should be in the business of changing the world or society.” Michael Horton,
December 2011

______________________________

“It is certainly true that America is not a Christian nation and in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state.”Michael Horton,
May 2011

Here we have Horton telling us that Christians can

First Horton says that, “Nothing in the 2K view entails that Christians do not, then, pursue their vocation in a ‘distinctively Christian way’ …” and then he turns around and says that, “Christians should not promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state.”

Of course Horton must be assuming here that it is impossible for Christians to pursue their vocation in a distinctively Christian way if their vocation is law or politics. After all, the vocation of Christian law and Christian politics is all about the attempt to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices (i.e. — the implementation of Legislation) through the properly coercive power of the state. Legislation, when properly passed, is never ever anything except the promotion of doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state. So, is Michael telling us here that there is indeed something in R2K which forbids Christian political activists or legislators from changing the world or society in a Christian direction?

Putting the concern in the paragraph above as succinctly and as pithily as possible we ask, how would a Christian Magistrate pursue his “vocation in a distinctively Christian way” (Horton quote #1) and still “not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state” (Horton quote #2)?
The second quote from Horton is quite breathtaking and convinces me that Michael is just confused and doesn’t really mean what he is saying. Keep in mind that the properly coercive power of the state is always properly coercive in keeping with some religion. Proper coerciveness is never employed without that coerciveness as being derivative of and a reflection of, some religion. So, given that is true, what is wrong with Christianity changing the world via the properly coercive power of the state? The problem here of course is that Michael continues to think that the state can be neutral or common ( largely synonymous ideas). In Michael’s Libertarian world the state is unbiased and is not to be captured for the usage of anyone or any religion, except for the religion that insists that Christianity has nothing to do with the public square. In Michael’s R2K social order the state is set free from all the gods and so rules as god over all the gods to determine how far their adherents can go in the common square. For Michael it is, in the state we live and move and have our being.

That there is the non-Van Tillian idea of neutrality leaking in his thinking is seen by Michael’s call for Christians not to seek distinctly Christian doctrines. Very well then Mike, if Christians are not to seek distinctly Christian doctrines then what is left for them to seek? Non distinctly Christian doctrines? Distinctly non Christian doctrines? Non distinctly non Christian doctrines? Mike is implicitly giving us the idea that we can have neutrality in our public square. We can have laws that come from nowhere, religiously speaking.

In terms of quote #1 above, keep in mind though, that per R2K and Horton any changing of the world or society that might happen will not and can not make the society more “Christian” since it is not possible for society to be Christian. Societies, cultures and social orders, like horses, whales, and bumblebees can not be Christian. To speak of a Christian society for R2K is a confusion of categories. It is to speak an absurdity.And finally, Horton’s 1st quote just is not true. There is plenty that has been published by R2K chaps that forbids the Church from changing the world or society.