Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

Over at the Bayly Blog

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/06/theological-critique-escondido-two-kingdoms-theology-viii-machen-was-culture-warrior

Rev. Bayly gets in the R2K boys’ Kitchen. Of course we have been writing the very same thing for years now. See excerpts below.

However, one key thing that needs to be taken from Rev. Bayly’s article and my own excerpts is that the R2K chaps are hack Historians when they try to claim Machen as “proto-R2K.” Machen wasn’t proto R2K and for Historian, Dr. D. G. Hart, and the rest of the “R2K Gang Who Can’t Shoot Straight” to suggest that Machen was R2K is worse then disinformation and propaganda. It is Libel of the dead.

Historians are supposed to deal with all the information on a person’s life and seek to either harmonize it or leave the contradictions exposed. Historians are not supposed to cut and paste someone’s life to fit their preconceived political agenda. (And R2K is a political agenda, despite its constant screaming that Churchmen shouldn’t be involved in disputes concerning political agendas.)

So, a hat tip to Rev. Bayly for exposing R2K again.

See below links and excerpted portions from Iron Ink previous engagements with R2K in years past for supplementary material that supports the Bayly Blog’s exposure of R2K.

October 18th 2011

This post title is “J. Gresham Machen … Does Not Know, Nor Has Ever Heard Of R2K”

Christianity and Culture – “Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the Gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the Gospel. For making it subservient, religious emotion is not enough, intellectual labor is also necessary. And that labor is being neglected. The Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her life.”

J. Gresham Machen
1912 centennial commemorative lecture at Princeton Seminary

“Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God.”

~J. Gresham Machen

June 30th 2009

This post title is “Cleaning Out The Outhouse”

Recently Steve Zrimec over at “The Confessional Outhouse” was bored enough to pay attention to something I wrote on Iron Ink. Steve Zrimec is, in many respects, the theological antithesis to myself. He is the Joker to my Batman … the Stalin to my Churchill … the ying to my yang.

I thought I would go ahead and respond to some of Steve’s prattling and so provide a service by cleaning the the Outhouse.

Steve started by quoting one of his heroes, and a sometime foil of mine, Dr. D. G. Hart. This quote comes from Hart’s book on Machen. (Which I have read.)

“Machen was indeed concerned about the dangers that “cultural modernism” posed to traditional faith. But he was even more worried about the “modernism” of American Protestantism and the cultural outlook upon which Protestantism reconstructions rested. For Machen, the moves by Protestants to “modernize” the faith—and not the efforts of “cultural modernists” to move beyond Christianity—comprised the greatest danger to Christianity. For by refashioning Christianity mainline Protestants hoped to maintain the churches’ role as cultural guardian. But in the process, Machen believed, they had confused influence with faithfulness. In fact, he held that theological integrity and cultural authority were inversely related: a theology eager for public influence invariably compromised the Christian faith, while a principled theology could at best benefit society indirectly.”

The problem here for gentlemen like Hart and Zrimec is that they continue to be confused on the issue of culture. Hart speaks here of Machen being more concerned about the “modernism” of American Protestantism and the cultural outlook upon which Protestantism reconstructions rested than he was over the dangers of cultural modernism. But what Hart misses is that these two concerns are not unrelated. The same alien theological premises that were driving cultural modernism were driving the cultural outlook upon which Protestantism reconstructions rested. Machen could inveigh against the dangers of both because the dangers were one at the root. The attempts by protestants to modernize grew out of the same soil that found cultural modernists attempting to move beyond Christianity. Zrimec and Hart can’t really believe that the anti-supernatural premises of the protestant modernists were unrelated to the anti-supernatural premises of those wanting to move beyond Christianity.

It is perfectly understandable that Machen was more concerned about the unfaithfulness in the Church over and above the unfaithfulness in the culture since a trained mind would understand that there would be no recalling the culture from its modernists assumptions if the Church became wrapped in those same modernist assumptions.

The only place I would correct Machen (or perhaps correct Hart’s conclusions on Machen) is on Hart’s final observation. The scripture is full of prophets who were eager for their theology to have public influence who did not compromise. Has Hart never read the major or minor prophets? History likewise is full of men who were eager for their theology to have public influence who did not compromise. Has Hart never read of Hus, or Wycliffe and the Lollards or Bunyan?

I would say instead that a theology eager for public influence invariably compromises the Christian faith, when the theology eager for public influence is willing to accommodate to the culture as the Protestant re-fashioners of Christianity were doing during the modernist controversy.

This quote from Hart by Zrimec does nothing to overthrow anything I said that was quoted at the Confessional Outhouse. Indeed, I would say this quote supports my analysis of the relationship of cult and culture that Zrimec cites dismissively.

“Machen’s cultural concerns, thus, made him in the 1920s a reluctant ally of secular intellectuals but in the 1930s would cost him the support of the fundamentalists. Like Machen, though for different reasons, cultural modernists also bristled under mainstream Protestantism’s moral code, rejected its cheery estimate of human nature and the universe, and opposed its bid to Christianize American society. The subtext of Machen’s theological critique of Protestant modernism—that the churches had no business meddling in society—was good news to the secularists who thought that America’s Protestant ethos impeded intellectual and cultural life. Fundamentalists, in contrast, were virtually deaf to Machen’s ideas about the relationship between Christianity and culture. To most conservatives throughout the 1920s, Machen was a champion of orthodoxy who had reestablished the theological foundations for Christian civilization in America. By the 1930s, however, his understanding of the church’s limited role in public life began to alienate fundamentalists. When Machen’s efforts to reform the Presbyterian Church were finally thwarted and he withdrew in 1936 to form a new denomination, his new church attracted few fundamentalists. They stayed away at least in part because they, unlike Machen, shared with modernizing Protestants the belief that Christian values constituted the bedrock of American society.”

D.G. Hart, Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America

Machen’s conviction on the relationship between Christianity and culture had a strong flavor of the classical liberalism that Machen grew up under as a son of the South. Machen was as opposed to using the State to force a top down regime of Christianity as we was opposed to using the State to force a top down regime of pagansim. Any reading of Machen’s writings on education easily confirms this. The difference between Machen and the fundamentalists can more be accounted by Machen’s embrace of classical liberalism vs. the fundamentalists embrace of the idea of using the state to force their agenda. Machen, like any good theonomist today, desired men to turn to Christ and a Christian social ethic apart from any governmental coercion.

Machen understood, as Hart says above, that Christianity’s influence should be indirect. Indirect in the sense that people take up Christianity by the coercive will of God and not by the coercive will of the State. Indirect in the sense that a self governing Christian people will, by default, live out Christian principles as they move in the public square.

But all because Christian influence is indirect doesn’t mean it isn’t potent, real or substantial and neither does it mean that those who see no Christian influence in the broader culture shouldn’t decry the absence of that indirect influence or that Christians shouldn’t advocate the resurrection of that indirect influence, or that Christians shouldn’t complain that the current Church refuses to trace out what these indirect influences look like where a vibrant Christianity exists.

Steve Zrimec wrote in conclusion

“In other words, while natural religion is important to make the world go ‘round, Christianity serves another, more counter-intuitive purpose, namely the reconciliation of sinners to God. Arguably, this really was the supreme contribution Machen made: true religion has no obvious implication for or direct bearing on the cares of this world; it is irrelevant to the traditions of men no matter how he conceives of them and no matter how important they may be to this present life; it does not make bad people (or their cultures) good or good people (or their cultures) better; while it certainly has one resident within it, Christianity is certainly not a way of life.”

All natural religions seek to reconcile sinners to god. The problem is that the god is an idol and the reconciliation to that false idol leaves one unreconciled to the God of the Bible. Steve seems to miss this idea.

Also note that Steve’s gnostic Christianity leaves the corporeal material realm where we do most of our living in the hands of some natural religion. Steve concedes that natural religion makes the world go around and by so doing implies that supernatural religion doesn’t accomplish that. In point of fact both natural religion and supernatural religion are both in the business of reconciliation and in making the world go around.

Steve also in the blockquote above completely rules out the power of the Holy Spirit to remake men increasingly in the image of God. Christianity, according to Steve, does not make bad people good and this despite the constant calls of Scripture to put off the old man and put on the new man created in the image of God.

True religion, “having no obvious implication for or direct bearing on the cares of this world,” does not have anything to say on how families raise their children, on what Marriage looks like, on how children should be educated, or on how a Christian people comport themselves in the public square. Steve’s eschatology is all “not yet” and is gnostically unrealized.

Steve finishes by throwing a Right hay maker,

“Not everyone seems convinced that Machen was onto something though. Contra Machen, the suggestion here is that Christianity creates culture and that good culture is dependent upon an unadulterated Christianity.

If this isn’t an example of “alienated fundamentalism” I’m hard-pressed to know what is.”

Steve’s theology takes us to cultural relativism. Since all of culture is driven by natural religion it makes little difference which of the natural religion is in the drivers seat. There is no way to adjudicate between good culture and not good culture since it is all natural religion driven.

If Steve’s theology isn’t an example of gnostic fundamentalism I’m hard pressed to know what is.

November 08, 2012

R2K Fundamentalism

Darryl Hart writes to one Doug Sowers,

You are doing what Machen’s critics did, assuming he was in favor or drunkenness because he opposed Prohibition.

This is why you are a fundamentalist. You only see one side of an issue. Gay marriage bad. But legislating gay marriage, or the church taking a stand on gay marriage involves laws and officers and members in a host of organizational relationships that go beyond the morality of homosexuality. But for you, it’s a black and white issue and you don’t care what comes with efforts to oppose it, even if it means instituting some kind of political or ecclesiastical tyranny.

Bret responds to Dr. D. Gnostic Hart,

1.) Notice how Dr. Hart has now embraced the position of Irons and Bordow who advocate theoretical Christians advancing the it is permissible for Homosexuality or Bestiality to be approvingly legislated for the public square even if they themselves (Bordow, Irons, and now Hart) don’t advocate it or believe it themselves. If this is not public square anti-nomianism then none exists.

2.) Notice how Dr. Hart places politically active “Christians” in the public square, who advance the permissibility of a social order that allows and gives place for deviancy and perversion (as defined by Scripture), under the umbrella of “Liberty.” Of course this is to redefine liberty as license.

3.) Dr. Hart invokes Machen but Hart is comparing apples and sodomites here when he compares Machen’s opposition to Prohibition and Biblical Christians opposition to other Christians advocating the permissibility of perversion in the public square (even if those same Christians personally oppose such perversion). The reason this is a apple and sodomite comparison is that Machen’s position was that he could not oppose something that God’s word permitted. God’s word does not forbid the usage of alcohol and therefore Machen knew he could not support prohibiting what God allowed. Darryl is trying to advance a position where it is wrong to oppose, in the public square, a prohibition that God details in His word. It is not the same thing for Machen to oppose supporting (Prohibition) what God didn’t prohibit and Biblical Christians opposing for the public square what God opposes. As I said, Darryl’s comparison is Apples and Sodomites.

4.) Of course it is Dr. D. Gnostic Hart who is the Fundamentalist here. Darryl is a Gnostic Fundamentalist. He is only seeing the Gnostic side of the issue. The implication of what Darryl is invoking is the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian Doctor to preform Abortions if he is “in a host of organizational relationships” (such as a Hospital that does abortions) “that go beyond the morality of abortion.” For Darryl this is a White and Gray issue. White — Personally and individually these things bad. Gray — In the Public square these things require “liberty.” Darryl doesn’t care what comes with efforts to oppose perversion, even if it means instituting some kind of political or ecclesiastical tyranny that forces Christians to accept these perversions in the public square and forces them to accept people who accept the acceptability of these perversions in the Church (even if those people don’t themselves approve them personally and individually).

Surrounded By Constantinians

In this article Dr. R. Scott Clark hyperventilates about the dangers of Constantinism. (It is interesting that the term “Constantinian Shift” was popularized by the anabaptist Theologian, Dr. John H. Yoder, and that many of his complaints against Constantinism are the same complaints that are raised by R2K advocates.)

Now Constantinism is the process by which Christianity became the Roman Empire’s official religion in the 4th century. Dr. R. S. Clark (RSC) believes that Constantinism is a bad thing and goes on from there to advocate for a social order setting where no religion has primacy for our social order. What RSC desires is religious pluralism.

Of course if RSC achieved the pure religious pluralism he desires at that very point there would be a non Christian Constantinianism that would be in place. You see, Constantinianism is an inescapable category. It is not possible to have a social order that is not reflective of some prior religious commitment. It is not possible to have a social order that is not serving some God, gods, or god concept. RSC’s desire for religious pluralism finds him championing for a State that would serve as God, with the god-like authority to dictate to the other gods how far they can go in the public square. RSC’s god (the State) will not allow any other God to displace its authority in the public square.

Right now the name of the god in Charge, were we to put a name on this god, is “Demos.” The people are God and the voice of the people is the voice of God. The State makes Demos’ will known and Demos controls all the other gods in the public square dictating to them how far they can and can not go.

I affirm that a people can have a Government that is not controlled by any one denomination but I note that the nature of reality does not allow one to have a Government that is a-religious and that is not controlled by some god or God concept.

RSC thinks we live in Pluralism. Does anyone agree with that? Isn’t it past obvious that multiculturalism and multi-creedalism and pluralism is a mono-cultural and mono-creedal expression that confesses that the only gods are welcome in the public square are the gods who know their place before the Unitarian God-State? All this multiculturalism, multi-creedalism and religious pluralism is giving us a new mono-culture that we will all be forced to subscribe to or else we will be put in the closet or worse. Does a Christian insist that the God of the Bible should be the God who rules over the public square? Well, then the R2K god of religious pluralism must shut the God of the Bible down so that all the Gods can bow before the rule and sway of the R2K god.

Scott and the other Enlightenment Democratic R2K’ers can not be allowed to get away with the argument that something called pluralism exists. It doesn’t. We are living through times that prove that Pluralism is a myth. Are you a Christian who owns a bakery or a florist shop and you do not want to service sodomite customers? Then the R2K god of religious pluralism must teach the God of the Bible that He has to make room for the god of the sodomites.

http://gawker.com/gay-couple-files-discrimination-complaint-against-color-511814443

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/04/florist_fights_lawsuit_for_refusing_gay_wedding

Hard pluralism, which RSC thumps for, is a myth and has been used as a cover and invoked for nearly the entire 20th century as a smokescreen to overturn a increasingly receding Christian social order in favor of a pagan social order that by means of and in the name of pluralism has successfully accomplished their long march through the Institutions.

Soft religious pluralism worked here as long as it did because even though the colonialists were people of many assorted denominations there existed a sweet spot among them where they could all find guarded agreement. That sweet spot was the fact that they all were generically Christian. R2K is trying to recreate that anabaptist vision (go read your Roger Williams). The Enlightenment vision, the anabaptist vision, and the R2K vision for social order have great overlap.

The venerable Dr. G. I. Williamson underscored this thinking recently in a comment he left at Dr. Nelson Kloosterman’s blog,

“Since the American experiment in the political sphere both Reformed and Presbyterian bodies have modified their historic Confessions (Belgic Art. 36 & WCF Ch. 33). I could be wrong, but I think the dazzling success of the U.S. in earlier history was the catalyst for these Confessional Changes. And the longer I’ve lived the more I’ve been driven to wonder if we did not err in making this shift as great as it has been. The Reformation itself was promoted (one could even say ‘made possible, humanly speaking’) by the actions of favorable Civil Government. The Synod of Dordt and the Westminster Assembly were both brought into existence by (or at least with the cooperation of) civil rulers. Even then there was a care to see to it that these civil rulers kept their hands off the word, sacraments and discipline, but, at the same time, they were told (by the Reformed churches) that they had a duty to God (the true God) and his church. And I find it difficult to see why it was necessary to reduce the right of the church to tell them what their duty is, or of their sacred duty to protect and even promote the honor of the name which is above every name. Furthermore, even in the OPC/RCNZ version of the WCF we still say the magistrate is “under him [the true God, and] for his glory and the public good.” Well, now, who is to define these terms? Is it good to approve of the homosexual lifestyle? The WCF further says “they [civil rulers, that is] ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace” – well, how on earth can they do that if they are not helped to understand what these words mean? The problem is, of course, that the revision of 23:3 seems to me to open the door to complete pluralism.

It worked well when Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians etc., all had a lot in common. But just look at the chaos now!

I have been strongly influenced by two fine studies by Dr. Gary North, in which he shows (1) that 12 of the original 13 colonies that became the USA originally required those who would serve in civil office to acknowledge the triune God; (2) that this was discarded at and by (in the secret meetings of) the Continental Congress, because of the strong influence of the Free Masons (one of which was none other than George Washington himself); and (3) the result was a Constitution which – at best – is Deistic, and in principle paving the way for the present total pluralistic chaos. [I urge you to read Dr. North’s book entitled ‘Political Polytheism.’] For nearly 200 years the USA still ‘looked like’ – and in many respects was – a Christian Nation. Why? Because there was a strong Bible believing presence – Protestant Churches that preached and (by discipline) enforced the Word of God. But when that began to crumble (big time about of my birth in 1925) there was nothing to hold back or restrain the inherent wickedness of the Adamic nature. So the question is: What are we to do now? And it seems to me that there is only one possible answer. We must speak. We must say to all men of our generation – high or low, small or great – that the day of judgment is coming, and that what they are doing is wrong and that those who have served as civil rulers will one day be judged by the Lord Jesus Christ who is – whether they like it or not – the King of kings and Lord of lords…”

We can not go back to the Pluralism of Colonial America. That magic lamp has been busted by the influx of Rapacious Humanists, Muslims, and “Secular” Jews and that pluralism — the pluralism of the Enlightenment project — lies shattered in the nation’s past.

Elsewhere in RSC’s article RSC complains about those who, “want to go back to Constantinianism, the arrangement whereby the magistrate establishes a state church and enforces Christian orthodoxy.”

In response to this let us note,

1.) One does not have to support Establishmentarianism in order to believe that the magistrate has a responsibility to rule in keeping with God’s revelation. The legislating of law does not necessitate the creation of a State Church.

2.) RSC is opposed to the magistrate enforcing Christian law. As that is so, what law would RSC have the magistrate enforce? Is there an law from nowhere that can be successfully enforced? What now of your Van Tillian “no neutrality” RSC? Is it possible to have law that is not reflective of some God or god concept? If not law reflective of the mind of God then law reflective of what other god’s mind?

RSC, in his article, writes, “As modernity leavened the culture, Christianity was gradually displaced as the reigning paradigm.” I agree but what RSC doesn’t ask is, “as Christianity was gradually displaced as the reigning paradigm what new religion replaced Christianity as the reigning paradigm?” Remember, Van Til does not allow us to answer that it was replaced by “neutrality.” Some other religion replaced Christianity as the reigning paradigm and that religion and the god of that religion became the source of law.

RSC presses on in his article by citing Kuyper on the dangers of Constantinianism because it often returns upon the heads of the non-heretics. The problem with that “insight” is that RSC misses that his current religious pluralism has its own version of “heretic” that it murders by the millions. The heretics of RSC’s religious pluralism are called “unborn babies.”

Elsewhere in his article RSC waves the bloody shirt of religious wars. I would recommend to RSC, as a corrective on this point, William T. Cavanaugh’s “The Myth of Religious Violence.” Cavanaugh goes to great lengths to expose how religion has been blamed for bloodshed by the modern Enlightenment State that desires to keep itself in the ascendancy in order to keep religion at bay. RSC’s invoking of this myth ends up supporting the true god of his R2K … the modern State. (I highly recommend reading Cavanaugh’s book.)

RSC then invokes a argument from silence in the NT to prove that Constantinianism is wrong. I wonder how RSC reacts when Baptist invoke the argument from silence in the NT to prove that babies should not be baptized? There is also no words in the NT prohibiting necrophilia. Does RSC believe that necrophilia as such is acceptable today? Then there is always Belgic Confession #36 that does say that the Magistrate has a role in promoting the Kingdom of God. RSC is always chattering about recovering the Reformed Confessions. Maybe he would like to recover Belgic #36? To suggest that the NT must repeat OT truths or else the silence proves the OT truths are no longer truths is a strange way for a putatively Reformed person (and Doctor of the Church to boot) to argue.

RSC then, in his article fretting over the Constantinians, invokes Calvin in support of his position. Well, let’s see what Calvin had to say about these matters,

The French Confession

XXXIX. We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates,[1] so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors,[2] but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.

1. Exod. 18:20-21; Matt. 17:24-27; Rom. ch. 13
2. I Peter 2:13-14; I Tim. 2:2

And again,

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

RSC, is just wrong. Dreadfully, painfully, and perspicuously wrong.

But we’ve come to expect that from R2K.

Well, our favorite Ph.D. R2K wannabe is on the prowl again and this time he is putting Elders and Ministers in the dock over their failure to really understand R2K and their failure to represent it fairly.

Here is Matt Tuininga’s assault on Rev. Barnes,

Under Attack in the United Reformed Churches: Two Kingdoms Theology and its Critics
Posted by Matthew Tuininga

In the February 27 issue of Christian Renewal Doug Barnes, a pastor in the denomination of which I am a member, writes a column addressing readers’ concerns about two kingdoms theology. Barnes declares that the two kingdoms doctrine “currently making waves” is sometimes called the “Radical Two Kingdoms” doctrine because it is so “sweeping” and “vast” in its implications. Clearly this is pretty serious stuff.

Barnes goes on to describe the two kingdoms view as one that divides the world into two spheres, the redemptive kingdom containing the church, and the common kingdom containing “the state and all other social institutions” (there is no eschatological nuance recognized here). In this kingdom, he says, “God reveals his will not by Scripture, but by ‘natural law’” (emphasis added). To drive the “vast” implications home to his readers, he then affirms that two kingdoms theologians believe Scripture is intended for the church but not for “the life of the common kingdom.”

The church has neither the right nor the calling to preach about politics or other matters distinct to life in the common kingdom, according to Two Kingdoms proponents.

Yikes. If what Barnes is saying is true these two kingdoms people are arguing that God does not reveal his will about anything in the common kingdom in Scripture, and that pastors should therefore never say anything about marriage, the raising of children, relations between masters and slaves, or civil government, the sorts of matters discussed regularly in the New Testament. If what Barnes is saying is true, in other words, the theologians he has in view must be denying the authority of Scripture at best; they are outright heretical at worst. How many of Barnes’s readers come to just this conclusion?

Of course by writing, “If what Barnes is saying is true,” Tuininga is suggesting that what Barnes says isn’t true. According to Tuininga Rev. Barnes is either confused or he is lying.

Now why would Rev. Barnes write what he did? Could it be due to statements like this that come from Dr. Rev. David Van Drunen?

”For the historic Reformed two kingdoms doctrine (and mine as well), Scripture certainly has significant things to say about the common kingdom and its moral obligations before God, and of course what it says is true. So in that very important sense Scripture is authoritative for the common kingdom (as Scripture is authoritative for every subject it addresses). This is reflected in my recent book, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, which explores Scripture extensively to identify many features of the common kingdom and their implications for how we should conduct ourselves within it. There is also no question for me (or for the historic two kingdoms doctrine) that as Christians appeal to the natural law in the common kingdom, either to appeal to unbelievers or to try to understand their own responsibilities in various areas of life, they should look to Scripture to correct and clarify their views on natural law.”

Now, get what is going on here. Van Drunen opens by saying that, “Scripture certainly has significant things to say about the common kingdom and its moral obligations before God,” but then he makes it clear at the end of this quote that the appeal in the common Kingdom is via Natural law. Christians might look to Scripture to correct and clarify their views on Natural Law but their appeal to “unbelievers” in the common realm is to Natural Law alone. Because this is true we can see that Rev. Barnes’ description of R2K was accurate in his Christian Renewal article.

And to underscore Rev. Barnes accuracy, Dr. Rev. Van Drunen comes to our aid again,

“But there are also certain senses in which Scripture cannot be taken in a simplistic manner as the moral standard of the common kingdom. For one thing, Scripture has always been delivered to God’s special covenant people, the Old Testament to Israel and the New Testament to the church. When Scripture gives its moral commands, it speaks to God’s covenant people and does not give them bare commands, but instructs them how to live as his redeemed covenant people. Even the 10 commandments begin with the introduction, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt….” Thus I think we need to be careful that we don’t simply take the commands meant as a response to God’s redemptive love and try to enforce them as such upon the world at large. This doesn’t mean that most of the commands of Scripture aren’t relevant for unbelievers too. But they’re relevant for different reasons. Unbelievers in the public square shouldn’t kill, commit adultery, or steal, but it’s because these things are prohibited in the natural law which binds all people as human beings, not because they’re in the 10 commandments which come to God’s special people he redeemed out of Egypt. Hence one of my concerns is that we be careful to make arguments and appeals in the common kingdom that are appropriate to the mixed crowds that populate the common kingdom, and not drop biblical proof-texts out of context.”

Note that Van Drunen here is explicitly speaking of R2K in the exact manner in which Rev. Barnes described R2K in his Christian Renewal article. Scripture is for God’s people and cannot be taken as the moral standard of the common Kingdom. We must not simply take the commands of God’s Word and try to enforce them upon the world at large. Unbelievers in the common realm are not ruled by God’s Word but by Natural Law.

Elsewhere we find support for Rev. Barnes Christian Renewal article from R2K’ers Dr. R. Scott Clark and Dr. D. G. Hart,

”They (i.e. – Christians) ought, however, not to enlist the visible church as an entity to accomplish anything other than that required by the Lord.”

What Machen’s example teaches is that Christians have no right to expect the church as a corporate body to seek the city’s welfare other than through the spiritual means of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.”

In both of these quotes what is being emphasized is exactly what Rev. Barnes noted in his Christian Renewal article and that is, quoting Tuininga from above, that “the church has neither the right nor the calling to preach about politics or other matters distinct to life in the common kingdom, according to Two Kingdoms proponents.”

So, from all this we see that what Rev. Barnes wrote in his Christian Renewal article was indeed true contrary to Mr. Tuininga’s suggestion. We would have to say that there is reason to believe, consistent with Mr. Tuininga’s words of sarcasm that some of the more egregious expressions of R2K are denying the authority of Scripture at best; and are outright heretical at worst.

Mr. Tuininga continues,

Labeling the doctrine “radical” doesn’t exactly set the stage for objective consideration.

Bret responds,

Telling the truth about the radical nature of R2K is the very essence of objective consideration.

Tuininga continues,

Who does Barnes identify as the leaders of this wave, this movement that is so sweeping in its implications? He mentions three names, Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, and David VanDrunen. VanDrunen is the chief theorist, of course, but Barnes points his readers to the book Kingdoms Apart, which he assures them, has ably addressed VanDrunen’s troubling views (for evidence that this is not remotely the case, see my review of Kingdoms Apart here and here, and VanDrunen’s review here). The most redeeming thing about Barnes’s column is that he points his readers to VanDrunen’s book Living in God’s Two Kingdoms (although he immediately reminds his readers that they should quickly follow up this book by reading Cornel Venema’s critique of it).

Bret responds,

Well, we have quoted the venerable Dr. Rev. Van Drunen here so now we can see that what Rev. Barnes wrote in his Christian Renewal article was spot on. Tuininga then appeals to Van Drunen’s book but so many people have made hash of Van Drunen’s book that Tuininga’s appeal amounts to the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

Tuiniga then goes on to place Elder Mark Van der Molen in his R2K dock with accusations of “explicitly misrepresent(ing) the URC’s Confession of Faith,” and I would unravel the fallacy in that portion of his text except that Dr. Nelson Kloosterman has already done to Tuininga on his blog concerning his mishandling of Van der Molen what I have done here to Tuininga concerning Rev. Barnes.

To see Tuininga given a full Nelson by Dr. Kloosterman see,

http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/bc-36-proverbs-1817-and-the-status-of-a-footnote/#comment-1341

To see the Bayly’s undressing of Tuininga see,

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/06/can-you-see-real-me-me-me-me-me

Recently a brouhaha was created when R2K advocate Brian Lee, went ahead as a Pastor in the Church realm, prayed in the common realm, opening a session of the US House of Representatives in prayer. All this despite his R2K principles that forbid from confusing the Kingdoms went ahead.

You can read Lee’s whole “apologetic” here. I’ve excised only some of the superfluous verbosity,

Should we open Congress with prayer?

Below I interact with Dr. Lee and his glaring inconsistencies as he ties himself up in knots trying to justify the contradiction involved in insisting that the two realm must not be confused all the while confusing the two realms with his prayer.

Before I get into the Lee labyrinth let me start off by quoting one of Dr. Lee’s R2K bedmates (Dr. R. Scott Clark) on this very subject. Clark said on the matter of opening common realm sessions with prayer,

“… there may be no clearer example of the confusion of the two kingdoms when Christ’s ministers do the bidding of Caesar by praying for divine blessing on behalf of the magistrate, as a civil function. Ministers and all Christians are commanded by God to pray for the magistrate. We do so during the week. We do so on the Sabbath, but do we have any business doing so to open legislative sessions? Legislators ought to pray as private persons before, during, and after their civil work but ministers are called by God as Christ’s servants in his eternal, immutable kingdom. They are not called as civil servants. If they will to be civil servants they have only to resign their ecclesiastical office. To attempt to function as an officer in both kingdoms simultaneously is a blow to the spirituality (which doesn’t mean ethereality) of Christ’s church….

For more on how to think about this see D. G. Hart, A Secular Faith. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul opening a session of the Roman senate? The real question is whether we’re going to continue to try to hang on to the last remnants of Christendom.”

And so, we see here what we’ve said all along and that is that R2K is a movement without a center. On one hand you have R2K advocates like Clark and Hart insisting that praying as Ministers in the common realm to be clear confusion of the Kingdoms while on the other hand you have Ph.D’s like Lee and wannabe Matthew Tuiniga who insists that one can be R2K and confuse the two Kingdoms.

Want to know what R2K thinks about any one issue? Flip a coin and your apt to find some R2K minister supporting the coin whether it lands heads, tails, or on its side. Shoot, you can probably find the same R2K minister supporting the same contradictory opposite positions of the coin as we find in Dr. Lee. Really, you’d be better of reading Tarot cards to find consistency in the R2K position then to read the R2K advocates themselves. It’s just that with Lee their inconsistency finds new ways to be inconsistent.

Having introduced my fisking with those comments we turn to the Honorable Dr. Lee.

Dr. Lee writes,

“I was torn, (about whether I should pray in the House of Representatives) and proceeded to have a lively debate with myself, based on the terms of my own Christian faith, on whether I ought to accept. Most arguments for and against civil religion tend to be pitched at a generic level, though the merits of generic religion are unclear to me. (I have yet to see a Judeo-Christian church — or would it be a synagogue?) However, it dawned on me that there are a number of quite good Christian arguments for and against public prayer in Congress, and that the more Christians gave serious thought to what their tradition thinks about this, the more welcome they would be when they do speak out. What follows is a brief summary of some key arguments. (Spoiler alert: I accepted and opened the pro forma session on April 30th in prayer; here is text and video, at 2:00.)…

1) What the Bible says about public prayer for civil leaders.

The Apostle Paul urges prayers and thanksgivings to be offered for all people, especially “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and dignified life” (1 Timothy 2). Christians believe all governing authorities are established by God, and Paul even calls them “God’s servants” for our good, and for punishing evildoers (Romans 13). In the New Testament, church and state play distinct roles in God’s plan, but both are divine instruments in the world — the church for salvation, the state for preservation. So the state is a fitting subject for Christian prayer, and indeed one we pray for practically every week in our church.

Where these prayers should take place is less clear. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned about hypocrites, who love to pray on street corners “so they may be seen by others” (Matt 6.5). Yet for many Christians today, the whole point to praying in public is to be seen, that we may “bear witness” to the Gospel. This seems to deeply confuse the purpose of prayer with public proclamation, not to mention totally ignore Jesus’ command: “When you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret.”

Of course, as a minister I get paid to pray in public every Sunday. Which brings us to our next argument.”

Bret Lee responds,

1.) First, let me note that it is head scratchlingly amazing to me that a minister has to write a couple thousand words in order to justify praying. What next, articles from Surgeons justifying using a scalpel?

2.) Jesus instructed the disciples how to pray. In that instruction He didn’t limit His disciples as to where they could pray. That saints prayed in public can be seen everywhere in Scripture. Solomon prayed in public. Ezra prayed in public. Hannah prayed in public. Daniel prayed in public. Jesus prayed in public. To cite Matthew 6:5f so as to muddy the waters about public prayer is to completely miss the point of Jesus words in Matthew 6:5f. For a minister to misunderstand the Scripture so badly on this simple of a point should be a klaxon warning of the potential errors to come.

Dr. Lee

2) The difference between Congress and church.

Before you file this under “most obvious argument ever,” take a moment to consider exactly what the essential difference is. A church is a particular worshiping community, a creedal body, because it prays to a particular God. When I pray publicly in church, I therefore pray in the first person plural. That is, I pray in common and on behalf of every member of that community. While guests are welcome to observe and join in, there is no presumption they must do so. In doing so I presume for all to whom we are praying, and how we are praying, and why we expect our prayers to be answered.

To whatever degree “Christian” may describe America, we are quite obviously not a creedal nation. Membership in Congress is explicitly not subject to a religious test; it is in this sense an anti-creedal body. It is therefore impossible for me to pray before Congress as I pray in church, on behalf of the assembled body, for Congress does not have an agreed-upon God. However, while I may not be able to pray on behalf of people who don’t share my faith, I can certainly pray for them. In this way, I occasionally pray for sick unbelievers when I’m invited to visit them in the hospital.

Christians must not presume false unity within a pluralistic group by praying in the first person plural on their behalf. If we do pray in such settings, we must pray as individuals, to a particular God, for the group. And indeed, this seems to me most consistent with the pluralistic character of our polity, that we retain our religious distinctiveness even as we enter the public square, instead of pretending as though there is none.

Bret Lee

1.) Being a creedal nation is an inescapable category. All nations are creedal nations. Even were a nation to insist that it was not a creedal nation that disavowal would then be that nations creed. When Lee notes that the Congress is a “anti-creedal body,” he has affirmed that the creed of the Congress is that no creed except the creed of no creed will be tolerated. Non-creedalism is the established religion.

Now nations are more than creedal but they are never less than creedal. So, this nation is a creedal nation. In point of fact legion is the name of those who are insisting that this nation is only a propositional nation which is much the same as being only a creedal nation. The creed of this Nation goes something like, America is a democratic nation founded upon the notions of the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” grounded in the principles of equality and human rights all the while affirming the creed that no creed except the creed of no creed will be tolerated. Despite Dr. Lee’s denial that is America’s creed and it is her civil religion. So, for Dr. Lee to insist that America is not a creedal nation tells us more about Dr. Lee’s analytical abilities then it tells us about America.

2.) To the contrary of Dr. Lee I would say that there is a religious test in America and religious test is the necessity for all who would serve to agree that there is no religious test in America. If any person ever ran on the idea that there should be a religious test in order to serve in Congress they would never be elected and I doubt they would be seated if they ran and won. Of course Dr. Lee agrees with our religious test that demands that we not allow religious tests and so he fits right into the current creed of this creedal nation.

3.) I do agree with Lee that as Christian ministers we must enter the public square as Christian ministers. As such were I asked to pray in that setting as a Christian minister I would pray that God would give a spirit of repentance to all men; both his servants who have a daily need to be conversant with repentance but also to those who have not had the joy of surrendering to the majesty and protection of the Lord Christ. It is true, I may not presume that all present are Christian but as a Christian minister I should pray that all might become Christian. Further I should pray that the magistrates of the nation would become God fearers and work to make existentially true what is already objectively true and that is that they might surrender the nation to the Crown Rights of the Lord Christ.

Dr. Lee writes,

3) The unknown God as the object of prayer.

It is a little odd, in my opinion, for the House of Representatives, which can’t officially believe in any particular God, to want to officially offer prayers to no God in particular. It brings to mind the Apostle Paul’s visit to Athens in Acts 17, when he notes the very religious nature of a people who raise altars dedicated “to an unknown God.” Paul grants that this unknown God was in fact the Creator God of Christianity — just as I recognize “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence as the Triune God of Scripture. But then he calls the Athenians to repent of their ignorant folly in light of the resurrection of Christ.

This argument is a hard sell. Americans like their gods unknown, and their religion generic, and the more generic the better. “Hey, we’re all on a spiritual journey, no one has a corner on truth, and you can’t judge me for the object of my prayer. I’d rather members of Congress pray to someone — even just a higher power — than not pray at all.” Or, in the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Civil religion is the enemy of the particular God; owned by every citizen, it is by definition generic.

There may be practical arguments, a la Ike, for civil religion and its generic prayer to an unknown God. It may be good public policy, and might even be good for your health. But these aren’t Christian arguments, and as a Christian minister I can’t encourage people to falsely pray to a God they don’t know and don’t believe in.

Therefore, I accepted the invitation to pray as a guest with the understanding that I could pray a Christian prayer, in and through the merits of Christ. Should the House tolerate prayers like mine, offered in the name of Christ? Only, it seems to me, if it is also willing to accept prayers written in the name of Allah, Buddha, Gaia, or Zeus. My guess is this pluralistic version of Pascal’s wager would enjoy a lot less popular support than generic prayers to a nameless God, and the practice would soon pass away entirely.

Rev. Bret Lee responds,

1.) If, as a Christian minister Brian can’t encourage people to falsely pray to a God they don’t know and don’t believe in, he can at least pray (Congress Critters) God via his prayer that those outside of Christ might come face to face with the God of the Bible that they may see their danger and so flee to Christ and he could pray that in his prayer in the well of the house. Can we not plead God for sinners to convert wherever we pray?

2.) Of course by Brian’s reasoning the House must also accept prayers written to Satan, Kali, and the Staypuff Marshmallow man. A polytheistic nation must allow all the gods in as long as the gods know to keep their place and not try to overstep the boundaries of the one true god, to wit, the Humanist God-State. Brian seems to think that one god does not predominate the the House and the Nation but in that Brian is mistaken. The one God that rules over all the gods in the public square is the God State. The God State even informs Brian what he can and can’t pray to his God as we shall see later on in this analysis.

Dr. Lee writes,

4) The nature of Christian prayer

Christian prayer is redemptive. We pray to God not as rights-bearing citizens deserving of our hearing in court, but as penniless beggars, debtors before his throne of mercy. As a Reformed Christian, I don’t hope, I know, this God will answer my prayers — not based on what I deserve, but based on what Jesus has done for me. When I pray publicly, as a Christian minister in church, I pray with this confidence on behalf of all the baptized members of that church, all who have professed faith in the work of Christ alone, and trust on him alone. I pray for their salvation, as well as for everything needful for body and soul. This is the essence of Christian prayer.

It is not only unchristian, but rude, to offer such a prayer publicly on behalf of people who don’t claim Christ. Therefore, I explicitly limited the scope of my House prayer. While I invoked the name of Christ that my prayer might be answered, my prayer was not stealthily evangelistic, or redemptive. Rather I prayed for those blessings which the Lord is pleased to give to all men in common. I prayed that the House would fulfill God’s purpose for all civil governments: “to protect the defenseless, praise those who do good, and punish those who do evil” (1 Peter 2.14, Romans 13). America may be exceptional in many ways, but not in God’s eyes, and Christians everywhere should pray these things for their government, whether they live in Syria, China, Israel, or Russia.

Rev. Bret Lee responds,

1.) Please note the two sentences I emboldened. I’m sure that there is something I am missing here because if I have not misunderstood the point here this must be the most glaring contradiction I’ve ever seen from a Reformed minister.

On one hand Dr. Lee tells us that Christian prayer is redemptive but a few sentences later Lee tells us that his prayer in Congress was not … redemptive. So, if this is really what Lee means all I can conclude is that Lee, as a Christian minister offered a non-Christian prayer in the name of Christ. What else am I to conclude?

2.) Dr. Lee also tells us that it is unchristian for a Christian Minister to offer a Christian prayer for non-Christian people.

Uhhh?

If this keeps up we are going to need a Venn diagram to keep all this straight.

3.) I also disagree with Dr. Lee about America not being exceptional. I think America is exceptional. It is exceptional in wickedness. It is also exceptional in producing profoundly confused clergy.

4.) Governments can not fulfill God’s purpose for all governments when they are not Christian because when they are not Christian they no longer have God’s standard to define either good or evil. Oh sure, non Christian governments might serve into good and evil but they will not be able to account for why they see some matters as “good” and other matters as “evil.”

Here is a copy of Dr. Lee’s prayer,

Creator God, merciful and just.

You dwell above in holiness, a father to the fatherless, protector of widows and orphans. Dear Lord, rescue the weak and needy, deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Give wisdom to this body. You hold all things in your almighty hand, and you have established this House of Representatives — and every governing authority — as your servants, that they might protect the defenseless, praise those who do good, and punish those who do evil.

Preserve and protect our President.

Humble all these your servants with your holy law, which you shine forth in all our hearts. Help them to seek peace.

You are a God who saves. Convict us of all our sins, that we might know deliverance from these our wicked ways.

Hear this prayer, for the sake of the merits of your only Son, the crucified and risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

Amen.

1.) Lee goes out of his way to address God as “creator God.” In his mind, by doing so, Lee has avoided confusing Creation (common realm) with Redemption (grace realm). However Lee really confuses matters when Lee then refers to this Creator God as a father to the fatherless, protector of widows and orphans. However, God as Creator is only father to the fatherless and protector of widows and orphans to those fatherless and widows and orphans who are in Christ. To all those outside Christ (including the Fatherless and Widows an Orphans) the Creator God is an avenging fire.

2.) Lee suggest that God has written his law on all men’s hearts and yet Jeremiah restricts that blessing of the law written on the heart to those who are members of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). In other words, Dr. Lee was mistaken on that point.

3.) I’m quite encouraged that Dr. Lee prayed for the redemption of all his listeners in this, his non redemptive prayer.

4.) It is a bit confusing that a non-redemptive prayer would be offered up for the sake of the merits of your (The Father’s) only Son. How can a non-redemptive prayer be offered up upon the merits of the Redeemer Christ?

______________________

And finally, here are the restrictions that the God State put upon Dr. Lee and his God. After all, the God state is obliged to let all the gods know how far they can go in the god states public square.

“The guest chaplain should keep in mind that the House of Representatives is comprised of Members of many different faith traditions.

The length of the prayer should not exceed 150 words.

The prayer must be free from personal political views or partisan politics, from sectarian controversies, and from any intimations pertaining to foreign or domestic policy.

It must be given exclusively and in its entirety in the English language.

It must be free from references to the national day observances of any other nation.

The prayer must be submitted at least one week ahead of time for incorporation in the Congressional Record.

When introduced by the Speaker for the prayer, the guest chaplain should not make any introductory remarks, but rather just begin the prayer.”